Discussion:
Poverty in the U.S. climbs for third year
(too old to reply)
Ron
2004-08-28 04:30:57 UTC
Permalink
Poverty in the U.S. climbs for third year
Brian Knowlton/IHT IHT
Friday, August 27, 2004


WASHINGTON The U.S. poverty rate and the number of Americans without health insurance rose
last year, each for the third consecutive year, the Census Bureau reported Thursday. The
figures, which the administration released a month earlier than usual, quickly became the
focus of a partisan debate.

"Under George Bush's watch," said Senator John Kerry, referring to the new data,
"America's families are falling further behind." The report said that the number of
Americans in poverty rose from 12.1 percent in 2002 to 12.5 percent a year later, totaling
35.8 million people, and that the number of uninsured Americans rose during the same
period by 1.4 million, to 45 million, or 15.6 percent of the population.

Median household income remained basically flat, at $43,318 when adjusted for inflation,
ending a two-year decline.

The numbers were not unexpected, and do not reflect the economic growth of the past
several months, which has created hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Dan Weinberg, a Census Bureau analyst, said that the data was typical for a post-recession
economy, but that the numbers of the uninsured reflected continued uncertainty over
employment. Employers, who have cited the high costs of providing health insurance as a
reason to hire conservatively, are also offering less generous benefit plans.

The poverty rate was the highest since 1998, when it reached 12.7 percent. The Census
Bureau places the poverty threshold for a family of four at $18,810.

The Census Bureau noted that while the overall poverty rate was up from 2002, it remained
below the average of the 1980s and 1990s.

Still, the new data comes amid a close election campaign in which debate over economic
health and fairness loom large.

For campaign advisers to Kerry, who have been striving to turn attention away from a
bitter controversy over his Vietnam War record and toward the economic issues, the new
numbers were a welcome gift. Kerry, the Democratic nominee, wasted no time seizing on the
Census report as evidence to bolster his critiques of administration economic and health
care policies.

The new figures mean that "five million Americans over five years have lost their health
insurance," Kerry told an audience of supporters and undecided voters in Anoka, Minnesota.
"About 45 million Americans go to bed every night worried."

A Kerry campaign statement called on Bush to debate the senator "once a week between now
and the end of the campaign, so that the issues that really matter to the American people
- like the number of uninsured and people living in poverty - can be front and center in
this election."

The debate proposal was of a sort often made by presidential challengers, but rarely
agreed to by incumbents, who are generally thought to have more to lose in debates. For
now, the candidates are expected to have three debates, on Sept. 30, Oct. 8 and Oct. 13.

Bush, giving a fairly standard stump speech Thursday during an appearance in Las Cruces,
New Mexico, did not specifically address the Census numbers.

"We have more to do to make this economy stronger," he said, mentioning, as he often does,
the economic shocks of recent years, from recession to terrorist attacks and corporate
scandals. The president, as he also does, credited American workers and entrepreneurs, as
well as his own "well-timed tax cuts," for moving the country beyond the worst economic
woes.

But there was immediate dispute over the Census report.

Some Republicans noted that even as the number of uninsured Americans grew by 1.4 million,
the number of insured did as well, by 1 million. Bush's health and human services
secretary, Tommy Thompson, said that Bush was working to reduce health insurance costs to
businesses.

Some Democrats saw political manipulation in the fact that the administration issued the
new numbers a month before their usual release in late September. But Louis Kincannon, the
Census director and a Bush appointee, said that the earlier release was intended to
coordinate better with other reports. It came, he said, without "influence or pressure"
from the Bush campaign.

International Herald Tribune



Copyright © 2004 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com
Hanoi Jane Fonda
2004-08-28 05:20:56 UTC
Permalink
LEFT WING PROBLEMS!


Mechanical Problem Found on Air Force One

Mon Jul 12, 6:05 PM

OAK RIDGE, Tenn. - A left-wing conspiracy? On Monday, a flap on the
wing of Air Force One left its track, forcing President Bush (news -
web sites) to return from Oak Ridge, Tenn., in a smaller presidential
plane, a Boeing 757 rather than the 747 he arrived in.

Just over a week earlier, on the Fourth of July, a problem with an
engine starter valve on the wing of his plane - this time a 757 -
delayed Bush's departure from Hagerstown, Md. Another plane from the
presidential fleet was flown in from Andrews Air Force Base to take
him on to West Virginia.

Two different planes. Two different wings. Both times they were left
wings.

