Bush Ads Go Negative

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The problem is that the tax cuts didn't make anything happen. And rather than address that, he wants to say that the problem is that we didn't make thme permanent.

[NoCalMike 0]

The problem is that the tax cuts didn't make anything happen.

Well actually they made a few bank accounts in Bermuda and Jamaica a lot bigger.

[Guest MikeSC]

could the tax cuts have played some role in the loss of millions of American jobs?...

No.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

So we don't know what the word "HELPED" means anymore, hmm. 

 

Lets see...I will INCREASE spending, but I will DECREASE taxes.  What will give out there.  Now I'm not great at math or anything....

And it "helped cause" an economic downturn that was ALREADY happening before Bush took office? Apparently, "cause and effect" is a foreign concept.

 

Remember, Bush got slammed by the Dems for "talking the economy down" when he mentioned that a recession was occurring. I wonder why they are now so anxious to "talk the economy down".

And once again, how the hell is outsourcing call center jobs, and manufacturing jobs helping when we have little to no job creation in one field(manufacturing) and no real reason to do it in another (call center, customer support).

Because we send the crap jobs overseas and we get the better jobs here. That's the way it goes. The wage necessary to pay somebody here to DO the job is more than the job is actually worth. Either a company can increase the cost of their services (which would hurt the economy) or they send the jobs where they can be filled at the legitimate worth of the occupation.

 

Unemployment is what, 5.6%? Man, that IS rough.

Yet oddly, the Pres has a problem with People getting their perscription drugs from Canada when they are cheaper.  WONDER why that is.

Yeah, screw drug companies. If he won't protect every company out there, he should actively oppose all of them.

The problem is that the tax cuts didn't make anything happen. And rather than address that, he wants to say that the problem is that we didn't make thme permanent.

The tax cuts lessened the impact of the recession. Look at what has happened.

 

The dotcoms pretty well died out.

Airlines nearly died.

Tourism was damaged badly.

Corporate accounting schedule badly damaged faith in Wall Street.

 

And the recession is over. Take away the tax cuts and things get worse. Considerably worse.

Tax cuts hurting the economy is besides the point really though. The point is they haven't helped really all that much, and the "Kerry is going to raise YOUR taxes" argument is silly when all you have to do is really break down who "YOUR TAXES" pertains too.

So, because they haven't "helped all that much" (a bizarre belief, to say the least), let's RAISE taxes across the board on just about everybody.

 

Yeah, THAT will get this country moving.

The tax cuts werent enacted to "not hurt" the economy, supposedly they were supposed to make everything all better, which they have failed to do on every account.

Again, there have been a few issues that popped up in the meantime. The tax cuts prevented things that could have been catastrophic from reaching their full level of damage.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

The "Kerry is going to raise YOUR taxes" argument is silly when all you have to do is really break down who "YOUR TAXES" pertains too.

If Democrats can call reductions in the rate of increased spending a cut, then rolling back tax cuts can be called "raising taxes..."

[NoCalMike 0]

My taxes weren't ever relly "lowered" by that much in the first place. Sure my $300 dollar check was nice for that WEEK, but I wouldn't be in any different situation today if I had never recieved it. I wouldn't mind if my taxes were at the same rate they were before the Tax cut which is what Kerry wanted to do I thought, just repeal the Bush Tax cut.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Well then get a real job, hippie.

 

*And that $300 check back in the day paid my rent for that month, so I'm not complaining...*

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

"The Bush campaign claims the "terrorist" in the ad isn't Arab. You decide"

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

The fact of the matter is you cannot fight a multinational campaign against terrorism, including the occupation of TWO countries, and cut taxes and not expect severe consequences. If you can't see that, you're a fool.

[Ripper 0]

And once again, how the hell is outsourcing call center jobs, and manufacturing jobs helping when we have little to no job creation in one field(manufacturing) and no real reason to do it in another (call center, customer support).

Because we send the crap jobs overseas and we get the better jobs here. That's the way it goes. The wage necessary to pay somebody here to DO the job is more than the job is actually worth. Either a company can increase the cost of their services (which would hurt the economy) or they send the jobs where they can be filled at the legitimate worth of the occupation.

 

Unemployment is what, 5.6%? Man, that IS rough.

