Jump to content
Indian Motorcycle Community

Bush's "own words"


Recommended Posts

All taken from http://www.thedubyareport.com/quotes.html

 

We've got an issue in America. Too many good docs are getting out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country.

-- Poplar Bluff, MO, September 7, 2004

 

I went to the Congress last September and proposed fundamental -- supplemental funding, which is money for armor and body parts....

-- Erie, PA, September 4, 2004

 

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.

-- speaking to top Pentagon brass, Washington, DC, August 5, 2004; reported by Reuters.

 

To paraphrase President Kennedy, there's America, and then there's Texas. We have great relations with France. We work closely with the French government on a lot of issues.

-- in response to a reporter who repeated Kennedy's observation that "Everyone has two countries, their own, and France," Paris, France, June 5, 2004

 

I want to thank my friend, Senator Bill Frist, for joining us today. He married a Texas girl, I want you to know.... A West Texas girl, just like me.

--Nashville, TN, May 27, 2004

 

I don't think our troops should be used for what's called nation-building.

-- spoken during a nationally televised debate, October 11, 2000.

 

 

 

And the SAD part about this is.... He IS the president of our country. True straight C student, and typical American.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply
All taken from http://www.thedubyareport.com/quotes.html

 

We've got an issue in America. Too many good docs are getting out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country.

-- Poplar Bluff, MO, September 7, 2004

 

I went to the Congress last September and proposed fundamental -- supplemental funding, which is money for armor and body parts....

-- Erie, PA, September 4, 2004

 

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.

-- speaking to top Pentagon brass, Washington, DC, August 5, 2004; reported by Reuters.

 

To paraphrase President Kennedy, there's America, and then there's Texas. We have great relations with France. We work closely with the French government on a lot of issues.

-- in response to a reporter who repeated Kennedy's observation that "Everyone has two countries, their own, and France," Paris, France, June 5, 2004

 

I want to thank my friend, Senator Bill Frist, for joining us today. He married a Texas girl, I want you to know.... A West Texas girl, just like me.

--Nashville, TN, May 27, 2004

 

I don't think our troops should be used for what's called nation-building.

-- spoken during a nationally televised debate, October 11, 2000.

 

 

 

And the SAD part about this is.... He IS the president of our country. True straight C student, and typical American.

And your point is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I beleive her point is she hates Bush.  

 

What she has done is easy enough to do to anyone who is in the public eye.

 

Anyone remember this stupid statment? "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"

 

or how about... "We could give it (tax) all back to you and hope you spend it right... But ... if you don't spend it right..."

 

Fuck him, it's my money! If they spent it right WE would not always be asked for more!!  :veryangry:

 

I won't waste any more time on this. It is easy.

 

Too bad they cannot show us why Kerry is good or better. They can only attack Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Little Danielle;

You are a good girl!

Just have a few more years of growing up to do.

What college are you a student at?

I am not a college student. I work full time. In fact, I work 2 jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I beleive her point is she hates Bush.  

 

What she has done is easy enough to do to anyone who is in the public eye.

 

Anyone remember this stupid statment? "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"

 

or how about... "We could give it (tax) all back to you and hope you spend it right... But ... if you don't spend it right..."

 

Fuck him, it's my money! If they spent it right WE would not always be asked for more!!  :veryangry:

 

I won't waste any more time on this. It is easy.

 

Too bad they cannot show us why Kerry is good or better. They can only attack Bush.

This is MY reply to the post with all Kerry's quotes.  

 

Can dish it out but you can't take it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which college are you a recent graduate of?

You stay with us on here--I like you girl!

I am not a college grad either.

 

I started college but decided that I want to go in a career path that does not require me to spend 60k to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what your saying is "BUSH BAD"

anybody else who will create jobs that pay better than wal-mart "GOOD"

You got my vote sister.

 

 

We give billions to a country that never wanted it (iraq) but we starve our own (USA). If you like your job (that no longer is here) and you like your car ( not made here) than take your bush and go live over there.

 

I WILL stand by our troops, i WILL buy AMERICAN, BUT i will not vote for someone that thinks HIS military is america - We the people are AMERICA! :veryangry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which college are you a recent graduate of?

You stay with us on here--I like you girl!

I am not a college grad either.

 

I started college but decided that I want to go in a career path that does not require me to spend 60k to work.

You will need to make at least that to live under Kerry's agenda!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want all you people that think President Bush is stupid to keep on thinking that...