The plane troubles for the Republican president apparently were just a
coincidence. And the White House said neither malfunction endangered
Bush.

"One of the flaps on the wing was off its track and they thought it
was best to have a 757 fly down from Andrews," White House press
secretary Scott McClellan said Monday.

The replacement plane arrived moments before Bush's motorcade rolled
onto the tarmac at McGhee-Air National Guard Base near Oak Ridge. The
crew hustled to transfer lunch - pita bread filled with chicken salad
- onto the substitute aircraft as the hobbled larger Air Force One
taxied down the runway to be repaired.
Gaza
2004-08-28 13:59:04 UTC
Permalink
You seem to have remarkable difficulty following a thread.
I have changed the thread back and have cut the crap you posted since
nothing in it was in any way relevant.

Poverty in the U.S. climbs for third year
Brian Knowlton/IHT IHT
Friday, August 27, 2004


WASHINGTON The U.S. poverty rate and the number of Americans without health
insurance rose
last year, each for the third consecutive year, the Census Bureau reported
Thursday. The
figures, which the administration released a month earlier than usual,
quickly became the
focus of a partisan debate.

"Under George Bush's watch," said Senator John Kerry, referring to the new
data,
"America's families are falling further behind." The report said that the
number of
Americans in poverty rose from 12.1 percent in 2002 to 12.5 percent a year
later, totaling
35.8 million people, and that the number of uninsured Americans rose during
the same
period by 1.4 million, to 45 million, or 15.6 percent of the population.

Median household income remained basically flat, at $43,318 when adjusted
for inflation,
ending a two-year decline.

The numbers were not unexpected, and do not reflect the economic growth of
the past
several months, which has created hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Dan Weinberg, a Census Bureau analyst, said that the data was typical for a
post-recession
economy, but that the numbers of the uninsured reflected continued
uncertainty over
employment. Employers, who have cited the high costs of providing health
insurance as a
reason to hire conservatively, are also offering less generous benefit
plans.

The poverty rate was the highest since 1998, when it reached 12.7 percent.
The Census
Bureau places the poverty threshold for a family of four at $18,810.

The Census Bureau noted that while the overall poverty rate was up from
2002, it remained
below the average of the 1980s and 1990s.

Still, the new data comes amid a close election campaign in which debate
over economic
health and fairness loom large.

For campaign advisers to Kerry, who have been striving to turn attention
away from a
bitter controversy over his Vietnam War record and toward the economic
issues, the new
numbers were a welcome gift. Kerry, the Democratic nominee, wasted no time
seizing on the
Census report as evidence to bolster his critiques of administration
economic and health
care policies.

The new figures mean that "five million Americans over five years have lost
their health
insurance," Kerry told an audience of supporters and undecided voters in
Anoka, Minnesota.
"About 45 million Americans go to bed every night worried."

A Kerry campaign statement called on Bush to debate the senator "once a week
between now
and the end of the campaign, so that the issues that really matter to the
American people
- like the number of uninsured and people living in poverty - can be front
and center in
this election."

The debate proposal was of a sort often made by presidential challengers,
but rarely
agreed to by incumbents, who are generally thought to have more to lose in
debates. For
now, the candidates are expected to have three debates, on Sept. 30, Oct. 8
and Oct. 13.

Bush, giving a fairly standard stump speech Thursday during an appearance in
Las Cruces,
New Mexico, did not specifically address the Census numbers.

"We have more to do to make this economy stronger," he said, mentioning, as
he often does,
the economic shocks of recent years, from recession to terrorist attacks and
corporate
scandals. The president, as he also does, credited American workers and
entrepreneurs, as
well as his own "well-timed tax cuts," for moving the country beyond the
worst economic
woes.

But there was immediate dispute over the Census report.

Some Republicans noted that even as the number of uninsured Americans grew
by 1.4 million,
the number of insured did as well, by 1 million. Bush's health and human
services
secretary, Tommy Thompson, said that Bush was working to reduce health
insurance costs to
businesses.

Some Democrats saw political manipulation in the fact that the
administration issued the
new numbers a month before their usual release in late September. But Louis
Kincannon, the
Census director and a Bush appointee, said that the earlier release was
intended to
coordinate better with other reports. It came, he said, without "influence
or pressure"
from the Bush campaign.

