JOHN F. KERRY'S MESSAGE OF HOPE

Re: JOHN F. KERRY'S MESSAGE OF HOPE

Better grab your wallet with both hands and hold on with a death grip. This guy is going to be expensive.

Oh, wait, what am I saying? He hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of winning!

Well, I'm very happy Kerry put it in Black-and-White, thereby exposing his utter lack of understanding either of international business or of basic economics, His proposal is laughably disingenuous, except for the parts where its patently ridiculous. With enemies like Kerry, The Republicans' list of freinds is sure to swell.

I've heard this comment of Kerry's about 6 or 8 times today. I'd like to hear him explain in detail how this is going to help create the 10 million jobs.

If a company can't afford to maintain employees here how is raising taxes on them going to create jobs? If I employ 500 people and need to move 100 to India to survive, raising taxes to punish me for doing that jepordizes all 500 jobs, not just the 100 that might go overseas.

Companies move jobs overseas to remain competitive. If they can't compete they fail and no one has a job. How is this going to raise employment numbers again???

Oh?
"If they can't compete they fail and no one has a job."

Is that the situation that most of these Multi-Corps are in?

Proof, please.

For those who don't care to wade through the hype, spin, and propaganda ABOUT the speech, here's the unadorned SPEECH[/b] itself. Personally, I find it more illuminating to study what someone actually has said than to accept what others say was meant by the speaker. Perhaps thats too fine a distiunction for some folks, but it works in court.

Kerry's "Plan", for instance, purportedly calls for a "5% Tax decrease for business", but reading through the proposal, the spin comes out: actually proposed is a reduction of 1.75%, from 35% to 32.25% ... the "5%"? Well, 32.5% is 95% of 35%, but calling that a 5% decrease is simply duplicity for the sake of obfuscation. Kerry's "Plan" would cost business, both here and abroad, considerably more than his proposed "cut", any way you parse it, and would stagger the already precarious European economies, which are bouyed by American investment and provide market for American exports. Another of his proposals would grant a $2969.00 tax reduction to a small business owner in the $500,000.00 income bracket (sounds like a lot, don't it? But back out the business expenses, and its a helluva lot less to live on once you pay for what it takes to earn that much from a small business) if that business owner were to hire additional help at a cost of $200,000.00/yr.

Yeah, that'll fly

Re: Oh?


I dunno. Is it the situation they're in? Where's your proof that they aren't?

Clinton created 22 million jobs in 8 years.

The usual naysayers stomped their feet and said it couldn't be done and he proved them wrong.

Who would've thought Bush could lose 3 million jobs in 3 years? As much as I detest Bush, even I couldn't have imagined the hemoraging of jobs during Bush's tenure.

Unemployment 1st quarter of 1996 (4th year of Bill Clinton's 1st term) 5.6%

Unemployment 1st quarter of 2004 (4th year of George W. Bush's 1st term) 5.6%

Employment 1996 - 132 million
Employment 2000 - 140 million
Employment 2004 - 146 million

What 3 million jobs?

"What 3 million jobs?" foxfrye

Yeah, what 3 million jobs? Your hero has been the best thing that's ever happened to employment in Mexico, India, Pakistan and Vietnam.

Maybe they can enshrine Bush in one of those countries?

I believe that was for the US. It would be meaningless if in fact it was globally.

Yes the stats are U.S. only. But then some aren't bothered by the documented facts especially when they are inconvenient to the desired perception.

The Dems have locked themselves in to The Economy. Fine ... their choice. It worked for 'em once before, so they figure they'll try it again. The constant harping on Job Loss is soon to backfire on them, IMO. It is my feeling, as I've stated often in various threads here, that job growth likely will not be particularly vigourous untill late Q1/EarlyQ2 '04, and I see no reason to stand away from that assessment. Employmet is always a lagging indicator coming out of a recession. For job growth to occur, strong consumer sales have to be in place for several consecutive quarters, corporate profits have to show consistent quarter-over-quarter growth for a year or so, and demand has to outstrip productivity increases. Only just now has the latter begun to happen. By July, I fully anticipate there will be no longer any question of "jobless recovery". If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and The Dems could well pull off a surprise come November. I wouldn't count on that, but I see no reason to deny them the hope. I figure it'll be more fun to watch it unfold before their dismayed and disbelieving eyes. Come November, it seems to me the key points with The Elecorate at Large will be:

1) The Economy -Advantage: Bush
2) Security and Defens - Advantage: Bush
3) Gay Rights/Same Sex Marriage- Advantage: Bush

Kerry is going to join McGovern, Dukakis, and Mondale in the Dem's Hall of Shame ... maybe even become the star of the group. That's my take, anyway, given what's going on at presen We'll see.

You forgot the one in between - unemployment rate when Bush took office.

If you're going to argue that there were no 3 million jobs lost during Bush's government, you've gotta compare the start and end numbers for Bush's government.



U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

title: Unemployment Level - Job Losers
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Reasons looking for work: Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs

Oct 2000: 2465
Oct 2001: 4343
Oct 2002: 4733
Oct 2003: 4877

Um, no I think the year 2000 numbers are up there. Then again there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Any can be manipulated to show anything you want.

Foxfyre's breathless spinning for her hero is a hoot, but as long as Ms. Chao doesn't have to factor into the Dept. of Labor's figures the numbers of unemployed who have dropped out of the Dept.'s counting mechanism because they've been without work so long, Bush's record on employment doesn't look too bad.

Add to this the number of educated Americans who are unable to find work in their given profession and have been forced to accept service and retail jobs, and the picture looks pretty bleak.

I'm waiting for another loyalist to chortle about the number of foreign companies like Bayer and Toyota who've set up shop on our soil, and how the jobs they brought with them make up the huge jobs deficit we've seen since Bush won his lawsuit.