On November 3, just remember, you can enjoy

FOUR MORE YEARS

FOUR MORE YEARS

FOUR MORE YEARS

FOUR MORE YEARS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hope none of you bush lovers consider your self in the middle class because guess what:

THERE WILL BE NO MORE MIDDLE CLASS IF HE GETS 4 MORE YEARS!

 

Little D you opened up a can of worms so fuck it lets go fishin its not like we'll have jobs to worry about the way rarosenow is chanting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I beleive her point is she hates Bush.  

 

What she has done is easy enough to do to anyone who is in the public eye.

 

Anyone remember this stupid statment? "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"

 

or how about... "We could give it (tax) all back to you and hope you spend it right... But ... if you don't spend it right..."

 

Fuck him, it's my money! If they spent it right WE would not always be asked for more!!  :veryangry:

 

I won't waste any more time on this. It is easy.

 

Too bad they cannot show us why Kerry is good or better. They can only attack Bush.

This is MY reply to the post with all Kerry's quotes.  

 

Can dish it out but you can't take it?

Normally a reply is within the same thread as my reply was; showing that this type of discussion proves nothing other then anyone can be shown to be a fool some of the time. And the more time you spend in the public eye the more times it will be "caught on tape".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hope none of you bush lovers consider your self in the middle class because guess what:

THERE WILL BE NO MORE MIDDLE CLASS IF HE GETS 4 MORE YEARS!

 

Little D you opened up a can of worms so fuck it lets go fishin its not like we'll have jobs to worry about the way rarosenow is chanting.

DNC Ad Says Bush Lost Manufacturing Jobs

But even Clinton lost manufacturing jobs in his second term. Economists say changing the tax code won't do much to help.

 

August 11, 2004

Modified:August 11, 2004

Summary

 

 

The Democratic National Committee released an ad Aug. 6 saying 2.7 million manufacturing jobs had been lost under Bush. That's true, but ignores the fact that manufacturing jobs started their decline three years before Bush took office.

 

The ad also says "Bush protects tax breaks favoring corporations that move their headquarters overseas" and that Kerry would "end job-killing tax loopholes." But as we've said before , "offshoring" accounts for just a small fraction of jobs that are lost, and even Democratic economists say changing the tax code won't end the overseas job drain anyway.

 

Democratic National Committee

"Believe"

 

Announcer: Millions of good jobs lost to plant closures and outsourcing.

(Video: 2.7 million manufacturing jobs lost: Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2001-2004)

Announcer: Yet President Bush protects tax breaks favoring corporations that move their headquarters overseas.

America can do better.

John Kerry's plan: End job-killing tax loopholes, and provide incentives to companies who create good jobs here. Because John Kerry believes we should export American products, not American jobs.

The Democratic National Committee is responsible for the contents of this advertisement.

 

Analysis

 

 

The Democratic National Committee ad uses the time-honored tactic of putting the opponent's worst foot forward. It's a one-sided presentation that doesn't give the full picture.

 

Job Loss Figures

 

As the announcer says "millions of good jobs lost to plant closures and outsourcing," the video shows the words "2.7 million manufacturing jobs lost."

 

That's true as far as it goes. The Bureau of Labor Statistics indeed reports that payroll jobs in the manufacturing sector went from nearly 17.1 million at the time Bush took office to just over 14.4 million in June, a decline of very nearly 2.7 million.

 

But -- as a look at the chart below will show -- US manufacturing employment was in decline for nearly three years before Bush became President. It actually declined by  544,000 between the peak reached in March, 1998 and when Clinton left office, even as the economy added nearly 7.8 million jobs in all categories during the climax of a roaring economic boom that ended a few weeks after Bush was sworn in. In fact, 238,000 of those manufacturing jobs were lost in Clinton's last six month alone, showing that the decline was well-established even before Bush had spent a day in office.

 

Manufacturing Payroll Jobs Peaked in March, 1998

 

Manufacturing%20Jobs,%201993-2004.gif

 

By choosing to highlight only manufacturing jobs, furthermore, the DNC ad ignores offsetting gains in other sectors that have been growing. A look at the bigger picture -- total payroll jobs -- shows a much less severe decline of just over 1.1 million jobs since Bush took office. The decline in manufacturing payrolls has been offset to a great degree by gains in such industries as health care, construction and government (teachers and firemen, for example.)

 

Total Payroll Jobs: The Big Picture

 

Total%20Payroll%20Jobs,%201993-2004.gif

 

At this point it seems unlikely that even total employment will return to the level of January 2001 by the time Bush's full four-year term has ended. As Democrats like to note, that would indeed make him the first president since Herbert Hoover to experience a net job loss over a full term.

