Kerry's outsourcing plans are as devious as chimpy's; is this true???????

[tedzbear]

http://wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/kerr-a02.shtml


This is why I didn't vote for Kerry.

:kick:

[Renew Deal]

1. Consider the source.

They are attacking Kerry from the left.

[tedzbear]

6. You are not answering my question.

"Moreover, the Kerry plan would exempt the profits made by these subsidiaries through sales in the national markets where they are located—as opposed to sales in the US—thereby creating a giant loophole that corporate tax accountants could easily exploit to avoid paying anything at all."


Is this paragraph true???

[Renew Deal]

17. I am pretty sure that's wrong.

It's a Nader talking point and a lie. Here is one thing I found on Kerry's site in a quick serach.

"Stop Corporations From Keeping Bank Accounts in Countries like Bermuda to Avoid Paying Taxes. John Kerry believes that American companies should not be allowed to set up virtual headquarters in foreign countries that are hardly more than mailboxes just to avoid paying U.S. taxes."

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2003_0915b.html

I am sure you will find more if you search for your self.

[tedzbear]

25. I can't find a breakdown of his plan anywhere.

Just promises, no actual details of his new policy. Your little paragraph is as deep as he got into it. Therefore I am still quite suspicious after reading this article in WSWS. Sure they are socialists, but with the sorry state of our media reporting plus our two party manipulation of the masses, you have to go to the EXTREME RIGHT OR LEFT TO GET THE TRUTH.

You have a lot of nerve telling me to go to his website when you know his website doesn't explain anything beyond a few sound bites. What a joke.

[Renew Deal]

27. The joke is that you want everyone else to do your research for you.

This is your issue. I tried to take a little time to help and get you started. Now it's your turn to find more. Some people aren't good with the net and I understand that, but you found DU and WSWS so you must be competent. Kerry's site has a search feature. Use it. You can also use google, and possibly search his votes and Senate website.

BTW, the extreme right and left don't tell the truth. They tell their version of the truth. Some guy called Stern today and attacked Kerry from the left. He said Kerry was for mandatory conscription. That is a lie. I guess to you this person would be a truth telling extremest.

[tedzbear]

31. Gee, now you're telling me I must do extensive research...

...instead of reading what's at Kerry's website. I did do a search and all I get is your little bitty paragraph or "no match."

So you're saying I must do a doctorate thesis in order to get to the bottom of this?

Isn't it the candidate's job to make his platform clear and complete? I would think so.

:kick:

[Renew Deal]

35. So ask the candidate.

Call or email the campaign. They usually have the extra details and position papers that answer specific questions. They are not going to put every detail of every plan for every issue up on the web. They do usually have that at their HQ.

I will hold your hand as much as you need.

[tedzbear]

45. OK, I did.

I sent an email to [email protected]

Now let's see if he bothers to respond.

:kick:

[JanMichael]

21. You may not agree with the source's politics but the analysis is spot on.

Shit happens, eh?

[aquart]

84. Not really.

Frankly, the assumptions the Socialist's plan makes are as ridiculous as anything I've seen from the neocons. Except that the Socialist assumes the workers around the world will be throwing the flowers.

[sangha]

116. And the biggest and most ridiculous part

is the idea that taxing overseas income, which currently goes untaxed, is a sign that Kerry "panders" to corporations. I didn't know that the Fortune 500 wanted the US to increase the taxes they had to pay

[realdeal22k]

71. WSWS is a well respected source here

I don't see the conflict if the facts are true. WSWS does not cater to the right wing.

[aquart]

85. No, it caters to the left wing.

And some of its members are ......trapped in amber.

[Deja Q]

94. Message, messengers, sour spinach

I prefer even Dean because he could rouse up the people and rightully so, even if he did support NAFTA, et al... And if you ask me, Dean was set up and shot by the *-friendly media...

It sounds more and more that Kerry is a *-lite. If the content of the article is accurate, of course. It could be spin on the part of the messenger as well.

On the minus side, and this is an incontrovertible fact, Kerry's own ads (or so far, rather) are utterly limp and pointless, showing he'd be as much of a strong leader as a bag of wet hair would be. The AFL-CIO's independent ad slamming Bush's employment figures is eminently and infinitely more effective and doesn't even mention Kerry or another other candidate. For America works on the concept of image, not message. That's why Kucinich never had a chance and that * could still win if he sounds assertive, especially when compared to what I've seen Kerry try to dish out so far.

If both these guys (bush and Kerry) are identical with corporate favoritism, we're screwed either way, period. Doesn't make a difference... actually, it does. Nader will scoop this up and use it - just like he had in 2000, though this time around he'd have some credibility thanks to Kerry's "I am running, I promise this and that and the other thing, but I'm going to come across sounding as if I don't care about what I am saying" approach. And from what I've heard on Nader thanks to DU, Nader's no longer a person I care for. He's quite the hypocrite...

In other words, if we want Kerry to win, and we sadly have no other choice, Kerry has to open his mouth and sound assertive for goodness sake. He's simply sour spinach right now, making me feel utterly embarrassed to vote for him. :-( Even * and his outright lies speaks with more confidence, though come the time of the debates we all know * will fail miserably. Of course, he did in 2000 as well and look what the hell happened...

Worst of all: Bush isn't toast if Kerry continues acting like Candidate Duncel with his TV spots, I surely hope he comes out strong when the debates start. Even Kerry would be infinitely+1 better than *. It's not over, thank goodness, but Kerry's going to have to have a backbone if he wants to win.

[sangha]

103. The article is filled with BS like most of WSWS's articles

"While millions of jobless workers are facing foreclosure on their homes, the cutoff of health insurance, and the specter of destitution, Kerry has outlined a proposal geared to further fatten the bank accounts of America’s wealthiest 1 percent.

The plan centers on the premise that a 5 percent cut in corporate income tax, combined with ending the existing tax deferral on the unrepatriated overseas profits of US-based corporations, will stimulate job creation in the United States"

According to this, Kerry's plan is a giveaway to corps. What they don't mention is that Kerry's plan is revenue-nuetral, so it can't be a giveaway. Since when is taxing overseas corporate income a "giveaway"?

[cryofan]

111. The Far Left is the ONLY truthful source, besides the....

....Far Right.

[sangha]

114. WSWS lies....all the time

They claim that Kerry's plan will benefit corporations, but Kerry's plan is revenue nuetral, so how do corps benefit? And since when is taxing previously untaxed overseas income a benefit to corps?

[sidwill]

2. Well then

Enjoy 4 more years of Bush.

[tedzbear]

3. You're not answering my question.

You are acting like a sheeple who refuses to debate.

[LoZoccolo]

7. You say you want a revolution, well, you know...

...we'd all love to see the plan.