International Herald Tribune



Copyright © 2004 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com
Marcello
2004-10-02 18:58:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gaza
You seem to have remarkable difficulty following a thread.
I have changed the thread back and have cut the crap you posted since
nothing in it was in any way relevant.
Poverty in the U.S. climbs for third year
Brian Knowlton/IHT IHT
Friday, August 27, 2004
WASHINGTON The U.S. poverty rate and the number of Americans without health
insurance rose
last year, each for the third consecutive year, the Census Bureau reported Thursday. The
figures, which the administration released a month earlier than usual, quickly became the
focus of a partisan debate.
"Under George Bush's watch," said Senator John Kerry, referring to the new data,
"America's families are falling further behind." The report said that the number of
Americans in poverty rose from 12.1 percent in 2002 to 12.5 percent a year later, totaling
35.8 million people, and that the number of uninsured Americans rose during
the same
period by 1.4 million, to 45 million, or 15.6 percent of the population.
Median household income remained basically flat, at $43,318 when adjusted for inflation,
ending a two-year decline.
The numbers were not unexpected, and do not reflect the economic growth of the past
several months, which has created hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Dan Weinberg, a Census Bureau analyst, said that the data was typical for a
post-recession
economy, but that the numbers of the uninsured reflected continued uncertainty over
employment. Employers, who have cited the high costs of providing health insurance as a
reason to hire conservatively, are also offering less generous benefit plans.
The poverty rate was the highest since 1998, when it reached 12.7 percent. The Census
Bureau places the poverty threshold for a family of four at $18,810.
The Census Bureau noted that while the overall poverty rate was up from 2002, it remained
below the average of the 1980s and 1990s.
Still, the new data comes amid a close election campaign in which debate over economic
health and fairness loom large.
For campaign advisers to Kerry, who have been striving to turn attention away from a
bitter controversy over his Vietnam War record and toward the economic issues, the new
numbers were a welcome gift. Kerry, the Democratic nominee, wasted no time seizing on the
Census report as evidence to bolster his critiques of administration economic and health
care policies.
The new figures mean that "five million Americans over five years have lost
their health
insurance," Kerry told an audience of supporters and undecided voters in Anoka, Minnesota.
"About 45 million Americans go to bed every night worried."
A Kerry campaign statement called on Bush to debate the senator "once a week
between now
and the end of the campaign, so that the issues that really matter to the American people
- like the number of uninsured and people living in poverty - can be front and center in
this election."
The debate proposal was of a sort often made by presidential challengers, but rarely
agreed to by incumbents, who are generally thought to have more to lose in debates. For
now, the candidates are expected to have three debates, on Sept. 30, Oct. 8
and Oct. 13.
Bush, giving a fairly standard stump speech Thursday during an appearance in
Las Cruces,
New Mexico, did not specifically address the Census numbers.
"We have more to do to make this economy stronger," he said, mentioning, as
he often does,
the economic shocks of recent years, from recession to terrorist attacks and
corporate
scandals. The president, as he also does, credited American workers and entrepreneurs, as
well as his own "well-timed tax cuts," for moving the country beyond the worst economic
woes.
But there was immediate dispute over the Census report.
Some Republicans noted that even as the number of uninsured Americans grew by 1.4 million,
the number of insured did as well, by 1 million. Bush's health and human services
secretary, Tommy Thompson, said that Bush was working to reduce health insurance costs to
businesses.
Some Democrats saw political manipulation in the fact that the
administration issued the
new numbers a month before their usual release in late September. But Louis
Kincannon, the
Census director and a Bush appointee, said that the earlier release was intended to
coordinate better with other reports. It came, he said, without "influence or pressure"
from the Bush campaign.
International Herald Tribune
Exactly what policy of Kerry's is intended to solve the above mentioned
problems?
W. D. Allen Sr.
2004-10-02 19:07:57 UTC
Permalink
Poverty in the USA is solely a bureaucratic convention.

The USA has the richest "poor" people in the world. A new car, color TV,
Gameboys for the kids, etc.

So why give a shit whether those same kids can to read and write so long as
they can live off state and federal handouts until they learn to deal drugs
or slam dunk a basketball?

At least we quit paying women to have illegitimate babies provided there was
no husband in the house.