How can you possibly believe that dribble? What job is worth only 4 dollars an hour (what I KNOW at least 3 companies that cut over 500 jobs to send to India for call centers are paying over there. 4 an hour per person.) All they are doing is making their overhead even larger, making more money for the lowest percentile in the country while the rest suffers.

 

AND WHAT new jobs created? What jobs are these people that are out of work from working in call centers and customer support suppose to be able to do with their experience now? I guess its just fuck them huh, gotta make sure some rich guy makes a couple of extra million dollars. There has been no job creation, a very high amount of job outsourcing....are people suppose to feed their families off of a job might come later. Maybe they should train homeless people to fly planes for 10 bucks and hour and tell pilots that hey, one day you guys can be astronauts and fly to the MOON~!

 

You know something is stupid when it doesn't even work in theory, and this is definately one of those cases. And yes a 5.6 percent unemployment rate is high.

 

And his "I know most of you didn't vote for me so here is free money" tax cut came before 9-11, and the economy took even more of a dip. Then astronomical amounts of spending happens under his watch and he cuts taxes AGAIN. That is just not good judgement, that is trying to get the people behind you to get another term.

 

I bet if the "regular" guys had billions of dollars to throw around in Washington like the drug companies, outsorcing of jobs would be a big deal. But as of now, we have to protect the big drug companies who would just CAN't afford to lower their prices over the people that you claim jobs aren't worth more than 4 dollars and hour.

 

I understand the people that like Bush and think he might be able to do a good job in a second term, but the people that pretend this country isn't in the shitter and he has done a great job in the last 4 years and these asisnine plans for economic growth that he hs presented are actually good ideas baffle me.

[Guest Cerebus]

"The Bush campaign claims the "terrorist" in the ad isn't Arab. You decide"

Nobody seems to care about us fair-skinned Arabs and what we would think if that was a fair skinned Ay-Rab there!

[Vyce 0]

Yeah, it was the TAX CUTS that drove the economy down.

 

Not the recession.

Not the total collapse of the dotcom bubble.

Not the 9/11 attack.

Not the near destruction of airline and tourism industry caused by the attack.

Not the massive corporate accounting scandal.

 

It was the TAX CUT that did it.

 

Man, those tax cuts will kill you, if you give them a chance.

Tax cuts murdered my family and raped my dog.

 

Oh, and curse you, Mike - don't you know that the tax cuts only benefit the EVIL RICH?

 

DOWN WITH WEALTH!

 

UP WITH THE PROLETARIAT!!!!!

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

"The Bush campaign claims the "terrorist" in the ad isn't Arab. You decide"

Nobody seems to care about us fair-skinned Arabs and what we would think if that was a fair skinned Ay-Rab there!

Kinda looks like you...

[snuffbox 0]

again, for the souls that have missed the point...

 

the taxation effects are different for the rich v. poor. yes, the wealthy pay more/a higher percentage...but, again, every single dollar that a poor family pays effects them greatly.

 

this is the point...mine anyway.

 

Of course, the Libertarian party, and my own imagination as well, can offer up numerous strategies to completely lower taxes for all...leaving those that desperately need their paychecks to be taxed nothing and the wealthy to be taxed less as well. Using these thoughtful methods, Americans can have more of their own money...and the deficit can actually be lowered. And America can still be 'safe'...

 

but, alas, I am a 'Democrat' so why am I mentioning this zany other party?

[Guest Cerebus]

Anybody remember this fucking interview?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Anybody remember this fucking interview?

I never understood how this was supposed to hurt him, and that was when I didn't want Kerry to win.

 

It doesn't help him, it doesn't hurt him, it's just.. There. Politicians are people, they use profanity like anyone else.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

And it "helped cause" an economic downturn that was ALREADY happening before Bush took office? Apparently, "cause and effect" is a foreign concept.

So your ringing endorsement of the tax cuts was not that they made any kind of negative or positive economic effect, but simply did nothing?

 

The tax cuts prevented things that could have been catastrophic from reaching their full level of damage.

 

Well, spending went up a bit, but it all went to the rich and then didn't move. Huzzah.

[Guest MikeSC]

How can you possibly believe that dribble?  What job is worth only 4 dollars an hour (what I KNOW at least 3 companies that cut over 500 jobs to send to India for call centers are paying over there.  4 an hour per person.)