[FDRrocks]

78. He says he wants a question answered...

not a Beatles quote.

[Streetdoc270]

8. Go to Kerry's website...

Read his plan for yourself, make your own decisions, and then vote your conscience in Nov. I see no tax breaks for the wealthy in Kerry's plan, and corporate incentives to keep jobs in the US.

[MoonRiver]

10. I wonder about that ubiquitous hidden agenda,

sometimes.

[tedzbear]

19. This caveat seems to cancel out the benefit of Kerry's plan.

"Moreover, the Kerry plan would exempt the profits made by these subsidiaries through sales in the national markets where they are located—as opposed to sales in the US—thereby creating a giant loophole that corporate tax accountants could easily exploit to avoid paying anything at all."

I wonder if Kerry's website includes the fine print that adds this telling little item. What good is taxing foreign subsidies if you provide a huge loophole at the same time? It is typical "rich folk" shenanigans.

[The Magistrate]

55. The Author Of This, Mr. Bear

Does not seem to be an accountant. Sales into the national market where they are located would mean, say, sales in France by a French subsidiary company. It does not seem a particularly promising loop-hole, particularly since accounting in such venues is more strictly an honestly regulated and enforced. Doubtless people could commit crimes to avail themselves of this feature, by mis-stating costs and such, but that is not quite what this fellow alleges.

"Can't nobody here play this game?"

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[aquart]

86. Well, how contemptuous.

Oh, those foolish peasants at DU, who do not see the glorious light.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

4. WSWS is a hard-left group. I don't agree with most of what they....

are saying. John Kerry is NOT going to be Bush-Lite.

He is a liberal Democrat!!!

[Maat]

32. I agree -- John Kerry is no corporate shill...

there's just no way. I am a good judge of character, and, there is no way he is blindly subservient to the corporate kings, like Bush. Now, he strikes as a reasonable man, who is not destructive, and who will make slow, consistent and methodical changes to help our country. Remember, we don't hate corporations, and we don't want to be destructive, but we want to make fair trade and labor policy. The man has an excellent 20+-year record of advocating just that.

[Young Socialist]

5. what did you expect? they're both cut

from the same rich white old money cloth.

[MoonRiver]

11. So who do you plan to vote for this November?

[Sparkly]

13. They made different things from that cloth

John Kerry made choices he DIDN'T have to make, from getting in a swift boat and saving lives to storming Congress with VVAW when he got back, to taking on the right causes as a lawyer to achieving a record as a Senator that has him fighting the "Extreme Liberal" label. He could have taken the easy route and become another George Bush; he didn't.

This article is a just like a rightwing smear: half-truths and distortions. Go to Kerry's website and read his plan. Closing loopholes, cutting off tax breaks, creating new tax incentives, etc. are all sound and responsible policies for creating JOBS here in the US, AND they are proposals that can actually win the support on both sides of the aisle needed to pass. Maybe it feels holier to blow smoke into the wind, but we need to be *effective,* and the socialists can't be -- because they can't win a majority in an election, and even IF they did, they couldn't form consensus in Congress. All smoke.

[aquart]

87. So there's no difference between Bush and Kerry?

That IS what you're saying, isn't it, Ralph?

My grandmother, the communist, used to tell of rooming at the house of a socialist. The woman didn't charge rent, so there was no heat or hot water, and no food. But it was very, very, principled.

[rockymountaindem]

119. That isn't true.

Kerry's father was a diplomat. He was hardly a super-rich business baby like Bush.

[cryofan]

120. Welcome to DU, Young Socialist!

I am not really a Socialist myself, per se. More like a Social Democrat. We need more Lefties here on DU....

[lastknowngood]

9. don't expect the cheerleaders to answer your questions or

debate issures. They are not interested in the truth only their beliefs, there just like Jerry Foulmouth's crowd. Don't burden them with facts just sit back and follow the party line.

[LoZoccolo]

12. Gimmee a K!

K!

[Sparkly]

14. K!

Gimmee an E!

[Thrill]

16. People are so hillarious

Chimpy claims Kerry is the most liberal Senator and these people on the left say he's not liberal enough? UNREAL

[Sparkly]

22. Can't let the people eat cake if the cake is stale!

It would hurt our "conscience!" If they just starve, it's okay because we didn't "compromise" and we can feel really good about our selfless devotion to progressive causes.

Unless we can get everything needed -- education, urban development, universal healthcare, fairness in trade and labor, environmental protection, renewable energy, etc. -- well, seniors can go without their meds, and inner-city kids can go without school funding, and corporate polluters can go without any responsibility, and people can suffer and die both here and abroad... Because we can't sacrifice our high ideals!

By the way, can I consider that an "E"?

[tedzbear]

Yes, we must compromise to a point...

...but not if the specific policies of the two candidates pretend to be different but are actually doing the same thing.

Both candidates are courting the middle, lower class (they have to) but when you read the fine print or wait until after they are elected, you find you have been betrayed.

Your argument comes from a mentality of scarcity that believes you must give up something to get something. That is wrong. It is OK to demand everything because in reality, this planet does have the capacity to provide all the things the socialists demand. It's the selfish, rich corporate profiteers who demand more than their fair share (pigs) that result in scarcity; not the socialists. I am afraid that my vote for Kerry makes me a sheep.

:kick:

[LoZoccolo]

33. Oh geez this is over! IT'S OVER!

Priceline won't let me book a flight to New Zealand this far in advance! Fuck am I gonna do?

(P.S. - The reason it's New Zealand, and not Canada, is that my vote for Kerry makes me a sheep, and I'd like to be with the other sheep.)

[Sparkly]

34. Bahhh

"pretend to be different but are actually doing the same thing." Do you *really* believe that? On issues like choice, the environment, education, healthcare, etc...? Come on!

"Your argument comes from a mentality of scarcity that believes you must give up something to get something. That is wrong."
No, it's reality. Ever heard of Republicans? They exist. They exist in voting booths. They exist in Congress. They exist as voters IN Congress, and working with them is a requirement for getting laws passed. That does mean dealing and compromise.

"It's the selfish, rich corporate profiteers who demand more than their fair share (pigs) that result in scarcity" -- fine. You find a cure for that, run and get a majority of voters to elect you, persuade everybody else elected, and change it. Meanwhile, you can feel like a "sheep," or you can help feed the "pigs." Your choice.

[hedgetrimmer]

40. When enough people say they won't play by the rules of the current

teams they create a new team... Stand your ground and stay standing, fight for what you believe in, demand your voice be heard... and if the current teams don't hear you enough people will and then their will be another team... our team... and yeah there will be compromise that is how new things grow and the in ability of by old things that causes them to fall apart.

[aquart]

89. No, you're not a sheep.

I'm thinking, turkey. Fine American bird, the turkey.