Just one more artifice of the "Liberal Plantation"

end
Post by Marcello
Post by Gaza
You seem to have remarkable difficulty following a thread.
I have changed the thread back and have cut the crap you posted since
nothing in it was in any way relevant.
Poverty in the U.S. climbs for third year
Brian Knowlton/IHT IHT
Friday, August 27, 2004
WASHINGTON The U.S. poverty rate and the number of Americans without health
insurance rose
last year, each for the third consecutive year, the Census Bureau reported
Thursday. The
figures, which the administration released a month earlier than usual, quickly became the
focus of a partisan debate.
"Under George Bush's watch," said Senator John Kerry, referring to the new
data,
"America's families are falling further behind." The report said that the number of
Americans in poverty rose from 12.1 percent in 2002 to 12.5 percent a year
later, totaling
35.8 million people, and that the number of uninsured Americans rose during
the same
period by 1.4 million, to 45 million, or 15.6 percent of the population.
Median household income remained basically flat, at $43,318 when adjusted for inflation,
ending a two-year decline.
The numbers were not unexpected, and do not reflect the economic growth of
the past
several months, which has created hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Dan Weinberg, a Census Bureau analyst, said that the data was typical for a
post-recession
economy, but that the numbers of the uninsured reflected continued uncertainty over
employment. Employers, who have cited the high costs of providing health insurance as a
reason to hire conservatively, are also offering less generous benefit plans.
The poverty rate was the highest since 1998, when it reached 12.7 percent.
The Census
Bureau places the poverty threshold for a family of four at $18,810.
The Census Bureau noted that while the overall poverty rate was up from 2002, it remained
below the average of the 1980s and 1990s.
Still, the new data comes amid a close election campaign in which debate over economic
health and fairness loom large.
For campaign advisers to Kerry, who have been striving to turn attention away from a
bitter controversy over his Vietnam War record and toward the economic issues, the new
numbers were a welcome gift. Kerry, the Democratic nominee, wasted no time
seizing on the
Census report as evidence to bolster his critiques of administration economic and health
care policies.
The new figures mean that "five million Americans over five years have lost
their health
insurance," Kerry told an audience of supporters and undecided voters in
Anoka, Minnesota.
"About 45 million Americans go to bed every night worried."
A Kerry campaign statement called on Bush to debate the senator "once a week
between now
and the end of the campaign, so that the issues that really matter to the American people
- like the number of uninsured and people living in poverty - can be front
and center in
this election."
The debate proposal was of a sort often made by presidential challengers, but rarely
agreed to by incumbents, who are generally thought to have more to lose in
debates. For
now, the candidates are expected to have three debates, on Sept. 30, Oct. 8
and Oct. 13.
Bush, giving a fairly standard stump speech Thursday during an appearance in
Las Cruces,
New Mexico, did not specifically address the Census numbers.
"We have more to do to make this economy stronger," he said, mentioning, as
he often does,
the economic shocks of recent years, from recession to terrorist attacks and
corporate
scandals. The president, as he also does, credited American workers and entrepreneurs, as
well as his own "well-timed tax cuts," for moving the country beyond the worst economic
woes.
But there was immediate dispute over the Census report.
Some Republicans noted that even as the number of uninsured Americans grew
by 1.4 million,
the number of insured did as well, by 1 million. Bush's health and human services
secretary, Tommy Thompson, said that Bush was working to reduce health insurance costs to
businesses.
Some Democrats saw political manipulation in the fact that the administration issued the
new numbers a month before their usual release in late September. But Louis
Kincannon, the
Census director and a Bush appointee, said that the earlier release was intended to
coordinate better with other reports. It came, he said, without "influence
or pressure"
from the Bush campaign.
International Herald Tribune
Exactly what policy of Kerry's is intended to solve the above mentioned
problems?
Fair & Balanced Trebor ©
2004-10-02 20:10:52 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 12:07:57 -0700, "W. D. Allen Sr."
Post by W. D. Allen Sr.
Poverty in the USA is solely a bureaucratic convention.
tell that to the next homeless guy you see eating out of the dumpster,
Einstein. Tell him how lucky he is to be eating the best garbage in
the world, and sleeping under the most expensive highways. He should
also be encouraged to know that even though the poor in other
industrialized countrie have basic medical care, he will ultimatley
die of some uintreated illness in one of the most advanced emergency
room facilities in the world. What a lucky dog!
deano9000
2004-10-03 09:55:43 UTC
Permalink
More people die in hospitals than under bridges!