 

It is also true that as of June the economy had regained nearly 1.5 million jobs since the worst point in the job slump in August 2003. Even manufacturing jobs are growing: 91,000 have been added since January.

 

Would Tax Changes Help?

 

The DNC ad says Bush "protects tax breaks favoring corporations that move their headquarters overseas." It's true that the administration's tax-policy experts have testified against a Democratic proposal aimed at stopping US companies from moving their headquarters overseas. But that proposal which actually was aimed at stopping corporate tax avoidance, not job loss.

 

The administration favored a different approach, arguing that the Democratic approach would be "unlikely to work and likely to have harmful effects the U.S. economy,’ according to House testimony  in June 2002 by Pamela Olson, who was then the Treasury Department's acting chief of tax policy. She argued that the Democratic approach would discourage businesses already headquartered overseas from doing business in the US, hurting rather then helping US employment. We won't go into the arcane details of the dueling tax proposals here, except to note that both sides professed to be for more US jobs and against offshore tax-shelter schemes.

 

The ad also says Kerry's tax plan would "end job-killing tax loopholes," a reference to the way US tax laws give US-based corporations a financial incentive to invest in other countries rather than bring their overseas profits home to be taxed. We've explained before that "offshoring" accounts for only a small fraction of lost jobs, that  tax incentives are not the major reason that US companies locate plants overseas, and that even Democratic economists predict that Kerry's tax proposal wouldn't halt the practice. For more on that see our earlier article .

 

 

Sources

 

 

 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the  Current Employment Statistics survey (National)," (seasonally adjusted figures for total nonfarm employment, and manufacturing employment) accessed 11 Aug 2004.

 

Testimony Of Pamela Olson , Acting Assistant Secretary (Tax Policy), United States Department Of The Treasury Before The House Committee On Ways And Means

On Corporate Inversion Transactions, 6 June 2002.

 

Corporate Inversions,  Hearing Before the Committee On Ways And Means, US House Of Representatives, One Hundred Seventh Congress, Second Session, 6 June 2002.

 

Melissa B. Robinson, "Bush administration opposes Democrats' plan to stop companies from moving to overseas tax havens," The Associated Press, 7 June 2002.

 

Howard Gleckman, "Sealing Off the Bermuda Triangle?; Too many corporate tax dollars are disappearing because of headquarters relocations, and Congress looks ready to act," Business Week 25 June 2002.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kerry Blames Corporate Tax Code for Shipping Jobs Overseas

But economists say "outsourcing" jobs overseas is a minor problem that Kerry's plan wouldn't do much to fix.

 

July 28, 2004

Modified:July 28, 2004

Summary

 

A Kerry ad released July 20 returns to a theme he and his Democratic allies have been pushing for months: a claim that tax incentives to locate jobs overseas is a big problem that is Bush's fault and that Kerry promises to fix.

 

Kerry's latest ad -- all positive -- paints his tax fix as the centerpiece of a plan to create jobs -- the "lifeline for America's families." The negative side, blaming Bush, has been seen earlier in ads such as a Media Fund spot first aired last March saying "Bush's policies have encouraged the loss of nearly 3 million jobs" and "he supported tax breaks for corporations that ship jobs overseas."

 

But recent Labor Department data underscore what even Democratic economists have said for some time -- outsourcing jobs overseas, or "offshoring," accounts for just a small fraction of the many millions of jobs that are lost each year even in a good economy.

 

There is indeed a tax break for US-based multinational corporations to locate operations overseas. Bush isn't to blame for it -- it's been there for decades. It's also true that Bush doesn't support Kerry's proposed remedy, which is controversial.

 

But even backers of the Kerry plan concede that eliminating the tax break won't end the offshoring of some US jobs. Multinational businesses build plants in other countries to take advantage of lower wages and to be near their global customers, too, not just for tax reasons.

 

Analysis

 

Economic analysts say offshoring is a fairly small problem, and Kerry's tax proposal won't do much to solve it.

 

Kerry Ad "Lifeline"

 

Kerry: I've proposed a new economic plan for America.  It begins by putting an end to tax incentives that are encouraging American companies to ship jobs overseas.

 

It invests in new technologies like alternative fuel sources that'll be a job engine in the future.

 

And it focuses on educating our children.

 

You can read the whole plan yourself at JohnKerry.com. Jobs aren't just statistics, they're the lifeline for America's families.

