What I learned from the debates

[Zutroy]

" I missed the part where Kerry said he was going to raise taxes more than Bush."

Kerry said he was gonna "repeal" the '01 tax cuts (that's the same thing as a tax increase), Bush said he was gonna have more tax cuts. I'm pretty sure that was brought up in the debate last Thurs. If not, it'll be mentioned in the next debate.

"When Bush talks about tax cuts, it's not for people like you and I. It's an aggregate amount that goes directly to the people making $200k or more, which (the theory goes) will then be "reinvested in America" and "trickle down" to us regular folk. "

Why should the rich have to pay so much in taxes? Unless they're one of those rare heiresses that just sits on their family's fortune, they earned the money and deserve to have a tax break as much as the rest of us. I think I saw a statistic once that said the people who make over 200k a year are responsible for like 80% of all taxes collected anyway.

"religiously motivated opposition to stem cell research. Other countries will fund this but it's retarded that we aren't doing it too. "

I agree with you here. But it's still legal for private companies to research, it's just not government funded.

"Poor domestic economic policies. I don't agree the president has no control over the economy. NAFTA, Cuban embargo, oil prices for example."

I'm pretty sure that the cuban embargo is going to be there until castro dies. It doesn't matter what president is in office. As far as oil prices go, we don't have much say in those either - which was why Bush wanted to drill in Alaska but was shot down by environmental groups crying about the caribu.

" Only president to lose jobs during his administration since... Johnson was it? It was pretty frickin long ago. "

As someone in IT, you have to realize that the massive job losses weren't Bush's fault directly. Alot of the employment numbers of the late 90's were inflated with unqualified dot-com web monkeys.

US unemployment is also one of the lowest in the world at around 5-6%. Honestly, I'm not sure if it's possible to go much below that just due to the natural cycles in the job market.

"Big one - supreme court - you do not want a Scalia court -- really you don't, unless you are truly right of pretty much everything. You want a liberal court, a fiscally conservative Senate and a diplomatic executive. FFS this isn't rocket science. Take a look at the liberal justices that will have to hang on another 4 years if Bush is elected -- that's bad news right there. "

Just based on some of the rulings coming in the past few years, it seems to me that liberal courts tend to be the most activist. Even if the unthinkable happens and the court gets loaded with conservatives, I doubt they'll overturn Roe vs. Wade - I think that's mostly just used a scare tactic to get women to vote democrat.

" in particular the supreme court which has handed down some pretty dreadful decisions none more so than Florida"

The supreme court didn't technically rule on the case, they just remanded it back to the lower court beyond the December deadline for the recounts to be certified. Show me one article that says (in any type of independent recount) that Gore won Florida.

And Sod - no one is stopping you from cutting a big check the IRS whenever you want. You don't have to wait for Kerry to raise your taxes.

[Axecleaver]

The 2001 tax cuts were irresponsible.

The rich shouldn't have to pay more just because they're rich, but I have an accountant friend who made over $250k last year and paid not a single penny in taxes. He said it was a fluke and had to do with some investments and real estate deals, still made me sick.

The 2001 "tax cuts" made almost no difference in my personal tax burden, but it had a devastating effect on the budget and domestic economy. That money isn't free. It was expected that by cutting taxes that money would get spent on cars and washing machines and beers. Well, somehow people ended up spending it on mortgages and debt and savings, so that currency injection just cost the government an assload of money for no net effect.

I am curious about your 80% figure; I was under the impression that the bulk of our taxes come from the middle class. I'm genuinely curious about this.

Tech makes up less than 1% of the country's employment numbers. This is why our industry can be completely devastated with offshoring but it doesn't show up as more than a tiny blip on the national employment reports. You're right that the offshoring isn't "stoppable" at this point, all the entry level jobs will disappear from tech, then insurance, banking, financial sector, and when those are all gone then some other service industry. Once those are gone there will be no new employees to do stuff in America so we will need to offshore everything, including the experienced jobs (because at that point, there will be plenty of experienced Indians to work at 10% of our salaries). At some point it will be a big deal and we'll have to find something else to do. I don't know what it is.

Also keep in mind that unemployment figures in the US typically represent only the "recently but not currently employed." It does not count someone who is out of work for more than 12 months (depending on the state) who isn't eligible for unemployment, doesn't count new graduates who can't find entry level jobs, doesn't count the chronically unemployable or those who do not wish to work. Sometimes when we see unemployment figures in the news for other countries it includes some or all of these numbers. The data we're getting isn't directly comparable.