9 out of 10 hobos recently polled are against such socialist programs.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/1/2004
Fair & Balanced Trebor ©
2004-10-02 20:14:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marcello
Exactly what policy of Kerry's is intended to solve the above mentioned
problems?
#1 repeal tax custs for the rich

#2 stop outsourcing of jobs

#3 universal health coverage

#4 protect worker's overtime

#5 increase minimum wage

#6 enforce labor laws


I could go on and on, but you get the idea
Marcello
2004-10-02 20:45:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair & Balanced Trebor ©
Post by Marcello
Exactly what policy of Kerry's is intended to solve the above mentioned
problems?
#1 repeal tax custs for the rich
#2 stop outsourcing of jobs
Isn't this contradictory? You suggest to tax the corporations locally yet
expect them to bring jobs back to the US? Please explain.
Thom
2004-10-03 06:04:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marcello
Post by Fair & Balanced Trebor ©
Post by Marcello
Exactly what policy of Kerry's is intended to solve the above mentioned
problems?
#1 repeal tax custs for the rich
#2 stop outsourcing of jobs
Isn't this contradictory? You suggest to tax the corporations locally yet
expect them to bring jobs back to the US? Please explain.
simple, end the greed and let the republicans show their love for
America by closing down their asian swet shops and bringing the jobs
home.