 

A Relatively Minor Problem

 

There are no official figures on the total number of jobs that have gone overseas, but in May 2004 the Labor Department made its first-ever report on the portion of "mass layoffs" attributable to "overseas relocation." Their survey showed that only 2.5 percent of major layoffs in the first three months of 2004 were a result of outsourcing abroad .

That survey only covers companies that have laid off 50 or more workers at one time for 30 days or longer, and so may not be representative of all companies and all job loss. But it gives scant support for Kerry's theme.

 

Trying to assess whether offshoring might actually be a larger problem than the Labor Department figures indicate, veteran Democratic economist Charles Schultze tried another approach. He reasoned that if America's production needs were increasingly met by foreign outsourcing (and cheap imports) this would be shown as a rise in the value of U.S. imports relative to the overall economy, as measured by Gross Domestic Product, or GDP. But what he found was that the ratio wasn't rising at all - it had leveled off since 2000. He concluded that "there is nothing in the data to suggest that large increases in. . . offshoring could have played a major role in explaining America's job performance in recent years. "    

 

He told FactCheck.org:

 

Schultze: It is clear that offshoring has had a relatively modest impact on unemployment when compared to all the other economic factors that create and destroy jobs week by week in the U.S. economy.

 

He also said that offshoring only holds down US job growth in the short run. Over time, he said it is beneficial:

 

Schultze: In the short run, an increase in offshoring reduces U.S. job growth. But in the long run it improves the standard of living, increases real wages, and increases the country's economic growth.

 

Schultze is now Senior Fellow Emeritus at the Brookings Institution, with impeccable Democratic credentials. He was President Lyndon Johnson's budget director in the 1960's, and was chairman of President Carter's Council of Economic Advisers back in the late 1970's.

 

Even backers of Kerry's proposed solution concede that the problem is relatively minor. One of those backers is Christian Weller, senior economist at the Democratic-leaning Center for American Progress. Weller acknowledges that the problem of outsourcing is not large when compared to overall levels of unemployment. He said in an article on the subject:

 

Weller: While offshoring has taken the spotlight in the national debate, estimates of the jobs lost due to this practice amount to between 300,000 and 995,000 over the last three years. Only a fraction of the jobs America has lost, but hardly insignificant.

Yet, even though offshoring accounts for a relatively small portion of U.S. unemployment, it deserves our immediate attention. For one, the pain and suffering of those who lost their jobs are real. Moreover, for those who still have jobs, offshoring has contributed to the stagnant wages and declining benefits.

 

Another assessment comes from Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the economics department at Princeton University and also a governor of the Federal Reserve. In a speech at the end of March he estimated that the total number of jobs lost to "offshoring" at roughly one percent of all jobs lost.

Bernanke estimated that over the past decade the US economy lost an overall total of about 15 million jobs each year for all reasons, while creating an average of about 17 million new jobs each year - a huge rate of "churn" as countless businesses fail or downsize while others grow or are created. Of that 15 million annual gross job loss, he said the portion due to outsourcing is quite small. Bernanke cited a 2003 study by the Wall Street firm of Goldman, Sachs & Co. that estimated outsourcing abroad had averaged between 100,000 and 167,000 jobs per year since 2000. And he said offshoring would remain a minor factor even if the figure grew larger:

 

Bernanke: Two hundred thousand jobs per year amount to a bit more than 1 percent of the 15 million gross jobs lost each year. . . for all reasons.  Quantitatively, outsourcing abroad simply cannot account for much of the recent weakness in the U.S. labor market and does not appear likely to be an important restraint to further recovery in employment.

 

The Upside to Outsourcing

 

Recent studies show that when companies move some jobs abroad the savings stimulate job creation at home. Matthew Slaughter, a Dartmouth economist, looked at foreign and domestic job growth in multinational corporations from 1991 to 2001. He found foreign affiliates of American companies added 2.9 million workers to their payrolls overseas, but at the same time those companies added 5.5 million US employees to their payrolls.

 

And a study released by the private economic consulting firm Global Insight in March looked at outsourcing in the information technology (IT) sector. It found that outsourcing generated a net gain of 90,000 jobs during 2003, in both IT and non-IT sectors.  Furthermore, the study found that the cost savings of IT outsourcing lowered inflation throughout the US economy, increased consumer spending, and "contributed significantly" to the overall growth of US GDP.  It said that by 2008, "real GDP is expected to be $124 billion higher than it would be in an environment in which offshore IT. . .outsourcing does not occur. "

 

Global Insight's research was supervised by Lawrence Klein, a Nobel Laureate and Professor Emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business.  He told FactCheck.org:

 

Klein: In the initial phases of IT offshoring there is a loss of jobs, but the overall impact on the economy will be favorable.  Because companies are paying lower costs, they have more money for investment which leads to an increased demand for labor. This does not indicate a 1-to-1 ratio of jobs gained to those lost, however the overall economy will benefit from offshoring.