[Rosslyn]

First, I really agree w/ a few points raised by some, namely LB and Bolldar.  The open forum here is really cool, and I definitely (even though I vehemently disagree in some cases) don't take any of this personally.  We all have different opinions, which is probably a good thing or we'd be running around in groups of 8 FOTFM scouts w/ light orange studded armor.  

"Well, somehow people ended up spending it on mortgages and debt and savings, so that currency injection just cost the government an assload of money for no net effect."  This I completely disagree with, especially as a person who has worked for a very large mortgage bank for the past few years.  The money did in fact go into the economy, just maybe not in the spots where some expected it to go.  People didn't save that money, if they did then they're fools because of the prevailing interest rates (not to mention stock market prospects) at the time.  Including inflation, your money was pretty much better invested in something durable at that time (which includes home improvements).  My company had by far (and I mean by WAY far) the best two years of its existence in 2002 and 2003.  Our "sales" if you want to describe our business in those terms were billions and billions of dollars higher in each of those years than they had ever been.  Much of this was simple refinancing, which (aside from potentially allowing people to cash in some home equity) generally resulted in people paying less interest on their home loans.  This of course has a double-edged effect:  They have more disposable income, and they actually pay MORE taxes than they would have because they have less of a mortgage interest deduction at the end of the year.  Anyway, I digress...

One extremely fortunate or extremely unethical accountant aside, I think tax cuts help everyone.  

"It seems to me that Republicans are the fiscally irresponsible ones who give huge tax breaks to the wealthy and corp. America at the expense of the middle and working class."

This, to me, is another example of injecting liberal-tinged spin onto what is supposed to be a statement of fact.  First of all, saying tax cuts come at the expense of the middle and working class implies that their (our) taxes are raised in order to allow rich people to pay less.  That's BS.  The democrats have been fond of saying how much more the taxe cuts help "the rich", but of course if I'm paying 50k a year in taxes and you're paying 2k a year, a 10% across-the-board rollback can statistically be shown to benefit me much more than it does you (I'll save 5k, you'll save 200), but in fact I'm still paying 45k annually, while you're paying 1800.  You can make these types of statistics say whatever you like.

Regarding job loss, GWB came into office in early 2001.  Does anyone recall what was ALREADY happening then?  I think that's about the time of the dot-com crash, mass layoffs beginning, etc. etc.  I know I was laid off in June of 2001, and there were many layoffs before I "got it".  At this point I think it's appropriate to quote Bolldar:

"Most of Clintons reforms were enacted to come into being at the end of his term or when Bush was in power."

Moving along...

I in fact saw the video clip of the Al-Arabiyeh (I believe that's the service the unfortunate reporter was working for at the time) reporter's demise.  I don't recall where I saw it, and it very well could have been that it was not on a major US news network.  If not, I think it would be reasonable to assume that some outlets may have considered it to be too disturbing for general release, but I'm sure that I read about it in national and local news (we have in a Detroit suburb what is supposedly the largest Arabic population outside of the middle east, so these already well-publicized events get even more airtime here).   I don't recall seeing an Apache helicopter in the film, but I do recall not really being able to identify what each and every person in that crowd may or may not have been holding/doing, especially the approximately 1/3 + of them that were obscured by the burning vehicle.  I would like to think that most of our military personnel wouldn't be predisposed to shooting up an innocent crowd of people celebrating around a burning US vehicle, but it could have happened.  It also could have happened that one or more of the people in the crowd (or someone in/on a nearby building) WAS in fact shooting at this helicopter.  After all, someone shot at the Bradley, right?  On top of all of this, while I certainly don't advocate purposely killing civilians, the Darwin Awards come to mind when I hear about crowds of people putting themselves in these types of situations.  What if there was unexploded ordinance on board the Bradley?  That could have exploded due to the flames (another possible source of perceived enemy fire on the helicopter) and killed many of them, not to mention IT'S A F****NG WAR ZONE, maybe you should keep the kids inside today.  I'm waiting for the Kerry campaign to release a commercial stating that W pulled the trigger himself via some super-high-tech satellite link.  

I agree with the points about going a little overboard as far as letting religious beliefs enter into politics, but at the same time (regardless of whether it's a national or local politician) I think people need to be aware that we're electing a person and their complete set of beliefs and values, and there is a danger there when we let one plank in a campaign platform decide who gets our votes.  I, for instance, might choose to vote for the Pro-Life candidate, then be shocked later when I find that this candidate doesn't share my views on the environment.  Everyone's different, it really isn't The Democratic Viewpoint vs. The Republican Viewpoint.  If that were the case, they'd never bother to vote in Congress, they'd just count up which party currently holds the majority and whatever they say goes.  