The fact that they have no problem STAFFING those positions for $4/hour indicates, clearly, that that job is only worth $4/hour.

 

Why do you think car manufacturing is done overseas so much? Because unions in MI have driven wages up so high and given the employees so many benefits (which is their job, admittedly) that the companies have to spend more on the employees than the employee brings in.

 

Companies, by nature, MUST pay you less than what you bring in. Otherwise, labor costs spiral out of control.

All they are doing is making their overhead even larger, making more money for the lowest percentile in the country while the rest suffers. 

Most of the savings are put back INTO the company, which increases spending on durable items and allows expansion of the company, which provides more jobs.

AND WHAT new jobs created?  What jobs are these people that are out of work from working in call centers and customer support suppose to be able to do with their experience now?

And, again, I'll go back to the turn of the century. Do you think the automobile didn't kind of hurt the whole horse carriage industry? What did THOSE people do?

 

Well, they had to find other jobs. Life goes on.

I guess its just fuck them huh, gotta make sure some rich guy makes a couple of extra million dollars.

The rich guy who generates more money for the company than he is paid as opposed to the phone tech who gets paid far more than his job is actually worth?

 

Yup, go with the rich guy.

There has been no job creation, a very high amount of job outsourcing....are people suppose to feed their families off of a job might come later.  Maybe they should train homeless people to fly planes for 10 bucks and hour and tell pilots that hey, one day you guys can be astronauts and fly to the MOON~!

You are aware that outsourcing has ALWAYS happened.

 

Heck, in the salad days of Clinton, outsourcing happened constantly.

You know something is stupid when it doesn't even work in theory, and this is definately one of those cases.  And yes a 5.6 percent unemployment rate is high.

Funny, it is, easily, amongst the lowest (if not outright the lowest) in the industrialized world.

And his "I know most of you didn't vote for me so here is free money" tax cut came before 9-11, and the economy took even more of a dip.

Bill didn't go into effect until after 9/11 for the most part. A President's impact on the economy in his first year in office is virtually negligible. After that, it is just real weak.

Then astronomical amounts of spending happens under his watch and he cuts taxes AGAIN.   That is just not good judgement, that is trying to get the people behind you to get another term.

Heck, spending hikes ARE bad. I would have NEVER passed the education bill, nor the Medicare drug benefit. He made a huge mistake there and I'm beyond pissed that he did it.

I bet if the "regular" guys had billions of dollars to throw around in Washington like the drug companies, outsorcing of jobs would be a big deal.  But as of now, we have to protect the big drug companies who would just CAN't afford to lower their prices over the people that you claim jobs aren't worth more than 4 dollars and hour.  

Do you have a clue how much it costs to develop a new drug? And keep in mind, quite a few don't even reach market.

How long it takes for the drug to hit the market?

How long until generic versions of the drug can get made?

 

They have a small window of opportunity to recoup their losses in the making of one drug (in addition to recouping their losses for drugs that DIDN'T make it to market). Thank the FDA for causing untold millions to be spent.

I understand the people that like Bush and think he might be able to do a good job in a second term, but the people that pretend this country isn't in the shitter and he has done a great job in the last 4 years and these asisnine plans for economic growth that he hs presented are actually good ideas baffle me.

Bush is hardly great --- but you'll side with Kerry whose ONLY plan is to raise taxes and, possibly, develop some plan that he'll waffle on later?

 

Heck, I'll put even money right here: If Kerry is elected, he'll be the one President to oppose a bill he proposed in the first place.

Tax cuts murdered my family and raped my dog.

 

Oh, and curse you, Mike - don't you know that the tax cuts only benefit the EVIL RICH?

 

DOWN WITH WEALTH!

 

UP WITH THE PROLETARIAT!!!!!

When I was young, my house burned to the ground. I lost everything.

 

I always assumed it was the dryer catching fire that caused it.

 

I've gone over the official Fire Dept. files and they claim it was tax cuts that set the blaze.

 

DAMN YOU, WASHINGTON, FOR GIVING US BACK OUR MONEY!!!

again, for the souls that have missed the point...

 

the taxation effects are different for the rich v. poor. yes, the wealthy pay more/a higher percentage...but, again, every single dollar that a poor family pays effects them greatly.

Ah, so everybody should pay according to their means?