THOM
Fair & Balanced Trebor ©
2004-10-03 20:34:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marcello
Post by Fair & Balanced Trebor ©
Post by Marcello
Exactly what policy of Kerry's is intended to solve the above mentioned
problems?
#1 repeal tax custs for the rich
#2 stop outsourcing of jobs
Isn't this contradictory?
No.
Post by Marcello
You suggest to tax the corporations locally yet
expect them to bring jobs back to the US? Please explain.
Easy. It's time to stop letting corporations blackmail American
workers. If corporations want to export American jobs overseas, then
before they ship their slave labor products back to the US they are
going to have to pay an import fee equal to what it would cost if it
was still being produced by Americans. That will stop the exporting of
jobs real fast.
Marcello
2004-10-03 22:26:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair & Balanced Trebor ©
Post by Marcello
Post by Fair & Balanced Trebor ©
Post by Marcello
Exactly what policy of Kerry's is intended to solve the above mentioned
problems?
#1 repeal tax custs for the rich
#2 stop outsourcing of jobs
Isn't this contradictory?
No.
Post by Marcello
You suggest to tax the corporations locally yet
expect them to bring jobs back to the US? Please explain.
Easy. It's time to stop letting corporations blackmail American
workers. If corporations want to export American jobs overseas, then
before they ship their slave labor products back to the US they are
going to have to pay an import fee equal to what it would cost if it
was still being produced by Americans. That will stop the exporting of
jobs real fast.
Yeah, and it will also mean that plenty of goods you buy at low prices that
the masses take for granted being inexpensive suddenly go way up in price.
Fair & Balanced Trebor ©
2004-10-03 22:45:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marcello
Post by Fair & Balanced Trebor ©
Post by Marcello
Post by Fair & Balanced Trebor ©
Post by Marcello
Exactly what policy of Kerry's is intended to solve the above mentioned
problems?
#1 repeal tax custs for the rich
#2 stop outsourcing of jobs
Isn't this contradictory?
No.
Post by Marcello
You suggest to tax the corporations locally yet
expect them to bring jobs back to the US? Please explain.
Easy. It's time to stop letting corporations blackmail American
workers. If corporations want to export American jobs overseas, then
before they ship their slave labor products back to the US they are
going to have to pay an import fee equal to what it would cost if it
was still being produced by Americans. That will stop the exporting of
jobs real fast.
Yeah, and it will also mean that plenty of goods you buy at low prices that
the masses take for granted being inexpensive suddenly go way up in price.
Not as much as you think. This is another corporate fable used to
blackmail workers/consumers. Most of the increase in profits that
comes after shifting to overseas slave labor goes into the pockets of
wealthy stock speculators and corporate management - not the
consumers, who almost never see a drop in prices when jobs are shifted
overseas.
Marcello
2004-10-03 23:10:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair & Balanced Trebor ©
Post by Marcello
Post by Fair & Balanced Trebor ©
Post by Marcello
Post by Fair & Balanced Trebor ©
Post by Marcello
Exactly what policy of Kerry's is intended to solve the above mentioned
problems?
#1 repeal tax custs for the rich
#2 stop outsourcing of jobs
Isn't this contradictory?
No.
Post by Marcello
You suggest to tax the corporations locally yet
expect them to bring jobs back to the US? Please explain.
Easy. It's time to stop letting corporations blackmail American
workers. If corporations want to export American jobs overseas, then
before they ship their slave labor products back to the US they are
going to have to pay an import fee equal to what it would cost if it
was still being produced by Americans. That will stop the exporting of
jobs real fast.
Yeah, and it will also mean that plenty of goods you buy at low prices that
the masses take for granted being inexpensive suddenly go way up in price.
Not as much as you think. This is another corporate fable used to
blackmail workers/consumers. Most of the increase in profits that
comes after shifting to overseas slave labor goes into the pockets of
wealthy stock speculators and corporate management - not the
consumers, who almost never see a drop in prices when jobs are shifted
overseas.
Yeah, and if the clothes you weak everyday were 100% made in America by
American workers the average citizen wouldn't be able to afford more than 1
pair of clothes. What you call a corporate fable is simple economics, and I
am not talking about "slave labor", I am talking about legitimate
outsourcing of jobs.
Fair & Balanced Trebor ©
2004-10-03 23:24:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marcello
Post by Fair & Balanced Trebor ©
Post by Marcello
Post by Fair & Balanced Trebor ©
Post by Marcello
Post by Fair & Balanced Trebor ©
Post by Marcello
Exactly what policy of Kerry's is intended to solve the above mentioned
problems?
#1 repeal tax custs for the rich
#2 stop outsourcing of jobs
Isn't this contradictory?
No.
Post by Marcello
You suggest to tax the corporations locally yet
expect them to bring jobs back to the US? Please explain.
Easy. It's time to stop letting corporations blackmail American
workers. If corporations want to export American jobs overseas, then
before they ship their slave labor products back to the US they are
going to have to pay an import fee equal to what it would cost if it
was still being produced by Americans. That will stop the exporting of
jobs real fast.
Yeah, and it will also mean that plenty of goods you buy at low prices that
the masses take for granted being inexpensive suddenly go way up in price.
Not as much as you think. This is another corporate fable used to
blackmail workers/consumers. Most of the increase in profits that
comes after shifting to overseas slave labor goes into the pockets of
wealthy stock speculators and corporate management - not the
consumers, who almost never see a drop in prices when jobs are shifted
overseas.
Yeah, and if the clothes you weak everyday were 100% made in America by
American workers the average citizen wouldn't be able to afford more than 1
pair of clothes.
You're out of your mind. Nike shoes that sell for more than $100
actually cost less than $5 to make. The $95 difference is going into
the pockets of wealthy speculators and corporate management and not
into the pockets of consumers. Get a clue.
Post by Marcello