 

Bernanke, the Princeton economics chairman, also said in his speech that the US gains more from "insourcing" of jobs than it loses from outsourcing. He said that in 2002, the most recent year on record, the US exported $29 billion in "business services" while importing less than $11 billion. And he said the jobs that are being gained are generally higher-paying jobs than those that are being lost.

 

Bernanke: An important reason for the U.S. trade surplus in business services is that this country provides many high-value services to users abroad, including financial, legal, engineering, architectural, and software development services , while many of the services imported by U.S. companies are less sophisticated and hence of lower cost.

 

Is It Bush's Fault?

 

Kerry is correct when he says the US tax code creates an incentive to move jobs overseas. But that's not Bush's fault, as Kerry and his supporters often say.

 

Media Fund Ad

 

"It's about Jobs"

 

Announcer: During the past three years, it's true George W. Bush has created more jobs. Unfortunately, they were created in places like China.

 

Announcer: Bush's policies have encouraged the loss of nearly 3 million jobs.

 

Announcer: He supported tax breaks for corporations that ship jobs overseas.

 

Announcer: George W. Bush is taking America in the wrong direction. It's time to make America work for every American.

 

For example, see this Media Fund ad claiming "Bush's policies encouraged the loss of nearly 3 million jobs."

 

In fact, tax experts say the incentive has been there for decades - since there has been a corporate income tax. It's not Bush's doing.

 

The incentive exists because the US taxes corporations at rates higher than most other countries. According to the Institute for International Economics, the effective rate for US corporations was just over 30% in 2002, while mainland China's effective corporate rate was only 11.3%, Britain's 18.2%, Mexico's 15.1% and Indonesia's a miniscule 0.2%.

Furthermore, the US also attempts to tax money that US-based companies earn in other countries, but only after those profits are brought back to the US. That means profits that remain overseas, perhaps invested in new factories in low-tax countries, never get taxed at the higher US rates. And that's been true through both Democratic and Republican administrations.

 

Even the Institute for International Economics, which disagrees with Kerry's tax proposal, acknowledges he is correct that the current system is unfair.  A recent report states:

 

IIE: Senator Kerry's diagnosis - that the US corporate tax system disadvantages firms that produce in the United States - is basically correct.  Moreover, US corporate tax rates are sufficiently high that some multinational corporations may be tempted to deploy strategies that book profits in low-tax jurisdictions.

 

To fix the tax problem, Kerry has come up with a proposal to tax businesses on their foreign income right away. Corporations would still get a credit for any taxes paid to other countries, as they do now, but would no longer be able to defer the US taxes indefinitely.

 

At the same time, Kerry would cut the corporate tax rate by 1.75 percentage points, to a top corporate rate of 33.25 percent. He also would offer a one-year "tax holiday" to businesses that repatriate earnings that have been parked overseas for years, avoiding all US taxes. And he would offer a tax credit to companies when their US hiring exceeds previous levels.

 

It's complicated and controversial. Kerry's plan wouldn't impose US taxes on income earned by producing and selling goods in another country. Len Burman, a former Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary for Tax Analysis, told the Washington Post that this will almost certainly be "extremely complicated" to enforce. It could also encourage gamesmanship, should businesses try to avoid US taxes by selling their goods to foreign wholesalers, who can then export back to the U.S. or other countries, thereby avoiding US taxes on the profits from those sales.

The Bush administration doesn't support Kerry's plan. To that extent there is a genuine issue here. Bush supports a measure that would give US-based multinationals a larger tax credit on their overseas income. Democrats argue that idea would only increase the incentive to move jobs overseas; the Bush administration argues that it would help US firms compete globally with foreign firms that avoid US taxes altogether.

 

Would Kerry's Plan Fix Offshoring?

 

Whether Kerry's plan would have much impact on the movement of jobs abroad is debatable, to say the least. It is impossible to measure exactly how much the tax code exacerbates global outsourcing. Companies argue the main reasons they locate plants in other countries are lower wages and proximity to foreign markets, not taxes.