[hedgetrimmer]

133. "Try with all your might -

work very, very hard - to make the world a better place. But if all your efforts are to no avail - no hard feelings!" - the Dalai Lama

Gobble Gobble

[sangha]

104. It's better than lying like the WSWS

"While millions of jobless workers are facing foreclosure on their homes, the cutoff of health insurance, and the specter of destitution, Kerry has outlined a proposal geared to further fatten the bank accounts of America’s wealthiest 1 percent.

The plan centers on the premise that a 5 percent cut in corporate income tax, combined with ending the existing tax deferral on the unrepatriated overseas profits of US-based corporations, will stimulate job creation in the United States"

According to this, Kerry's plan is a giveaway to corps. What they don't mention is that Kerry's plan is revenue-nuetral, so it can't be a giveaway. Since when is taxing overseas corporate income a "giveaway"?

So keep on believing the WSWS lies

[LoZoccolo]

23. E!

Gimmee an R!

[Sparkly]

24. R!

Gimmee another R!

[LoZoccolo]

30. R!

Gimmee a Y!

[Sparkly]

36. Y!

What's that spell?

[LoZoccolo]

39. KERRY!

KERRY!

KERRY!

KERRY!

KERRY!

[FDRrocks]

80. Give me a partisan!

Who doesn't care about the issue at hand.

Oh, wait... got one.

[aquart]

88. What party would that be? We're Democrats here.

And you are..........? I mean, aside from contemptuous......?

[Ilsa]

15. I think Kerry is weak on this issue, also.

The first thing I heard him say was that the companies that are outsourcing must be required to give 90 days notice. Fuck it. What the hell difference does that make if your job is gone.

I'll still vote for Kerry, but when I think of this issue, I'll be doing it holding my nose.

[Maat]

37. I most respectfully disagree.

The man has more experience in actually making policy than virtually anyone in Bush's administration. No one put an exhaustively detailed plan on their website. They indicate their general philosophy. We certainly don't want Kerry to commit himself to something so specific they can relentlessly pick it apart. I, a former Deaniac, have more than enough faith in Kerry. Anyone who votes for Nader, helping the most corrosive administration in history stay in...is behaving foolishly and endangering us all.

[Career Prole]

38. 90 days notice makes a big difference when you consider that

30 days is now considered a "generous" layoff notice. It allows two extra months for you to make adjustments. The corporations will sure hate it though. They have to keep 100 or 500 or 1000 pissed-off employees on the payroll for three entire months. I'm grinning just thinking about it. That's a long time to have to pay a bunch of workers who suddenly consider the corporate bottom-line completely unimportant...a great many of those workers in fact wouldn't mind sinking a boot in the backside of the bottom-line. Management can't let 'em do anything time-sensitive anymore...they've gotta worry every day about what they can let 'em do. I've been snagged in mass lay-offs a few times and they spent the entire thirty days hoping that it didn't get any worse than a slow-down. 90 days will seem a lifetime to them. I fix big expensive machines for a living and I know just as many ways to make them stop as I do to make them go. I don't consider myself a bad employee...I work my butt off. I won't feel bad about only working maybe one cheek off instead of a whole butt for 90 days if they lay me off to make the stockholders smile. I won't feel bad because I will know that before I got my pink slip they sat in a boardroom debating whether it was more important for me to feed my family or for some faceless stockholders to make a percentage point or two extra, and they decided "Screw his family!"

[aquart]

90. Stockholders aren't seeing it either.

But you might ask the CEO about his bonus.

And I think it's wonderful that you know how big machines work, and don't work.

[Career Prole]

92. If you check the thread about Costco and Walmart and their

comparative treatment of their employees you'll notice the word shareholders in the excerpt, not CEO. I imagine it wouldn't be too hard to find the word mentioned in many articles about the "benefits" of outsourcing, as well. Their whole argument is profits, and I think it's safe to assume that if a CEO makes such a move to increase profits and the profits do indeed go up but he pockets them all himself he won't be CEO long, will he?
The reason I mentioned machinery is because swing all the deals, write all the contracts, hold all the board meetings you want...if the line doesn't run no one gets paid. Is it anarchy, maybe, to dare suggest a slowdown or *gasp* industrial sabotage? I don't give a damn. When I was younger everyone from management down to the custodians were a team...everyone's contribution to the process was acknowledged as necessary and valuable.
Now I'm older and all that's changed. Now every month we have "team-building" meetings which we never needed before but look...there's no more team! Hey, you go ahead and make light of the fact that 'all' I do is repair machinery...and forget too that other guy who 'only' unclogs commodes, and the guy who 'only' keeps your A/C going. Just remember that all the guys that are screwing up the world today are wearing suits and watching their portfolios, so when it all goes belly-up some day down the road place the blame where it belongs. We inconsequential, non-deal swinging, non-contract writing wage slaves who never once were asked for an opinion aren't going to take the blame for it.

[hexola]

18. I dont care if Kerry uses Bush's exact plan...

As long as this madman is deposed...we'll fix things as we go...

[Dookus]

20. LOL

the lefty Kerry haters crack me up.

I've never seen a bigger bunch of people who can't see the forest for the trees.

[LoZoccolo]

26. The lefty Kerry-bashers remind me of this.

OK straight up, I already know this is a fucked-up metaphor and I just thought of it but it isn't meant to promote sexism or sexual harassment or anything but I just want to demonstrate what we're in and that's survival mode.

Like, what if you were a woman, and you had a heart attack, and the paramedics come out with the defribullator and tear your blouse off to use it, and the guy stares at your tits a little bit too long and you're there complaining about it to the guy while you're going into cardiac arrest and dying. That's what all this far-left Nader-supporter stuff is like - sure there's still all sorts of stuff that seems to be going unaddressed, but we're talking about averting bigger, more fucked-up stuff.

[Sparkly]

28. HahaHA!! That's great!

I love your metaphor. I've likened it to having your house on fire, and the *only* firefighter who can possibly put it out arrives -- and you complain that his hose isn't the right color, the nozzle isn't right, it doesn't have the right water capacity, etc. and you send him away. When your house burns down, you can feel happy that you didn't "compromise," though.

(The thing is, I don't think everybody knows the house is on fire; or it's somebody else's, and despite claims to the contrary, they really don't realize it and/or don't care.)

[LoZoccolo]

29. Thank you for your understanding.

For your reward, I give you another R.

[hedgetrimmer]

41. It's more like your house is on fire and

the only fireman to show up is the person who sees how fires get started and waits for the house to burn down so he can tell you how it started, he does not plan to do anything about the fire.

Well you see there is this thing called friction which causes heat and if enough heat builds up and the conditions are right you get fire, it's kind of like trade agreements everbody gets burned.