It's for similar reasons that I agree w/ the Supreme Court commentary.  Not that I want a liberal court (you may have guessed by now that I lean towards the conservative on many issues), but I want a court that's as evenly balanced as possible so that we can at least have the illusion of true justice from the highest court in our country.  That's another part of the federal government that is supposed to be apolitical, but I think we all understand how it actually works.  

Totally changing the subject, who here (out of those that care and/or have been paying attention to the topic) thinks that Jamal Lewis is getting special treatment because of his status as a professional athlete?  I'm pretty sure that most people who plead guilty to a felony don't get to say "hey, I'll go to jail, just let me finish out the season because my team's pretty good and they'll totally suck without me".  Damn, Martha Stewart can't even pick the state she gets to "visit".

[Axecleaver]

You want a liberal court because a liberal court is more protective of individual freedoms, where a conservative court trends toward the benefit of the state or the majority at the expense of the individual.

[Zutroy]

"who here (out of those that care and/or have been paying attention to the topic) thinks that Jamal Lewis is getting special treatment because of his status as a professional athlete? "

No kidding. He's facing a minimum 10 year sentence if he gets convicted but since he plea bargined, he only has to serve like 3-4 months some time next spring after the season is over. He claims he's innocent but the deal is so good that it's worth taking instead of trying to fight it out in court and possibly losing.

[Rosslyn]

what's funny is that rumor has it the NFL plans to discipline him internally once the legal process is completed, so even though his plea bargain may let him start his sentence in the offseason, it's likely that the NFL will suspend him for the rest of the year, or close to it.

[Caohmin]

* religiously motivated opposition to stem cell research. Other countries will fund this but it's retarded that we aren't doing it too."

This is the major thing for me; not just stem cell research, though. Bush's fundamentalist leanings have him appointing like-minded people to his staff. Their views are why Bush won't fund stem cell research.It's more than just that though:

"Since 2001 dozens of far-right Christian fundamentalists have been quietly installed in key positions within the Department of Health and Human Services, the Federal Drug Administration and on commissions and advisory committees where they have made serious progress."

"When the hot issue of stem-cell research came up, President Bush dismissed two members of his Council on Bioethics who had each strongly supported the use of embryonic stem cells in research. They were replaced by three new members who, as the pro-life Family Research Council reported, "fall more in line with the President's pro-life views."

http://www.alternet.org/story/18259

I'm concerned about policy coming from such extreme right wing fundamentalists. They are anti-science and fundamentalists in general seek to undermine science education in public schools. That's my biggest concern and why I think Kerry is the lesser of two evils.

"I am curious about your 80% figure; I was under the impression that the bulk of our taxes come from the middle class."

I can vouch for this figure as I've seen it in different news articles.

(Edited by Caohmin at 6:16 pm on Oct. 5, 2004)

[Zutroy]

Speaking of the NFL rumor mill, I hear that ricky williams might be returning to Miami because he can't pay back his $8 million signing bonus. I'd put odds on them actually playing him too - a half assed ricky williams effort is still better than what they've got going now in their running game.

Lemme just address one thing about axe's last post:

"Also keep in mind that unemployment figures in the US typically represent only the "recently but not currently employed." It does not count someone who is out of work for more than 12 months (depending on the state) who isn't eligible for unemployment, doesn't count new graduates who can't find entry level jobs, doesn't count the chronically unemployable or those who do not wish to work."

These are called "discouraged workers" and there are some statistics out there on them. I was actually suprised at how low their population actually is - it's less than 1%.

[Rosslyn]

Well, even if Williams could play this year (something about that 3rd offense in the substance abuse program costing him a 1 year suspension or something), if I were one of his teammates I'd make it very clear that I don't want him around.  When you leave your teammates at the last minute before training camp so your team has no way to compensate for your loss, you're an ass.  If you're going to do that, at least be principled enough (not to mention think it through at least once) so that money isn't an issue.  It's amazing how much of his "passion for the game" has returned now that he'd have to cough up 8 or 9 million bucks.  Loser, IMO.

[Bolldar Bloodaxe]

I know Kerry is often described by Bush as a flip flopper or something to that effect so read with interest Bushs flip flops.

1983-88: WE LOVE SADDAM. On December 19, 1983, Donald Rumsfeld was sent by your dad and Mr. Reagan to go and have a friendly meeting with Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq. Rummy looked so happy in the picture. Just twelve days after this visit, Saddam gassed thousands of Iranian troops. Your dad and Rummy seemed pretty happy with the results because ‘The Donald R.’ went back to have another chummy hang-out with Saddam’s right-hand man, Tariq Aziz, just four months later. All of this resulted in the U.S. providing credits and loans to Iraq that enabled Saddam to buy billions of dollars worth of weapons and chemical agents. The Washington Post reported that your dad and Reagan let it be known to their Arab allies that the Reagan/Bush administration wanted Iraq to win its war with Iran and anyone who helped Saddam accomplish this was a friend of ours.