 

Even supporters of the Kerry plan concede that tax breaks aren't the main reason for offshoring. Christian Weller told the Cleveland Plain Dealer :

 

Weller: There are so many things that go into companies' decisions to move jobs overseas . . . I think taxes are a very small part."

 

Others agree. David Wyss, chief economist for Standard & Poor's, was quoted by The Associated Press :

 

Wyss: The tax deferral is a very minor reason for why companies move jobs overseas.

 

Critics of Kerry's plan see some big drawbacks. The IIE analysis calls it "misguided" and says it could be a boon to foreign-based multinational corporations as they compete globally with US-based companies. Japan-based Toshiba could produce products in India or China and ship them to the US or other countries without having to pay the higher US taxes that the Kerry plan would impose on IBM or Texas Instruments, for example.

 

Kerry's proposal may be worth considering anyway -- that's a matter of opinion. A supporter of the proposal,  Bob McIntyre of Citizens for Tax Justice, told the Washington Post that, as a company,  "you may go to India or China or Ireland for the wage differentials -- there's nothing we can do about that. But we don't have to pay you to go there."

 

Still, there's little reason to believe that Kerry's plan would end offshoring, or have more than a minor impact on net job growth in the US.

 

 

Sources

 

 

 

"Extended Mass Layoffs Associated With Domestic and Overseas Relocation, First Quarter 2004 Summary," Bureau of Labor Statistics, 10 June 2004.

 

Charles L. Schultze, "Offshoring, Import Competition, and the Jobless Recovery," Brookings Institution, 22 June 2004

 

Charles L. Schultze, interview with author, 26 July 2004.

 

Christian E. Weller, "On Offshoring, Perceptions Matter," Center for American Progress website, 21 May 2004.

 

Ben S. Bernanke, Remarks at Duke University, 30 March 2004.

 

Matthew J. Slaughter, "Globalization and Employment by US Multinationals: A Framework and Facts," Daily Tax Report 58, BNA,Inc. 26 March 2004.

 

"The Comprehensive Impact of Offshore IT Software and Services Outsourcing on the U.S. Economy and the IT Industry," Global Insight (USA), Inc. March 2004.

 

Lawrence R. Klein, interview from 24 June 2004.

 

"Senator Kerry on Corporate Tax Reform: Right Diagnosis, Wrong Prescription," Institute for International Economics, International Economic Policy Briefs, April 2004.

 

Johnathan Weisman, "U.S. Firms Keep Billions Overseas; Kerry's Plan Spotlights Huge Untaxed Earnings," Washington Post, 2 April 2004: A01.

 

John D. McKinnon, "U.S. Overseas Tax Is Blasted," Wall Street Journal, 5 May 2004: A4.

 

Elizabeth Auster, "Is Kerry's Plan for Employment up to the Job?" Plain Dealer, 11 April 2004: H1.

 

Martin Crutsinger, "Kerry Reveals Plan to Keep Jobs in U.S.," Associated Press, 26 March 2004.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which college are you a recent graduate of?

You stay with us on here--I like you girl!

I am not a college grad either.

 

I started college but decided that I want to go in a career path that does not require me to spend 60k to work.

60K for an education is too much? But you work two jobs? I see, pay more taxes and have no life, good plan. Man, those democrats really got things figured out don't they! Real experts when it comes to calling someone dumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why we are losing jobs.... Why we have to pay so much of OUR FUCKING MONEY in taxes... And no matter which of these assholes you vote for it is going to happen. Just a little bit quicker with Kerry.

 

Illegal immigrants said to cost US $10 billion a year

 

REUTERS

26.08.2004 11.34 am

 

WASHINGTON - Illegal immigrants to the United States cost the federal government over $10 billion a year, but that figure would increase almost threefold if they were granted legal status, according to a study released on Wednesday.

 

The study by the Centre for Immigration Studies, a Washington think tank which advocates slowing legal immigration and clamping down on illegal migration, measured the amount of revenue illegal immigrants provide through taxes against the government services they and their families consume.

 

There are an estimated 10 million illegal aliens in the United States.

 

"Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of $10.4 billion, or $2700 per illegal household," Steve Camarota, author of the report.

 

These costs, derived from Census Bureau figures, include Medicaid, which provides medical insurance for the poor, other emergency medical treatment, food assistance programmes and the federal prison system, where roughly 17 per cent of inmates are illegal immigrants.

 

They did not include costs to local and state governments which would push the deficit much higher, Camarota said.