[Sparkly]

43. Reality is

there is only *one* fighter who can put out the fire.

Period.

[LoZoccolo]

46. The reason there's only one is...

...the other firefighters don't have a big enough hose.

[Sparkly]

47. Fine - "size matters"

We can debate 'til the neighbor's house burns down about the *reason* -- the fact remains, there is only one firefighter who can do the job. Makes no sense to fuss at him and send him away.

[LoZoccolo]

44. Apt. But not really.

Well you see there is this thing called friction which causes heat and if enough heat builds up and the conditions are right you get fire, it's kind of like trade agreements everbody gets burned.

Actually, I'll go with your metaphor. It's like trying to start a fire by rubbing two sticks together, and then eventually it doesn't matter because you freeze to death.

What is your plan sir? Your plan! Keep in mind it involves waiting at least four more years for Bush* to get out of office, and then possibly not being able to do anything even then because you still might not like the person we nominate then. Keep in mind also that you have a limited number of years to live.

[hedgetrimmer]

51. For the slow witted and lazy U.S. populace to get up off their ass'

and DO something instead of sucking up to some second rate P.O.S. and expect something to change.

Meanwhile I'm gonna go buy some marshmellows to roast while the house burns down and everyone watches... then maybe we'll have a little revolutionary style gathering and set things straight, o- excuse me... gotta go, the GAME IS ON.

[LoZoccolo]

52. You're getting warmer...

and DO something instead of sucking up to some second rate P.O.S. and expect something to change.

Man, you're getting there...now that something is...

Remember, you don't want more people to die or get poor or whatever...you want to get closer to the goal, not further away...

[hedgetrimmer]

61. O.k.

Remember, you don't want more people to die or get poor or whatever...you want to get closer to the goal, not further away...

Everybody dies, if one does not have love then they are poor or whatever you think is the basis of a life that will end... you want to get closer to the goal, not further away.... remember, this is your government... call a spade a spade and do not try to cover it up with the idea that Kerry can save our nations life, he can't.

It's like a terminally ill patient who wants opiates instead of the pain of death or rebirth.

[LoZoccolo]

65. Trip on acid that day and vote for Kerry anyways.

Everybody dies, if one does not have love then they are poor or whatever you think is the basis of a life that will end... you want to get closer to the goal, not further away.... remember, this is your government... call a spade a spade and do not try to cover it up with the idea that Kerry can save our nations life, he can't.

Everyone only feels what goes on in their mind, man, so it won't make a difference - you'll be sky-high and won't even know what you're doing!

Your plan is still floating in the ether, so I should ask more specific questions. I'll start with "how long is it going to take before your plan gets implemented?" Now times the number of years by 160,000. That's the number of people the World Health Organization say will die from the effects of global warming in that space of time. Wanna go speak to those people and tell them that "everybody dies", so they're comfortable doing so? Will your plan be able to do anything by 2020? A report leaked by the Pentagon - a worst-case scenario, to be sure, but this is from the Pentagon and not some panicked group of radical environmentalists - says that England could be plunged into a Siberian climate by 2020 from the effects of global warming:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1153530,00.html

Care to tell them about your plan, so they can prepare?

So this idea of waiting until you're completely satisfied, rather than trying to make a little bit of real actual progress, has real consequences in the real world.

Do what you need to change the world, but really do something to change the world, that has real consequences in the real world. I don't understand what voting against Kerry to let Bush* win will do to change the world other than make it worse.

Think it'll make the Democratic party any better? Think they'd listen to you next time? I've got a question for you. If you wouldn't vote with them against this far-right president, why would they put in the effort to court you next time? Why wouldn't they just think you're impossible to please, or at least unreliable?

[gate of the sun]

77. when will people's hearts and minds get the program

implemented? That is the real question. When we as a people or a species get together to create a world of man that is life giving then that is what we will have. To try and silence those who now see the promise of that something different only further delays the possible future that could lie before us. Maybe too esoteric for you perhaps but a continual compromise to extract from our political system the "worst" that we have encountered with a marginal compromise is not creating a "cure" or a hope for the future. The current situation before us called for some sort of vision or leap I believe and instead it has been met with a band-aid.

You can't expect people who perceive this to simple walk away without saying how they see it. They may have to acquiesce to the situation but they can never agree. I thought at one time that many on Du were these kind of people. In the last few months I've seen nothing less than an Republican type attack on all those who call to the people to the truth, the need for a real change, a challenge for truth and the freedom we were led to believe we had. Kerry is not a savior or anyone whom I could admire or give my "hope" to. Much needs to change in this country and the world in order for us all to survive and live in peace. We are far from that goal.

For all those who want to shut up the "far Lefties" as you call us, consider how you really want your world to be, quit compromising and get with the program.

[tedzbear]

99. Right on, Gate of the Sun!!!!!!!!!

This conflict is as much their dilemma as it is ours. As I said before, if Kerry goes too much to the right, we won't be able to vote for him.
I feel our party is compromising too much in order to beat * (just like in 2000). I think the only reason Kerry is the one is because his status as a true war hero makes * look like a pampered fool. Image factors like this is what turns an election. As usual, everyone throws their agendas out the window in order to win. * is awful, but that doesn't make this election any different than any other. It's always between the two elitist backed parties. If they want to get the votes of the fringe, than they better court them. Notice how * supports the Christian right. That is what Kerry should do with us socialists.



edit for sp.

[sangha]

106. Why do some think criticism is censorship?

Why are we also hearing people whine about how other people want to shut them up?

Are they trying to portray themselves as oppressed by the big, bad, DUers who disagree with them? Or is it just how they express their realization that their ideas are rejected, even on a liberal board like DU?

[gate of the sun]

137. it seems funny to defend ideas that are actually destroying

democracy on a liberal board like du. It seems to me your ideas are being rejected by many on this board as well so your arguement is rather limp.

Kerry's job as a Senator as an elected official would have been to speak out against the illegal invasion of Iraq. Illegal in this way. We the United States signed a charter that was ratified by congress to be part of the UN and to follow it's directive. By invading iraq the Constitution of the United States was broken. Thereby the President and the Congress committed an act of Treason.

Further we haven't heard Kerry even bring this up. Not only was that an undermining of the Constitution Kerry agreed to let it happen. I know you are on some Happy parade with this whole Kerry thing. You are forgetting and overlooking the damage that has been done to the constitution and to the many deaths that have occured in regards to this treasonous action.

You can be-little and scream all you want about us "lefties" who don't agree that Kerry is the cream O the crop if you want but it doesn't change the facts.