1990: WE HATE SADDAM. In 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait, your dad and his defense secretary, Dick Cheney, decided they didn't like Saddam anymore so they attacked Iraq and returned Kuwait to its rightful dictators.

1991: WE WANT SADDAM TO LIVE. After the war, your dad and Cheney and Colin Powell told the Shiites to rise up against Saddam and we would support them. So they rose up. But then we changed our minds. When the Shiites rose up against Saddam, the Bush inner circle changed its mind and decided NOT to help the Shiites. Thus, they were massacred by Saddam.

1998: WE WANT SADDAM TO DIE. In 1998, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others, as part of the Project for the New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Clinton insisting he invade and topple Saddam Hussein.

2000: WE DON'T BELIEVE IN WAR AND NATION BUILDING. Just three years later, during your debate with Al Gore in the 2000 election, when asked by the moderator Jim Lehrer where you stood when it came to using force for regime change, you turned out to be a downright pacifist:

“I--I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president [Al Gore] and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I--I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place. And so I take my--I take my--my responsibility seriously.” --October 3, 2000

2001 (early): WE DON'T BELIEVE SADDAM IS A THREAT. When you took office in 2001, you sent your Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and your National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, in front of the cameras to assure the American people they need not worry about Saddam Hussein. Here is what they said:

Powell: “We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they have directed that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was 10 years ago when we began it. And frankly, they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.” --February 24, 2001

Rice: “But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.” --July 29, 2001

2001 (late): WE BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US! Just a few months later, in the hours and days after the 9/11 tragedy, you had no interest in going after Osama bin Laden. You wanted only to bomb Iraq and kill Saddam and you then told all of America we were under imminent threat because weapons of mass destruction were coming our way. You led the American people to believe that Saddam had something to do with Osama and 9/11. Without the UN's sanction, you broke international law and invaded Iraq.

2003: WE DON’T BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US. After no WMDs were found, you changed your mind about why you said we needed to invade, coming up with a brand new after-the-fact reason -- we started this war so we could have regime change, liberate Iraq and give the Iraqis democracy!

2003: “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!” Yes, everyone saw you say it -- in costume, no less!

2004: OOPS. MISSION NOT ACCOMPLISHED! Now you call the Iraq invasion a "catastrophic success." That's what you called it this month. Over a thousand U.S. soldiers have died, Iraq is in a state of total chaos where no one is safe, and you have no clue how to get us out of there.

[Rosslyn]

hehe, I like how the first four or five have nothing to do w/ the current president.

Of course, the current Democratic nominee was a Senator then, and although I've seen video clips of the "supressed" reporter's death in Iraq, I don't believe I've seen or heard anything about Kerry speaking out against any of these items you've mentioned until, oh, about the last 6-9 months.  Coincidence?

[Zutroy]

Just curious, what website did you copy and paste that from? Cause those are some of the worst and most cliched examples I've ever seen.

Even the DNC website has better ones:

http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/top10_flipflops/

[Axecleaver]

//www.bls.gov > Axe

That is the Bureau of Labor Statistics, it's got a lot of raw data about employment. I just have no idea how to interpret it.

[Rosslyn]

jeezus, that's an evil site!  My head hurts now :/

[Zutroy]

heh, here's a list of the items that determine the CPI (consumer price index):

   500 kwh Electricity - APU000072621
    Utility Gas, 40 Therms - APU000072601
    Utility GAs, 100 Therms - APU000072611
    Fuel Oil, Per Gallon - APU000072511
    Gasoline, All Types - APU00007471A
    Gasoline, Unleaded Regular - APU000074714
    Bread, White - APU0000702111
    Ground Beef, All Types, Per Pound - APU0000703111
    Whole Chicken, Per Pound - apu0000706111
    Eggs, Large, Per Dozen - APU0000708111
    Milk, All Types, Per Gallon - APU0000709111
    Red Delicious Apples - APU0000711111
    Navel Oranges - APU0000711311
    Bananas - APU0000711211
    Tomatoes - APU0000712311
    Orange Juice, Frozen - APU0000713111
    Coffee, Ground Roast, All Sizes - APU0000717311
    Iceberg Lettuce - APU0000712211

don't ask me what those numbers on the right mean though