 

Earlier this year, President George W. Bush proposed a guest worker programme that would allow some of the nation's illegal aliens to acquire legal guest worker status. Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has proposed granting an amnesty for most illegal immigrants who have been in the United States for at least five years.

 

But the report said legalising illegal aliens would vastly increase their costs. More would pay taxes but because the majority are poor and hold low-paying jobs, this would be vastly outweighed by the increased government welfare services they would consume.

 

Camarota said the only effective way to lighten the fiscal burden was to enforce immigration laws by stepping up border patrols and reducing the number of illegal aliens in the country. At the moment, laws barring the hiring of illegal immigrants are almost totally ignored.

 

Katherine Culliton of the Mexican American Legal Defence and Educational Fund said major sectors of the US economy, including agriculture, restaurants, construction, services and health care, would collapse without the labour provided by illegal immigrants.

 

"The US workforce is aging and we are going to need more and more immigrant labour to keep our economy going. What we need to do is reform the immigration system to bring them out of the legal shadows," she said.

 

Other immigration advocates criticised the report for ignoring the human side of the equation and failing to suggest any constructive solutions.

 

"Our legal immigration system is broken. Family members have to wait years to gain legal entry to this country to be reunited. It can take 10 years to get a legal visa for a spouse," said Michele Waslin, a senior analyst for the National Council of La Raza, a major Hispanic organisation.

 

"We need comprehensive legal immigration, which includes legalising undocumented immigrants who can prove they are law abiding and pay their taxes," Waslin said.

 

Georgetown University immigration expert Lindsay Lowell said US immigration law had helped create an underprivileged underclass of low income workers that helped employers but imposed substantial costs on the rest of society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last resort, You do put out alot of very good facts BUT the bottom line was the first part of the last part and I quote

" no matter which of these assholes you vote for it is going to happen."

 

 

Well said my brother, Well said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I rarely get into this debate, but I did have a very personal stake in this matter up until a few years ago.

 

My father was a wonderful pediatrician.  He put himself through college and graduated from Hopkins in his junior year in order to take advantage of his early acceptance to Loyola's School of Medicine in Chicago.  He worked road crew jobs as well as attended all his classes while raising me and taking care of my mother.  (Trust me, I am getting to the point).  He served during the Vietnam war in the Navy in Maryland.  Three more children later, my father gambled everything he had and moved us Indiana, a state that allowed private practices to operate outside hospitals.

 

He had a successful career.  I measure that success by the fact that in his 30+ years of medicine, he had not a single child die in his arms, he took care of the children of children he took care of, and he never had a single malpractice suit filed agianst him.  We received over 5000 cards from the familes of the children he helped bring through this world at his retirement party.  Doctors, lawyers, police officers, teachers, farmers, clergy...all walks of life were his "children".

 

The saddest years of his life were the last three his practice was open.  As a matter of fact, it cost him money to maintain his practice, but he did so because of his love of his patients, and in his own words, he couldn't find anyone else he trusted to take care of them.

 

His practice was a family affair.  My mother worked the front office and books.  He took care of the kids.  Our photos and those of his patients decorated the walls of all the examination rooms.  His patients were so loyal that as insurance coverages changed, they would work payment plans with him just to keep their children under his care.  And he worked with them.

 

What turned this practice around and forced my father into early retirement were the federal changes in the government under President Clinton.  In theory, you may think they were design to help you.  In practice, that was rarely the case.  

 

My father had his own lab in his office.  Under the changes in federal law, all lab work had to be done inside hospitals and under insurance guidelines.  While this doesn't sound like much, consider this: your child is ill.  You take them to a doctor who runs a throat culture for possible strep throat.  In my father's practice, the culture was processed that day and the following, my father checked the culture and would contact you that day to let you know of your child was ill or not.  One person...one job...very efficient.

 

Under Clinton, the dish was to be sent to a lab.  A courier had to be hired.  It was checked into the lab on day one by a technician.  On day two, another technician would process the culture.  On day three, the culture would be examined and notice written.  On day four, another courier would deliver the culture and results to my father so he could call you.  

 

Under Clinton, your child has possibly been sick for four days and has not only spread the disease, but also possibly complicated their recovery.

 

While this was suppossed to help eliminate costs and lower health care costs, in practice, it did not.  While you may draw the conclussion that more people were employeed under Clinton in this service, I put it to you that more of those people could have become doctors and nurses, rather than technicians, and done more good in their practices.  More people in the process also expands the percentage of failure and mistakes.  Technicians, not doctors, are left reading patient records and cultures.