[hedgetrimmer]

48. Wow! That analogy would fit Schwarzenegger to a "T".

Let the small minded centralist keep tossing Nader about as some icon of leftist ideology but let them know the icons of leftist ideology is that of Malcolm X, Muhammad Ali, Martin Luther King Jr., Harriet Tubman, Eugene Debs, Huey P. Newton, Stephen Biko, Gandhi, Thomas Paine, Geronimo, Cesar Estrada Chavez, Robert LaMonte, A. Philip Randolph and I can go on.

[LoZoccolo]

50. I don't think any of the people you list...

...had a strategy that involved just about surely getting almost none of what they want when they could get some of what they want and work on the rest after that.

Plan? Plan? A good question is, is doing something you know is gonna make things worse really any better than even doing nothing at all or doing something.

[hedgetrimmer]

54. Some of those people were willing to die for what they believed in,

some did. Some got some of what they wanted, some got none of what they wanted and some got everything they wanted. The plan... Stand Your Ground... win, lose or draw you know you have not betrayed your heart.

P.S. Please do not assume where my vote will go. At this point I have not made a decision, my wife plans on voting for Kerry... as for myself I believe I'll make up my mind in the voting booth.

[The Magistrate]

57. Your Wife Seems A Sensible Lady, Sir....

Listen to her.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[tedzbear]

74. It doesn't hurt to bring stuff up to keep Kerry honest...

...otherwise he'll continue to drift to the right until I really won't be able to vote for him. Then what will you do?

[gate of the sun]

79. they'll vote for him

and defend him like he's the king of redemption. You know that right? that's what sucks about this whole thing. People can say what they like but this is what is going on....right before our eyes. It stinks, it sucks and I want to say that right now before i can't. It blows big time.

[LoZoccolo]

59. This is not a plan.

The plan... Stand Your Ground... win, lose or draw you know you have not betrayed your heart.

Plan means you are working to achieve a goal. You are betraying a lot of people if you let them suffer in exchange for something you know won't work.

[hedgetrimmer]

62. o- yes and Kerry's plan follows

Plan means you are working to achieve a goal. You are betraying a lot of people if you let them suffer in exchange for something you know won't work.

I know Kerry's plan won't work. I will not betray the people by believing in or propagating the lie that it will.

Gandhi stood his ground, it achieved a goal.

[The Magistrate]

63. The Mahatma, Sir

Would be a foot-note in history, without the efforts of Imperial Japanese infantry in Burma. Make no mistake about it; the principle reason behind England's departure from India was the sharp lesson taught in the Second World War about the impossibility of maintaining control there, without great assistance, against a serious effort by an Asian power. There is more to the matter than often appreciated, and you are urged to look seriously into the history of the period, beyond the usual hagiographies....

"Saints should be judged guilty until proved innocent."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[hedgetrimmer]

69. O yes the multiple complexities of history...

the understanding of would do better to start in ones own country.

Please if you wish to address that of which I am saying it would be more effective discourse if you did not piece meal my statements to gratify your own argument or to divert my statements.

The following is my statement as well. Do you wish not to comment upon this statement?
I know Kerry's plan won't work. I will not betray the people by believing in or propagating the lie that it will.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE FEUDALISTIC BASTARDS!"

[sangha]

108. You don't seem to know much about Gandhi

Gandhi compromised dozens of times. Using his name to justify your futile intransigence is a foolish and self-centered ploy to rationalize one's own actions when they do nothing to help the people who's interest you claim to be working for

[hedgetrimmer]

134. Which people exactly is that?

That I claim to be working for.

Ghandhi compromised from the farthest reproaches of India's then present situation. He did not compromise from the compromises compromise... i.e. Kerry.

Your inability to discourse without attempting to engage a verbal conflict is off-putting. Further, you do not know the content of the entirity of the above conversation and have commented out of context.

And alas, there is not much in discourse I can enter into with you while you hold ever so tightly to the boulder that is slipping off the precipice.

"I learnt the lesson of nonviolence from my wife, when I tried to bend her to my will. Her determined resistance to my will, on the one hand, and her quiet submission to the suffering my stupidity involved, on the other, ultimately made me ashamed of myself and cured me of my stupidity...in the end, she became my teacher of nonviolence." -Gandhi.

[tedzbear]

75. That's just an opinion...

Japan didn't win the war and England had the USA to prop their empire up so I don't buy your belief that Burma had more to do with India than Gandhi had to do with India.

You will have to do more than that to keep the left wingers here from straying from the fold. It is as much your dilemma as mine if I end up voting for the Green party because Kerry is toooooooooo right wing. The blade cuts both ways.

:kick:

[The Magistrate]

93. Go And Study, Mr. Bear....

This is obviously not your subject....

"I was not born with knowledge, but being fond of antiquity, am quick to seek it."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[tedzbear]

100. Stop being so high and mighty, Mr. M

You accuse me of knowing nothing just because I disagree with your opinion. I do know history so don't insult me with your patronizing brush off.


You disappoint me, Mr. M.

:kick:

[sangha]

109. You may know some history, but you certainly don't know Gandhi

particularly is you think Gandhi was successful because he never backed down.

Gandhi called off dozens of protests for fear of violence. One of his most famous hunger strikes was done to protest the actions of his supporters, who he felt had gone to far.

[The Magistrate]

136. Clearly, Mr. Bear

Whatever you may know of history includes very little concerning the departure of England from India, and on the development and activities of the Congress Party there. These events have been misted over in a hagiographic haze to project a picture of success through non-violent activism, and the facts are very different.

Here is an interesting essay, on the subject of Gandhi personally, you might find of interest:

http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/essay/ShootingElephant/reflectionsgandhi.html


"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[LoZoccolo]

66. Gandhi stood his ground because he /could/ achieve a goal.

Bush*'s plan is to put two or three more right-wing justices on the Supreme Court, and these are people you can't vote out. Don't let that happen.

[tedzbear]

76. The Supreme Court would be the ONLY reason I might vote Kerry...

...which really isn't saying much for Kerry.

[sangha]

110. Turn that around!!!

"Gandhi stood his ground because he /could/ achieve a goal."

And when Gandhi saw he could not achieve his goals, he compromised.

In South Africa, he condoned plans that continued discrimination against blacks and coloureds because he felt it was the best he could achieve for the mooment.

[hedgetrimmer]

135. In South Africa Gandhi was still growing...

and back in India as well. He did not achieve a level of understanding via his religious scripture or prayer of his own internal workings at a moment it was gradual.

The beauty of history is that it is all up to interpretation... my interpretation of Gandhi is that he was first human and there-for fallible, second he was growing into a being of ability, his own ability afforded to him by his circumstances (culture, religion, economic status, time/location, gender, etc.).

[The Magistrate]

53. Your List, Mt. Trimmer, Seems Awfully Short On People Who Won Elections

"I'd feel a lot better about this, Lyndon, if one of those whiz-kids had ever run for sheriff."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[hedgetrimmer]

56. You do not need to change a nation by election alone.

I'd expect you to understand that. Further, the illusion of a fair and balanced election in this country has far beyond reached it's capacity of legitimate.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE FEUDALISTIC BASTARDS!"