 

Thank you, Marx.

this is the point...mine anyway.

 

Of course, the Libertarian party, and my own imagination as well, can offer up numerous strategies to completely lower taxes for all...leaving those that desperately need their paychecks to be taxed nothing and the wealthy to be taxed less as well. Using these thoughtful methods, Americans can have more of their own money...and the deficit can actually be lowered. And America can still be 'safe'...

Heck, I like a lot of the Libertarian plank. Sad thing is, if you think Bush is called heartless, enacting the Libertarian platform would cause riots.

but, alas, I am a 'Democrat' so why am I mentioning this zany other party?

Good lord, you mention that as often as Kerry mentions Vietnam.

And it "helped cause" an economic downturn that was ALREADY happening before Bush took office? Apparently, "cause and effect" is a foreign concept. 

So your ringing endorsement of the tax cuts was not that they made any kind of negative or positive economic effect, but simply did nothing?

It's called "limiting the damage". Think of it as a modern-day New Deal.

The tax cuts prevented things that could have been catastrophic from reaching their full level of damage.

Well, spending went up a bit, but it all went to the rich and then didn't move. Huzzah.

Yup, the rich got ALL of the benefits.

 

Of course, it was the Dems who said "Who needs $300 anyway?", so I doubt they are TOO sympathetic to the poor.

 

God knows Kerry has no place discussing the plight of ordinary Americans.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Think of it as a modern-day New Deal.

While Bush seems intent to take as big a shit on the Constitution as FDR did in the New Deal, I don't think it's through tax cuts.

 

God knows Kerry has no place discussing the plight of ordinary Americans.

He has every bit that Bush does, but it's not like he was my pick or anything.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I've gone over the official Fire Dept. files and they claim it was tax cuts that set the blaze.

 

I would have blamed the Jews myself...

[Guest MikeSC]

I've gone over the official Fire Dept. files and they claim it was tax cuts that set the blaze.

 

I would have blamed the Jews myself...

They get all of the blame and they don't deserve it.

 

Tax cuts killed Jesus.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Well, the blood did "trickle down" from his body while on the cross...

[Guest Cerebus]

Think of it as a modern-day New Deal.

While Bush seems intent to take as big a shit on the Constitution as FDR did in the New Deal, I don't think it's through tax cuts.

You never read the shit his Republican opponnents said about him and his use of executive orders, formation of Social Security, and attempt to pack the Supreme Court did you?

[BUTT 0]

Anybody remember this fucking interview?

Yeah, remember when Bush said "fuck" in that interview back in '99?

 

I don't see why that Salvato guy thinks it's such a big deal. At least he didn't sport a boner in the magazine (a la Al Gore).

[NoCalMike 0]

The problem is not usually that operation costs are too high, rather the board of trustees simply want more money in their own pocketbooks. Companies netting billions up and leave the country in search for the mighty dollar. Jobs are filled overseas mainly because labor/human rights/health restrictions in NAFTA are not upheld and/or enforced therefore the cheap labor occurs. The Corporations know that China/South america are not going to enforce these rules and regulations therefore corporations go there knowing they are exploting workers. That is what it is really about, exploiting workers abroad to put more money in THEIR POCKETS. I know this comes off as "Corporations BAD, workers GOOD" but I don't see how you can look at modern day outsourcing in any other way. Also I am not even really talking about tech jobs mostly since $4/hr is actually pretty good for an american job wage overseas. I am more referring to the $.30/day jobs like making Nike shoes or something in that group.

[Guest MikeSC]

The problem is not usually that operation costs are too high, rather the board of trustees simply want more money in their own pocketbooks. Companies netting billions up and leave the country in search for the mighty dollar. Jobs are filled overseas mainly because labor/human rights/health restrictions in NAFTA are not upheld and/or enforced therefore the cheap labor occurs. The Corporations know that China/South america are not going to enforce these rules and regulations therefore corporations go there knowing they are exploting workers. That is what it is really about, exploiting workers abroad to put more money in THEIR POCKETS. I know this comes off as "Corporations BAD, workers GOOD" but I don't see how you can look at modern day outsourcing in any other way. Also I am not even really talking about tech jobs mostly since $4/hr is actually pretty good for an american job wage overseas. I am more referring to the $.30/day jobs like making Nike shoes or something in that group.