What you call a corporate fable is simple economics, and I
am not talking about "slave labor", I am talking about legitimate
outsourcing of jobs.
YOu are talking about 'slave labor' since the only reason for
outsourcing is because corporations don't want to pay Americans a
living wage and they can get away with enslaving foreign workers. Not
only get away with it - our govenment actually encourages it by
offering tax benefits.
Marcello
2004-10-03 23:42:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair & Balanced Trebor ©
Post by Marcello
Post by Fair & Balanced Trebor ©
Post by Marcello
Post by Fair & Balanced Trebor ©
Post by Marcello
Post by Fair & Balanced Trebor ©
Post by Marcello
Exactly what policy of Kerry's is intended to solve the above mentioned
problems?
#1 repeal tax custs for the rich
#2 stop outsourcing of jobs
Isn't this contradictory?
No.
Post by Marcello
You suggest to tax the corporations locally yet
expect them to bring jobs back to the US? Please explain.
Easy. It's time to stop letting corporations blackmail American
workers. If corporations want to export American jobs overseas, then
before they ship their slave labor products back to the US they are
going to have to pay an import fee equal to what it would cost if it
was still being produced by Americans. That will stop the exporting of
jobs real fast.
Yeah, and it will also mean that plenty of goods you buy at low prices that
the masses take for granted being inexpensive suddenly go way up in price.
Not as much as you think. This is another corporate fable used to
blackmail workers/consumers. Most of the increase in profits that
comes after shifting to overseas slave labor goes into the pockets of
wealthy stock speculators and corporate management - not the
consumers, who almost never see a drop in prices when jobs are shifted
overseas.
Yeah, and if the clothes you weak everyday were 100% made in America by
American workers the average citizen wouldn't be able to afford more than 1
pair of clothes.
You're out of your mind. Nike shoes that sell for more than $100
actually cost less than $5 to make. The $95 difference is going into
the pockets of wealthy speculators and corporate management and not
into the pockets of consumers. Get a clue.
You are talking about designer brand labels which I agree with you contain
an absurd markup, but that is twisting what I said. What I am referring to
is the majority of product lines that are not made up of designer labels yet
allow Americans to live with an over abundance of products while a good
portion of the rest of the planet needs to work an entire week just to put
food on the table. If you want to have this country get down to that level,
then the fastest way is to either have our prices at home go through the
roof or have our wages drop to significantly low levels. You may disagree
that oursourcing of jobs has anything to do with this, but please tell me
how taxing the corporations further is either going to help keep prices down
or keep wages up? That is not logical.
Fair & Balanced Trebor ©
2004-10-04 00:35:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marcello
Post by Fair & Balanced Trebor ©
Post by Marcello
Post by Fair & Balanced Trebor ©
Post by Marcello
Post by Fair & Balanced Trebor ©
Post by Marcello
Post by Fair & Balanced Trebor ©
Post by Marcello
Exactly what policy of Kerry's is intended to solve the above mentioned
problems?
#1 repeal tax custs for the rich
#2 stop outsourcing of jobs
Isn't this contradictory?
No.
Post by Marcello
You suggest to tax the corporations locally yet
expect them to bring jobs back to the US? Please explain.
Easy. It's time to stop letting corporations blackmail American
workers. If corporations want to export American jobs overseas, then
before they ship their slave labor products back to the US they are
going to have to pay an import fee equal to what it would cost if it
was still being produced by Americans. That will stop the exporting of
jobs real fast.
Yeah, and it will also mean that plenty of goods you buy at low prices that
the masses take for granted being inexpensive suddenly go way up in price.
Not as much as you think. This is another corporate fable used to
blackmail workers/consumers. Most of the increase in profits that
comes after shifting to overseas slave labor goes into the pockets of
wealthy stock speculators and corporate management - not the
consumers, who almost never see a drop in prices when jobs are shifted
overseas.
Yeah, and if the clothes you weak everyday were 100% made in America by
American workers the average citizen wouldn't be able to afford more than 1
pair of clothes.
You're out of your mind. Nike shoes that sell for more than $100
actually cost less than $5 to make. The $95 difference is going into
the pockets of wealthy speculators and corporate management and not
into the pockets of consumers. Get a clue.
You are talking about designer brand labels which I agree with you contain
an absurd markup, but that is twisting what I said.
Incorrect. You said Americans couldn't afford to buy clothes if they
were produced domestically. You are wrong because Americans buy Nike
shoes even though they cost 20 times what they cost to produce. Most
of the savings from slave labor is not passed onto American consumers,
and that's true whether or not it is a designer label. It is priced
about the same as if it were produced domestically, only with an
increasingly larger share given over to wealthy speculators and
corporate management. That's the point you don't want to look at:
there is little or no savings to average consumers whether it is
produced here or abroad. The added savings goes into the pockets of
speculators. You also have to keep in mind that outsopucing drives
down wages in the US since Americans are being forced to compete with
slave labor. So not only aren't the savings being passed along to
consumers, but consumers ultimately have much less disposable income
to buy them with. All outsourcing really does is increase the gap
between rich and poor, and that's exactly what you see happening both
in America and around the world today. Stop substituting the plain
and obvious facts with capitalist ideology.
Post by Marcello
What I am referring to
is the majority of product lines that are not made up of designer labels yet
allow Americans to live with an over abundance of products while a good
portion of the rest of the planet needs to work an entire week just to put
food on the table.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Industrialization
has nothing to do with distribution of income. The only reason
Americans aren't living in shacks and working for an entire week just