[The Magistrate]

58. But We Are Discussing Elections, Sir

Specifically, whether people ought to vote for the candidate of the Democratic Party. We are not discussing changing the country, whether in its economic or social systems. The question before us is whether or not the worst elements of reaction in our polity, economic, social, and militaristic, ought to be expelled from office by united action among the left, center-left, center, and even center-right if some can be persuaded to join us against the worst of the rightists. You seem to be of the feeling that unless left utopia results from evicting the worst of the reactionaries from usurped office, then the reptiles might just as well be left in. It brings a big smile to a rightist's face to hear that from a leftist; they count on that sort of thing to stay in power, Sir.

"We would have had Socialism long before, if not for the Socialists."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[hedgetrimmer]

67. Have you seen that?

The smiles upon the rightists face from hearing that from a leftist.

We are discussing changing the country.

I do see that in some ways you make my statements a code for utopia, I do not know what a utopia would be and so that would be your interpretation of what I am saying... there-for your Utopian experience of my words...

Socialism is a bad word (kind of like Communism) ask any grade schooler, I prefer Common Wealth.

And finally lets get to that Democrat candidate, I can't produce one reason I would intelligently vote or campaign for him outside of the fact that his last name is not Bush.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE FEUDALISTIC BASTARDS!"

[LoZoccolo]

68. I gave you one.

Right-wing Supreme Court justices. Check out Scalia and Thomas if you want examples.

[The Magistrate]

73. Certainly, Sir

Rightists of my acquaintance are most pleased at the prospect of any splitting of the vote on the left, which of course they consider to be anything to the left of them. This is only natural; a serious drive by, say, the Constitution Party, or the Libertarians, would please me no end. All electoral campaigns aim to do two things: rally supporters to effective action, and discourage opponents from effective action. Persons on the left who decline to vote, or choose to vote for a splinter faction, are cooperating with the enemy's campaign to suppress turn-out for the Democratic Party, and the only effect of their actions will be to benefit the chances for success of the worst elements of reaction. These are not, after all, very complicated matters, Sir.

The reason you claim is the only one you can see to vote for the Democratic Party candidate is a perfectly adequate one to my purpose, and will in fact move many millions to the polls to cast their votes against the jackanapes currently in the oval office. You cannot make any progress towards any of the things you desire while the worst elements of reaction control the nation's government. You are not going to see a revolution, Sir, and would probably not much like the spectacle, nor likely survive it, if you did....

"Can't nobody here play this game?"

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[LoZoccolo]

60. This I agree with.

Lincoln, for instance, was not originally an abolitionist, but there were abolitionist activists at the time.

So vote for Kerry. And start working on all this other stuff like two days later. But stop the bleeding first.

[FDRrocks]

81. Where is the forest?

What is it? If its similar economic plans, voting for the war, etc....

Where is this forest? Is John Kerry going to magically turn out nation into a utopia? Will the rampant corruption stop? Will we get a worse right winger in 4-8 years?

[IronLionZion]

42. The platform is not set in stone

They will make adjustments to it. Contact the campaign and tell them how you feel. If you still have primaries coming up, then VOTE IN THEM! Those delegates can help shape the platform when they go to Boston.

I am certainly voting for Howard Dean on April 27 and John Forbes Kerry in November.

[yardwork]

49. I don't think that anyone can do anything about outsourcing jobs.

Period. It's one thing that is probably not the chimp's fault. It won't be Kerry's fault when he can't stop it, and he won't be able to stop it.

I plan to vote for Kerry to get the chimp out of the White House. There are several Supreme Court justices getting ready to retire or keel over, and I want a Democrat to choose their successors.

I want a Democrat with brains trying to figure out what we're going to do with chimpy's war in Iraq so that perhaps my children won't get drafted into a hell-hole. Kerry has brains. Chimpy has none. Chimpy is a murderous sadistic narcissistic-personality disordered psychopath, and he's surrounded himself with the same.

I want a Democrat in the White House who will stop the dismantling of what little environmental protection we've managed to cobble together in the last four decades. Kerry says that he will make development of alternative sources of energy a priority, and I believe that he actually might do that.

Four more years of Chimpy and the country will go to hell. I firmly believe it. I will vote for Kerry with enthusiasm and hope that he prevails.

Those who wish to vote for Nader or socialists must follow the dictates of their own conscience. They should realize and take responsibility for the fact that in this election, in 2004, their vote for anyone but the Democratic nominee is a vote for Bush.

[RowWellandLive]

72. I agree with you about outsourcing

It's probably an inevitable fact of life in the US that's no ones fault. For every job lost there will be at least one gained. Lots of innocent people are doomed to take the fall during this transition to a global economy. Wages in third world nations will rise and ours will sink until we achieve some sort of equality. In the meantime some will prosper while many will suffer. The only way to protect our workers is to build barriers around our nation that will cause the prices of basic consumer good to skyrocket while at the same time doom the workers of less prosperous nations to continued poverty.

outsourcing is unstoppable in a free, compassionate open society. I hate to say it as it affects me personally in a negative way, but no one is going to stop it. Not Kerry or any Democrat. It is as inevitable as the sun rising in the east.

[Shrubhater]

64. Are you crazy?!?

:grr: :argh:

[napi21]

70. Like every other Pub story, it has a bit of truth

Think about this:

The reason companies outsource is to cut costs.

Part of out tax code gives them a break on the money they make outside the US.

If you eliminate the tax benefit of outsourcing, and give a small tax incentive to those who keep jobs in the US, the cost benefit is to keep your employees here.

Everything is always about money, no matter what party you're with. Our President has to make it a benefit to stay HERE.

Our current WH occupant doesn't seem to care as long as the Company wins. Maybe Halliburton's profits would be hurt?

[w4rma]

82. John Edwards for Vice President! (nt)

[aquart]

83. Let's see: Kerry's plan would get something going now.

The Socialist plan which is ostentatiously airy-fairy, relies on things over which it has minimal control, like worldwide cooperation on wages. Yah. See what they say about that in Thailand.

In the meantime, it castigates Kerry because people are losing their homes and healthcare. No shit. But the socialist plan provides NO remedy for these people in immediate need.

Basically, Kerry's crime is admitting that corporations exist and have clout and working with them. At the same time, he works to set up a system of rewards and punishments, carrot and stick, to make hiring within the United States more attractive.

George Bush has done and will do NONE of this. He hasn't lifted a finger to help in any way whatsoever.

