John Kerry is so compassionate

[Whoha]

by weeding out the stuff you don't do, his statement was one of support for protectionism(i editted the above post)

"He also pledged “to keep car manufacturing jobs in the country” if elected."

The two positions do seem to clash. We can't build cars as well as the Japanese,etc we should drop the quotas and let them destroy that industry according to statement #2, statement #1 conflicts with that.

[Whoha]

Furthermore, he singles out one industry for protectionism, as per the article "a free trader believes that the overall benefit surpasses the effect on one industry".

Do you believe that jobs that we do "inefficiently" should stay here?

[Whoha]

and finally I want to appologize for the "if you say so" I didn't mean the part about jobs, I mean about the flip-flop.

[Imran Siddiqui]

"He also pledged “to keep car manufacturing jobs in the country” if elected."

But did he say HOW! THAT is the important thing. Anyone can say they pledge to keep X jobs in the country, but unless they tell you a plan how to do it, then you can't say it is protectionist. Perhaps he is saying he wants to keep those jobs in the country by given those employer tax breaks if they don't move, which isn't anti-free trade.

Do you believe that jobs that we do "inefficiently" should stay here?

Personally? No... but I'll never run for office (if I do and I said that I'd be dead in the water )

[Giancarlo]

Kerry doesn't really have an economic plan.

[Whoha]

trust me, whatever he does to keep jobs here will be ruled "against the spirit of free trade" by china,india,etc via the wto :P

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Kerry doesn't really have an economic plan.

He actually has 8 or 9 different contradictory plans.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Whoha


He actually has 8 or 9 different contradictory plans.

Oh yeah.. I was mistakened.... he changes between them when convenient.

[Tiamat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Just a general high five, Tia. What DF fails to understand is that employers and employees both want unemployment insurance. If he opposes this type of insurance, why doesn't he oppose all types of insurance?

I'm sure if you give him a minute he will think of some reason to oppose insurance. It's not like it's a welfare check. You work, you pay into it, you use it if you need.

[Imran Siddiqui]

trust me, whatever he does to keep jobs here will be ruled "against the spirit of free trade" by china,india,etc via the wto :P

Yeah, yeah, yeah... tax cuts to business that stay won't be too highly protested, because other countries do similar things (subsidies, etc). It isn't impacting free trade, since there wouldn't be any raising of tariffs or the free flow of goods.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by The diplomat


Just look in the article, he blames republicans naturally. He claims that his vote would have been meaningless because republicans were going to make the bill fail no matter what. Note that this is clearly not true, because if Kerry had voted for it, it would have gotten the 60 votes needed to pass.

Well, since the vote was 59-40, obviously some Republicans voted for it. The Republicans have the majority, and let's assume at random they have a bit of discipline in the party. They can let a few Republicans (in states with high unemployment, or up for reelection) vote for the bill, without actually passing it. That gives those Republicans the ability to play it both ways - vote for something they know will lose, and work the audiences.

Kerry either (a) continues to campaign, and the vote is managed so that he can be "blamed" for a majority orchestrated one-vote defeat, or (b) Kerry pulls off the campaign, goes back to Washington, votes, and all it takes is one more Republican to vote "No" to make it 59-41.

Does anyone really think party line votes happen at random, because everyone within a particular party thinks the same, no matter? And that the leadership of the two parties don't do anything?

A 59-40 vote when 60 are needed and one party controls a majority of the Senate, but not 59 members (and the majority of the controlling party are on the "losing" side) is just a bit too fishy not to smell from a long ways away.

Yep, politics as usual, but Kerry is far from the only one playing.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Well, since the vote was 59-40, obviously some Republicans voted for it. The Republicans have the majority, and let's assume at random they have a bit of discipline in the party. They can let a few Republicans (in states with high unemployment, or up for reelection) vote for the bill, without actually passing it. That gives those Republicans the ability to play it both ways - vote for something they know will lose, and work the audiences.

Kerry either (a) continues to campaign, and the vote is managed so that he can be "blamed" for a majority orchestrated one-vote defeat, or (b) Kerry pulls off the campaign, goes back to Washington, votes, and all it takes is one more Republican to vote "No" to make it 59-41.

Does anyone really think party line votes happen at random, because everyone within a particular party thinks the same, no matter? And that the leadership of the two parties don't do anything?

A 59-40 vote when 60 are needed and one party controls a majority of the Senate, but not 59 members (and the majority of the controlling party are on the "losing" side) is just a bit too fishy not to smell from a long ways away.

Yep, politics as usual, but Kerry is far from the only one playing.

You really think that the republicans engineered the vote to be one vote shy of 60 deliberately? All you would need is to have one republican change his mind and vote for it, and this "scheme" would fail.

Regardless, Kerry would have been better off politically to vote for it, so as to at least be able to tout that he voted even if the bill did not pass, than to lament that unemployed are not getting their benefits when he did not even bother to vote at all.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by David Floyd
My main problem with unemployment is not the existence of the program - well, it is, but that's a separate issue. My main issue is that the state transfers the cost, in many cases, to the former employer.

Now, if the state wants to hand money out, fine - I disagree, obviously, but I'm being taxed either way. But that's the state's problem, not the business's problem. If a business fires someone for, for example, refusing to work on Sunday because of religious beliefs, the State cannot refuse to pay out unemployment (Supreme Court decision, can't recall case citation). If the State pays unemployment, then most likely the employer will pay as well.

But wait a minute. If it didn't fit the employer's business needs to employ a person who couldn't work on Sunday, why should they have to pay to fire that person? Doesn't quite seem fair that business needs can be subordinated to personal religious beliefs, now does it?

In any case, I have a final exam to take so I've gotta run, but I'd be (marginally) satisfied if employers were not forced to pay out unemployment compensation. If the state wants to, that's the states business, but don't raise taxes or get money from the employer in order to do so.

Having been an employer, and being in business for a while, let me impart a little info. A dollar spent is a dollar spent, who gives a **** where? Assume that you do all the same things, as far as selling product and controlling costs, etc., whether that dollar is postage, wages, or unemployment, it's still a dollar of expense. The only relevance is whether it's a necessary expense, and whether you get a net benefit from it.

Unemployment insurance is cheap, unless you turn over employees all the time. The worst it can cost in most states is 6.2% of gross wages, and that's if you can everyone who ever works for you before they earn $7,000 a year, and you do that for a few years. For most employers with normal salary range employees, it's a fraction of a percent of annual wage costs.

The downside, if you didn't have it, would be that you'd have to pay more in wages, (especially if you have high turnover or seasonal employment) because employees in general would be more concerned with getting more money out of you when they were working, rather than rationalizing that they have unemployment to fall back on. Same thing when things get tough for a company - if employees start thinking they'll be out in the cold, they'll move to other jobs quicker than they would otherwise. Unemployment insurance helps stabilize the job market, and that benefits both employers and employees.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
His wife is even more compassionate...

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/politics/AP-Heinz-Kerry-Finances.html?ex=1085025600&en=204ff9c6074ef1ec&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1

"LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) -- Teresa Heinz Kerry, responding to repeated calls that she disclose information about her private fortune, said Tuesday she earned more than $5 million last year and has paid about $750,000 toward income taxes, according to her husband's presidential campaign."

She paid 15%. My family earns less than a tenth of what she does, and we paid ~40%.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Jaguar

She paid 15%. My family earns less than a tenth of what she does, and we paid ~40%.

You need better accountants. If you're making a little under 500,000 a year (10%), don't ***** about your taxes. You're like that fat guy *****ing that his seven course meal was a course short.