to put food on the table, like they are along the Mexican boarder, is
because of unions and labor laws and minimum wage laws. But
outsourcing is driving down wages and destroying unions and the
minimum wage is less in real dollars than it was in the 1960's and
that's why this country is heading the country in the wrong direction,
so why we may indeed be working just to put food on the table once
again if Republicans have their way.
Post by Marcello
If you want to have this country get down to that level,
then the fastest way is to either have our prices at home go through the
roof or have our wages drop to significantly low levels. You may disagree
that oursourcing of jobs has anything to do with this, but please tell me
how taxing the corporations further is either going to help keep prices down
or keep wages up? That is not logical.
That's because you're living in a corporate fantasy land and you think
your theories about what should happen are the same as what really
happens when jobs are outsourced. Btw: taxes on corporate profits are
not a corporate expense and have absolutlely nothing to do with
consumer prices.
Marcello
2004-10-04 01:12:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair & Balanced Trebor ©
Post by Marcello
is the majority of product lines that are not made up of designer labels yet
allow Americans to live with an over abundance of products while a good
portion of the rest of the planet needs to work an entire week just to put
food on the table.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Industrialization
has nothing to do with distribution of income. The only reason
Americans aren't living in shacks and working for an entire week just
to put food on the table, like they are along the Mexican boarder, is
because of unions and labor laws and minimum wage laws. But
So you are suggesting the growth of companies that actually create the jobs
that the unions protect has nothing to do America being one of the richest
nations on earth? I am certain this is what the unions woudl like to make
the masses beleive, but its also illogical.
Post by Fair & Balanced Trebor ©
outsourcing is driving down wages and destroying unions and the
minimum wage is less in real dollars than it was in the 1960's and
that's why this country is heading the country in the wrong direction,
so why we may indeed be working just to put food on the table once
again if Republicans have their way.
Post by Marcello
If you want to have this country get down to that level,
then the fastest way is to either have our prices at home go through the
roof or have our wages drop to significantly low levels. You may disagree
that oursourcing of jobs has anything to do with this, but please tell me
how taxing the corporations further is either going to help keep prices down
or keep wages up? That is not logical.
That's because you're living in a corporate fantasy land and you think
your theories about what should happen are the same as what really
happens when jobs are outsourced.
And this is based on you knowing absolutely noting about me and what
experience I have in regards to this topic. Leave your assumptions out of
it please, and if your only reply to the question is to suggest we are in a
fantasy land, well then my point was made.
George Grapman
2004-10-04 01:55:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair & Balanced Trebor ©
Post by Marcello
Post by Fair & Balanced Trebor ©
Post by Marcello
Post by Fair & Balanced Trebor ©
Post by Marcello
Exactly what policy of Kerry's is intended to solve the above mentioned
problems?
#1 repeal tax custs for the rich
#2 stop outsourcing of jobs
Isn't this contradictory?
No.
Post by Marcello
You suggest to tax the corporations locally yet
expect them to bring jobs back to the US? Please explain.
Easy. It's time to stop letting corporations blackmail American
workers. If corporations want to export American jobs overseas, then
before they ship their slave labor products back to the US they are
going to have to pay an import fee equal to what it would cost if it
was still being produced by Americans. That will stop the exporting of
jobs real fast.
Yeah, and it will also mean that plenty of goods you buy at low prices that
the masses take for granted being inexpensive suddenly go way up in price.
Not as much as you think. This is another corporate fable used to
blackmail workers/consumers. Most of the increase in profits that
comes after shifting to overseas slave labor goes into the pockets of
wealthy stock speculators and corporate management - not the
consumers, who almost never see a drop in prices when jobs are shifted
overseas.
Correct. Levis are no cheaper than they were when they were made here.
My ISP charges no less for talking to a support drone in India. Both
are usually incapable of saying much more than "let's have a look at
your settings"
--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell
Marcello
2004-10-05 15:28:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Grapman
Post by Fair & Balanced Trebor ©
Post by Marcello
Post by Fair & Balanced Trebor ©
Post by Marcello
Post by Fair & Balanced Trebor ©
Post by Marcello
Exactly what policy of Kerry's is intended to solve the above mentioned
problems?
#1 repeal tax custs for the rich
#2 stop outsourcing of jobs
Isn't this contradictory?
No.
Post by Marcello
You suggest to tax the corporations locally yet
expect them to bring jobs back to the US? Please explain.
Easy. It's time to stop letting corporations blackmail American
workers. If corporations want to export American jobs overseas, then
before they ship their slave labor products back to the US they are
going to have to pay an import fee equal to what it would cost if it
was still being produced by Americans. That will stop the exporting of
jobs real fast.
Yeah, and it will also mean that plenty of goods you buy at low prices
that the masses take for granted being inexpensive suddenly go way up in
price.
Not as much as you think. This is another corporate fable used to
blackmail workers/consumers. Most of the increase in profits that
comes after shifting to overseas slave labor goes into the pockets of
wealthy stock speculators and corporate management - not the
consumers, who almost never see a drop in prices when jobs are shifted
overseas.
Correct. Levis are no cheaper than they were when they were made here.
My ISP charges no less for talking to a support drone in India. Both are
usually incapable of saying much more than "let's have a look at your
settings"
Just wait and see what it does the the price of Heinz Ketchup though!!!
Loading...