So once again, we have a candidate shrieking that there is NO DIFFERENCE between the Republican and Democratic candidates. Where have we heard that before? If you find it even momentarily believable, Democratic Underground is an inappropriate venue for you.

[sandnsea]

91. It's a big fat lie

It's the exact same shit that's coming out of the Bush camp. Focuses on one tax cut and ignores everything else he said that day and ignores the other portions of his economic plans. I guess even Socialists have to lie to hold on to their true believers.

[Deja Q]

95. Well, if Kerry wins,

I hope he proves Bill Van Auken (the writer) wrong.

I'm bookmarkin' this message...

[sangha]

113. Proof this article is wrong

It claims that Kerry's plan is a giveaway to corporations, but Kerry's plan is revenue nuetral. Since when is taxing overseas income, income that is presently UNTAXED, a giveaway?

[FlaGranny]

96. Some people will never realize

that the (very small) minority NEVER gets to rule in countries where citizens get to vote. PERIOD!!

And I say that as a person who consideres herself in nearly complete agreement with that minority on most issues.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

97. Not that anyone will read this but I will address the article point by

point:

The so-called jobs plan advanced by Democratic presidential candidate Senator John Kerry last week represents a cruel hoax on the unemployed and another tax giveaway for the super-rich.

While millions of jobless workers are facing foreclosure on their homes, the cutoff of health insurance, and the specter of destitution, Kerry has outlined a proposal geared to further fatten the bank accounts of America’s wealthiest 1 percent.

Since he is concommitantly FOR repealing the Bush tax breaks for the wealthiest one percent as individuals, this statement is false.

The plan centers on the premise that a 5 percent cut in corporate income tax, combined with ending the existing tax deferral on the unrepatriated overseas profits of US-based corporations, will stimulate job creation in the United States.

Actually the plan's premise isn't that at all. The plan's premise is that it will DISCOURAGE some of the jobs fleeing due to the fact that they currently ARE getting a tax incentive to EXPORT not OUTSOURCE jobs by no longer rewarding corporations for screwing American workers as does the Bush plan. There is a subtle distinction between EXPORTING jobs and outsourcing jobs. Therefore the plan is to stop rewarding poor behavior.

Despite the squabbles of the Democrats and Republicans over taxes, the Kerry plan is fundamentally in line with the Bush administration’s prescription of massive tax cuts for the wealthy and the corporations as the supposed means for overcoming the jobs crisis. There are no grounds for expecting any different result from a Democratic tax windfall for big business than from a Republican version of the same basic policy: trillions of dollars for the rich and millions more jobs wiped out.


This is where the socialist candidate feeds off the same rhetoric we see on DU by certain posters often.

The nimrod author fails to distinguish that CURRENTLY that company gets a break in the form of a profit that the CEO can take OUT of the company as can the shareholders..and if they are in the top 5% of income earners, they are going to pay a reduced INDIVIDUAL tax on the profits.

Under Kerry's plan, if they pull that profit OUT of the company as individuals, they will be taxed at the pre BUSH TAX POLICY level.

Kerry has toured America’s devastated industrial centers delivering a stump speech in which he rails against “Benedict Arnold CEOs” and promises to “crack down on the export of American jobs.” The cynicism of this right-wing populist demagogy is breathtaking

Yes. It's so breathtaking, the propagandist author couldn't offer up a single specific therefore I don't have to either.

Between public appearances, the Democratic candidate has been collecting millions of dollars in campaign funds from the very same CEOs—at Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, AOL Time Warner, Goldman Sachs—who are leading the way in outsourcing jobs. His own hundreds of millions in personal assets are heavily invested in such companies. The pretense that he is going to conduct a “crackdown” on the corporate elite is laughable.

HAHAHAHAHA> The candidate has gotten FAR less from these companies that George W Bush. Everyone with the sense of a pidgeon knows that large companies donate to both parties...SOME is to hedge their bet but more often than not, it is so they can make a modest contribution to the Dem and a contribution for TEN TIMES that amount to Repubs...and use that info later should scandal arise to say , "Look the Dems took money from us too!"

I seriously doubt Morgan Stanley, Citigroup et al were happy when John Kerry wrote and got passed his legislation regarding offshore banking practices.

Again, the candidate is playing to the lowest common denominator by appealing to the RICH versus poor and the THINKING versus the UNTHINKING.


In his 2,000-plus-word Detroit speech promising to create 10 million jobs over the next four years—barely more than what is needed to absorb new entrants into the labor market—Kerry made no suggestion that his administration would increase benefits to the unemployed or spend a dime on public works or job-creation programs.


And HERE THE SOCIALIST CANDIDATE cherry picks in order to demonstrate what a fucking liar he is...note his OWN speech says nothing about creating jobs...but he picks on a single speech Kerry made without referencing this:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/

Read the WHOLE THING..it is comprehensive and addresses corporate accountability, manufacturing, state incentives for employers, education issues and women's issues (remember MANY POOR FAMILIES IN AMERICA are headed by a woman without a husband)

His entire plan is to make additional tax concessions to the corporations. There is no doubt that the bulk of this money would flow directly into the coffers of wealthy shareholders like himself.

Who would then pay MORE taxes under his plan than they currently will under George Bush's plan, if they DID, thereby easing the tax burden for our 500 billion dollar budget deficit.

Kerry’s scheme for taxing the estimated $600 billion held abroad by overseas subsidiaries of US companies would do nothing to reverse the growing trend toward outsourcing or offshoring. Decisions to relocate call centers and other back-office operations or to hire factory workers, software designers, and even architects and engineers in countries like India and China are driven not by tax policy, but by the ability of corporations to exploit labor at as little as one-tenth the cost incurred in the US.

Exactly..so IF they choose to do this they should pay a premium on that profit which they currently don't...btw...the socialist candidate fails to recognize that telemarketer jobs are HARDLY GOOD JOBS...

Moreover, the Kerry plan would exempt the profits made by these subsidiaries through sales in the national markets where they are located—as opposed to sales in the US—thereby creating a giant loophole that corporate tax accountants could easily exploit to avoid paying anything at all.

He doesn't demonstrate how this is true.



I could go on and on but the moron then proposes a 1 TRILLION dollar investment program without mentioning that that moeny which he claims is EQUAL to the Bush tax plan ALSO includes those monies paid out as REBATES to lower income Americans (remember the rebates?) Therefore, the socialist program relies on taxing the POOR as much as it does on taxing the wealthy.

[tedzbear]

101. Thank u but it's that last paragraph that bothers me...

"Moreover, the Kerry plan would exempt the profits made by these subsidiaries through sales in the national markets where they are located—as opposed to sales in the US—thereby creating a giant loophole that corporate tax accountants could easily exploit to avoid paying anything at all."