Mike, you can't compare the plight of other workers to the plight of American workers.

 

.30/hr is criminal here. In OTHER countries, it is a livable wage for exceptionally menial work that could be totally mechanized for only slightly more money.

-=Mike

[snuffbox 0]

The problem is not usually that operation costs are too high, rather the board of trustees simply want more money in their own pocketbooks.  Companies netting billions up and leave the country in search for the mighty dollar.  Jobs are filled overseas mainly because labor/human rights/health restrictions in NAFTA are not upheld and/or enforced therefore the cheap labor occurs.  The Corporations know that China/South america are not going to enforce these rules and regulations therefore corporations go there knowing they are exploting workers.  That is what it is really about, exploiting workers abroad to put more money in THEIR POCKETS.  I know this comes off as "Corporations BAD, workers GOOD" but I don't see how you can look at modern day outsourcing in any other way.  Also I am not even really talking about tech jobs mostly since $4/hr is actually pretty good for an american job wage overseas.  I am more referring to the $.30/day jobs like making Nike shoes or something in that group.

Mike, you can't compare the plight of other workers to the plight of American workers.

 

.30/hr is criminal here. In OTHER countries, it is a livable wage for exceptionally menial work that could be totally mechanized for only slightly more money.

-=Mike

You really believe that 30 cents an hour is a liveable wage anywhere?

[Guest MikeSC]

The problem is not usually that operation costs are too high, rather the board of trustees simply want more money in their own pocketbooks.  Companies netting billions up and leave the country in search for the mighty dollar.  Jobs are filled overseas mainly because labor/human rights/health restrictions in NAFTA are not upheld and/or enforced therefore the cheap labor occurs.  The Corporations know that China/South america are not going to enforce these rules and regulations therefore corporations go there knowing they are exploting workers.  That is what it is really about, exploiting workers abroad to put more money in THEIR POCKETS.  I know this comes off as "Corporations BAD, workers GOOD" but I don't see how you can look at modern day outsourcing in any other way.  Also I am not even really talking about tech jobs mostly since $4/hr is actually pretty good for an american job wage overseas.  I am more referring to the $.30/day jobs like making Nike shoes or something in that group.

Mike, you can't compare the plight of other workers to the plight of American workers.

 

.30/hr is criminal here. In OTHER countries, it is a livable wage for exceptionally menial work that could be totally mechanized for only slightly more money.

-=Mike

You really believe that 30 cents an hour is a liveable wage anywhere?

Yes.

 

Heck, for less than a dollar a month, you can prevent a child from starving in various countries. Those ads wouldn't lie about that, would they?

 

$.30 US/hour would be a livable wage in some countries.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

The problem is not usually that operation costs are too high, rather the board of trustees simply want more money in their own pocketbooks.  Companies netting billions up and leave the country in search for the mighty dollar.  Jobs are filled overseas mainly because labor/human rights/health restrictions in NAFTA are not upheld and/or enforced therefore the cheap labor occurs.  The Corporations know that China/South america are not going to enforce these rules and regulations therefore corporations go there knowing they are exploting workers.  That is what it is really about, exploiting workers abroad to put more money in THEIR POCKETS.  I know this comes off as "Corporations BAD, workers GOOD" but I don't see how you can look at modern day outsourcing in any other way.  Also I am not even really talking about tech jobs mostly since $4/hr is actually pretty good for an american job wage overseas.  I am more referring to the $.30/day jobs like making Nike shoes or something in that group.

Mike, you can't compare the plight of other workers to the plight of American workers.

 

.30/hr is criminal here. In OTHER countries, it is a livable wage for exceptionally menial work that could be totally mechanized for only slightly more money.

-=Mike

You really believe that 30 cents an hour is a liveable wage anywhere?

Yes.

 

Heck, for less than a dollar a month, you can prevent a child from starving in various countries. Those ads wouldn't lie about that, would they?

 

$.30 US/hour would be a livable wage in some countries.

-=Mike

well then show me finanical proof of this. Also this still doesn't address workers safety/health issues or other labor violations either not being enforced overseas. There should be some ethics involved, but it seems like the only ones involved are the money. Like I said, "cutting costs" is different then "I want a 3rd private jet"

[Guest Brian]

And some of them would be lucky to make that.