 

For all the pandering and debating going on here, there's a story on each side of the fence.  As a democrat supporting Kerry who wishes to raise the taxes on anyone making $200k or better each year, would you honestly feel right asking my father to give more than he already has simply because an arbitrary line in the sand has been drawn by a politician?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All taken from http://www.thedubyareport.com/quotes.html

 

We've got an issue in America. Too many good docs are getting out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country.

-- Poplar Bluff, MO, September 7, 2004

 

I went to the Congress last September and proposed fundamental -- supplemental funding, which is money for armor and body parts....

-- Erie, PA, September 4, 2004

 

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.

-- speaking to top Pentagon brass, Washington, DC, August 5, 2004; reported by Reuters.

 

To paraphrase President Kennedy, there's America, and then there's Texas. We have great relations with France. We work closely with the French government on a lot of issues.

-- in response to a reporter who repeated Kennedy's observation that "Everyone has two countries, their own, and France," Paris, France, June 5, 2004

 

I want to thank my friend, Senator Bill Frist, for joining us today. He married a Texas girl, I want you to know.... A West Texas girl, just like me.

--Nashville, TN, May 27, 2004

 

I don't think our troops should be used for what's called nation-building.

-- spoken during a nationally televised debate, October 11, 2000.

 

 

 

And the SAD part about this is.... He IS the president of our country. True straight C student, and typical American.

I dont pay attention to what a woman or women in general  have to say unless its something along the lines of; " would you like me to cook you something" or "take me to bed" etc:.

So if littleDanielle wants to open her mouth she can but only to put one of these in it.

   :bthumb:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:shocked: Dear Lord God...bless us all.It's so damned painful  for me to add to this,knowing how much pain we're enduring as brothers and sisters.

My perspective is that the influence by big business and the multinational corporations on congress over the years,has now born the bitter fruit we're all forced to eat.Who's finger can point to the source of the problem when we are all a part of it as people needing jobs to provide for our families.

My point is this...the rich don't need jobs or tax breaks or affordable health insurance or low mortgage interest rates.They don't care about this shit...they use their money and influence to gain power and control within government to gain as much as they want unless some one calls their game... then THAT person becomes the BAD GUY who needs to be destroyed and discredited .. in the name of freedom to attain the American dream.SHIT....

Now,the real power to do this stuff lies in the congress where money and control are their bread and butter.With both the Congress and Presidency in the pocket of the vested interests of big business...and yes folks it's a fact...the Republican party,which also had a firm grip through Clinton's era,I for one can understand how this picture is put together...what to do about it is the REAL question.

Where do we go from here..?

Bin laden is still loose.We're on the verge of having created a civil war in Iraq,where we now HAVE TO either level everything in the landscape or get the hell out...and Bin laden is still out there.Either presidential candidate is faced with this.

Less ego,more time spent in thought before action is what I'm looking for.I'm retired after 29 years in state govt ,as a grunt who asked questions early in my work.I found that people get promoted by NOT asking questions,so I stayed a grunt got a masters degree as a teacher to improve my skills...and stayed a grunt.I'm proud of it.I found the people at the top in govt got there by doing things with their political cronies that were clever...not honest.Let's not beat each other up, but instead scrutinize every politician objectively as best we can.Most of our country's presidents coming from a miltary carreer ..Washington,Jackson,Grant,TR,Ike,Kennedy...UNDERSTOOD the military option creates many unforseen problems.

Let's start asking more question of all our politicians with an open mind.

Will Rogers said it best in the 30's..."Every four years ,the American people like to be surprised....so they go and vote for a president"...

 

 

RIDE SAFE....LIVE LONG :cppl1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want all you people that think President Bush is stupid to keep on thinking that...

On November 3, just remember, you can enjoy

FOUR MORE YEARS

FOUR MORE YEARS

FOUR MORE YEARS

FOUR MORE YEARS

Ya, maybe when HELL freezes over!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which college are you a recent graduate of?

You stay with us on here--I like you girl!

I am not a college grad either.

 

I started college but decided that I want to go in a career path that does not require me to spend 60k to work.

60K for an education is too much? But you work two jobs? I see, pay more taxes and have no life, good plan. Man, those democrats really got things figured out don't they! Real experts when it comes to calling someone dumb.

LOL!  This coming from a man who calls himself DRUNK leon??

 

I am sorry, I do not have 60K and I make more than ANY 19 year old that I know.

 

I mean, if you want to give me 60K for school I would go, but I am not going to spend money that I do not have on something that I can live without.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...