Nobody, including the Kerry website, addresses this accusation. Until you can show me the complete Kerry plan on this issue, I can not support him. Also, why is he lowering the corporate tax rate by 5%? Especially with our huge deficit? It smells of pandering to the Fortune 500 and to hell with the masses.

Sorry, but Kerry's plan stinks.

[sangha]

115. "make additional tax concessions to the corporations"

Kerry's plan is REVENUE NUETRAL, so how can it be a tax concession to corporations?

wrt your objection about how Kerry's plan creates "a giant loophole that corporate tax accountants could easily exploit to avoid paying anything at all" -

This is just another example of the WSWS's dishonesty. For one thing, that income isn't taxed by the US now so continuing to not tax it is not a giveaway to corporations. Also, that money is earned by foriegn corporations and IS TAXED by the govt of the nation in which it operates, thereby negating the advantage of being untaxed in the US. Since many of these corporations are in Europe, this income will be taxed at European rates, which are higher than US rates.

Also, why is he lowering the corporate tax rate by 5%? Especially with our huge deficit? It smells of pandering to the Fortune 500 and to hell with the masses.

And again you repeat the illogical claim that a policy which increases taxes on foriegn income is somehow "pandering" to corps. The last time I looked, the corps weren't clamoring to have their overseas income taxed.

[Sparkly]

117. I believe those sales are exempt now

Kerry's plan ends the current tax incentive for US companies to manufacture overseas and then import the products to the US. It also stops companies from setting up bank accounts outside the US to avoid paying taxes.

There's not an across-the-board 5% reduction, but breaks for environmental technology, creating new jobs, etc... It's a balance of carrots and sticks.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

121. If the Kerry website doesn't address it then where does he get it from?

Thin air? Why does the one offering up the facts not cite sources? (which he barely does throughout the article)

[JanMichael]

107. Just a nitpick. He's the SEP candidate not "THE SOCIALIST CANDIDATE".

He could be called "a" socialist candiadte because the SEP considers themselves socialist but certainly not "The Socialist".

Sort of like calling Kerry THE CAPITALIST CANDIDATE. It would be incorrect because there are at least two capitalist candidates:-)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

123. Of course there are...I'm not against regulated capitalism..I like knowing

if I excel I can do better for myself...I really don't understand why people would be FOR a paternalistic system

One of the most vocal socialists on this site ( a person with a four letter name and a last initial) treats everyone who isn't HIM with such contempt because he feels we are all too stupid to run our lives...why on earth would I want someone so contemptuous of ME leading me?

[JanMichael]

125. I don't see why people would be against a cooperative system.

Greed I guess?

And as you know I don't play the shoutdown game so just because one self described socialist is doesn't mean much to me. There are more than enough obnoxious capitaist wannabees here but I feel no compulsion to pointhat one out...

"why on earth would I want someone so contemptuous of ME leading me"

Leading is a funny way of looking at it. We're just as much "under" Capitalism as some countries were "under" some other regimes (Personally I prefer the Dubcek model). I truly believe that the mighty Corpos control our "democracy" as handily as Franco controled Spain. Of course it's a kinder gentler machine gun hand but control it certainly is. There is no Accountability, no economic democracy. It's also primed to blow a gasket so the false sense of stability borne out of WWII may not be so appealing in the near future.

As to Paternalistic I'd prefer Maternalistic:-)

[sangha]

129. Don't confuse "I don't see why" with "So it must not be true"

I think there's a lot of historical examples that show people don't want to cooperate. The fact that you don't understand why doesn't mean that it hasn't happened.

[camero]

98. I've read this whole thread

Seems the war on the poor continues. The "center" has been so brainwashed by the cheap-labor conservatives bullshit that there's probably no going back. Have a nice time in hell, moderates. Because you guys are the next round into the ranks of the poor.

[tedzbear]

102. Thank u, camero.

The sheep are about to be slaughtered and here they are cheering for their butcher. Too bad.

:kick:

[Sparkly]

118. Oh, puleeeeze!

What's your solution? Let's see the detailed plan!!

[sangha]

122. They have no plan

Why do you think they need to rely on words like "sheep", "slaughter" and "butcher"?

The posters who support the People's Party don't seem to have much respect for the people, or should I say, the sheep?

[camero]

124. Plan, not detailed though

1. Increase taxes on the wealthy PAST the Bush cuts.

2. Cut so-called defense spending by at least a third. No more Rome.

3. Tax the living hell out of products made overseas and shipped here by American Corps. Put away the so-called prices will rise arguement.
Competition in the so-called marketplace means at least one will stand pat on prices and will gain marketshare by selling the product cheaper than the next guy.

4. Pay down the debt.

5. Increase social spending.

6. ENFORCE labor laws. Don't just pay lip service to them. This means putting people who break child labor and wage laws IN JAIL. For a long time.

7. ENFORCE environmental laws. Tell the polluters to clean up their own mess and not the taxpayers and then make them do it.

Since the cheap-labor conservatives will use every excuse(and that's what they are excuses)in the book. I expect that we will all continue on the road to serfdom. Thanks "moderates".

[sangha]

127. Don't you even know what a plan is?

That's not a plan! It's a list of goals. A plan would describe how one expects to reach one's goals.

Leave it to the vapid left to mistake their desires for a plan

[camero]

131. It's a plan

When applied it works. Look at the economic stats from 1932 to 1953 to see for yourself. All I see you doing is insulting other posters and not giving anything of real consequence. Typical.

[camero]

132. Do you like these things?

Social spending

Minimum wage laws.

Every piece of legislation ever proposed to improve working conditions, including the eight hour day, OSHA regulations, and even Child Labor laws.

Labor unions

Environmental regulations and the EPA.

Federal support and federal standards for public education.

Civil rights legislation.

Public broadcasting

You can thank the left for every one of these things. Exactly what have "moderates" given us?

[camero]

126. So your answer is to capitulate again

So tell me? How much longer must we "capitulate"? The onus is on you since you feel the need to "compromise" and 30 years of "compromise" is what got us to this point.

[sangha]

128. Look who is talking?

I live those who think they are "standing up to the man" when the truth is they are cooperating with the system as much as any moderate. It may be a fashionable stance, but no one is fooled by your shallow intrasigence.

[camero]

130. Oh nice

Only incoherent insults and personal attacks. So exactly what is your plan? Answer the question. I doubt you really know what real poverty is. Such as going for a week or more without eating.

[EricNYC]

105. Kerry has a plan to cut out tax loopholes...

that essentially pay foreign companies to take jobs overseas. Bush has NO plan. I'm not sure what the socialists would like to do about it. But since they have no power and no hope of achieving power they should stop their petty leftist sniping and focus on the real target.

[GreenPartyVoter]

112. I think closing the loopholes is a good start

I'd love to see more action taken than that, but this is better than what $hrub has to offer.