What will POTUS Kerry make better?
 

What will Kerry make better, if he manages to take the election?

We have three big issues here;
--Middle-East (IslamoFacist) terrorists,
--Economy
--healthcare.




Seriously, do those voting "for" Kerry believe:

-- he could help anything smooth-over with the reliefworker-head-chopping IslamoFacists in the middle east?

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1098719862.jpg


-- that he understands the plight of the Costco-consuming middle-class. .. and knows which government programs will free them of incessant shopping?

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1098721646.jpg

-- that this 757 buying man (well his woman, anyway) with access to ANY of the best Doctors, would want to further hamstring medical progress and break-thru's . . all to ensure the masses have a waiting list to affordable band-aids?


-OR-

do you figure; what the hell, none of those things are THAT big of a deal. Let's just have some champagne, throw a hailmary vote and hope we don't end up looking incredibly stupid for doing so. (?)



http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1098721479.jpg

Creating new threads to post Rhetorical questions? I mean, I'd post a serious reply, except I think it would be out of character here.

So your saying that I have mischaracterized the head-chopping IslamoFacists in the middle east?

C'mon super, you can see beyond the obvious rhetoric, and see the question.

Island, honestly I see a potential for a question but I'm not sure if you're the slightest bit serious. Youv'e got some pretty silly pictures there, at least one was photoshopped. If you're still going to pretend that Kerry wants to kiss the terrorist and give them a bouquet of flowers as a method of national security, then no. I'm not going to do any intellectual fencing with someone who is dishonest to that extent.

For example, even as a Dubya hater I can quickly understand and respect the notion that it is important for our country to inflict some instant and attention-getting pain upon our enemy, or the nearest substitute. I expect my country to react like that. The world expects it. And I am somewhat comfortable with that. Nations need to know that messing with the Old Girl is going to sting a bit. No, it's going to sting a LOT.

But I would never ever, in a million years, expect a similarly serious or concilliatory message from you. When one person is attempting a serious discussion, but the other person is posting photoshopped cutsie little insults, I guess the cutsie guy has the most fun. Have fun at someone else's expense. I imagine they are getting smart, though.

BTW, Social Security would need to be on the list.

Sometimes satire makes the point. . . ."cutsie" or not.

The point is, I get the feeling that the Kerry voters are being hasty. Really not thinking through WHAT the ramifications of a Kerry POTUS.

No doubt to me, this country has some serious problems to handle. The lib's list them all, say they are due to POTUS Bush.

So, I'm accepting the lib's part about there being big problems. BUT I'm challenging anyone of you Kerry-voters to tell me how POTUS-Kerry would make things better.

Kerry has been talking up the "wage gap" issue more than usual lately. But for this he does not even have a "plan". That women in the workplace make less than men is thrown out there as some kind of Right Wing conspiracy. Women often leave the work force to have a family, and then often come back to work part time, besides a million other reasons. How does Kerry get away with this crap??

Something I never see brought up is Kerry present "job"; checks and balances.

Here we have Kerry blaming all the world's ills on President Bush, and trying to tell us that he has a "plan" to cure everything the evil Bush has done wrong. (which is everything according to Kerry)
Now Kerry has been employed as a member of the senate for many years, but in the last 4 years can someone tell me what Kerry has done (or attemted to do) to counter what he calls Bush's mistakes or failures? *****ing about it doesn't count. It is what he is being paid for, and if so many things that Bush does are so wrong, you'd expect the senate floor to be knee-deep in legislation with Kerry's signature on it. Now I'm sure he'd done "something" in the last four years, but if he has all the solutions to the world's ills and a "plan" for everything, where are these plans while he's been collecting that fat paycheck??
Or are we to believe that we as a country are not worthy of Kerry's services and "plans" unless we elect him President and should be left to suffer otherwise?
Now that we've gotten to know what an a$$clown Kerry really is, I'd say there was/is more than a little haste in nominating him, and as much as I can't believe I'd say this; I'll be mad at Hillary for not throwing her hat in the ring if Kerry wins because bad is one thing but now we've got worse.

You lib's got NOTHING real-world positive for Kerry.

Kerry is not the man for the job(s).

Anarchists would be happy with Kerry. But how about you other Kerry voters . .. are you going to be happy with the ineffectual Kerry, after your high of dis'n Bush disolves?

Well, I still suspect that you believe you are asking for something that does not exist, and that when suggestions arrive you intend to laugh down your sleeve some more. But you did ask nice, so I'llplay.

Womens' wages. Gajinda, this is not about loss of earning power because of a gap in employment history. This is about actual rates of pay for exactly the same work with exactly the same experience. I have done compensation analysis and the research project I always wanted to complete but never had the time is one where I would back out the effects of different aspects of jobs (working conditions, noise, danger, education needed, etc), and be left with sex as a compensable factors. I suspect that having exterior plumbing gets you 10% to 20% more pay, over all.

It can be somewhat complex, but the point is that some jobs are undercompensated based on the demands of the job, and these are the jobs that traditionally have been mostly women. Teaching and nursing come to mind, and those occupations are deeply embroiled in change right now. So, market forces eventually will cause those problems to find an equilibrium, but what Kerry probably has in mind is to deliberately push those kinds of occupations closer to equilibrium.

Terrorists. Dubya seems as though he has the diplomacy of a Neanderthal diesel-mechanic. Actually, a Neanderthal diesel mechanic probably has at least some diplomatic skills. Dubya's plan seems to be to use our military to pummel Muslims, and if they're not the right guys, well then probably the right guys will still get the message. No, actually his plan is even dumber than that. We know that the guys we're after are largely located on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. So, we've pulled most of our people from that area. Now, if you guys understand that plan and think it's a good one, then I guess you're way ahead of me.

Kerry's plan would be much more complicated. Like most things in life. IT would be nice if all we needed were mortars. But a real, systematic strategy to secure our country against future attacks would HAVE to involve other nations. No matter how angry Dubya makes the Muslims, we probably cannot scare them so bad that they stop attacking us (this is such a silly sentence).

It's kinda like if you ask both candidates what kind of tires are best. Dubya might have an instant answer. Kerry would seem to vacillate. It would then become obvious that Kerry understands the problem better. Even on the same car, different tires work best in different conditions. Dubya would seem confident, or at least he would seem like he wants to seem confident. Kerry would be seen as a flip flopper.

Government impacts on economics, for example, are sometimes counterintuitive. Prevailing wage law, for example. It's the kind of law that conservatives love to hate. According to them, it inflates the cost of public works, it reduces the amount of PW construction that can be accomplished with the available funds. It interferes with the hallowed "market forces." But in reality, it also keeps contractors from artificially depressing local wage standards to get a competitive advantage. It keeps out-of-state contractors from underbidding our local businesses, importing their cheap labor and making off with our tax money while increasing our unemployment. It helps to prevent the erosion of local construction skill banks (at prevailing wages, construction is a serious career....at $10 per hour it is a transient occupation). Differences in bids reflect differences in efficiences......not who can find the cheapest labor. So it protects more than local workers. It protects our economy by keeping tax dollars here, and it protects local businesses.

And yet it is hated with a purple passion by the conservatives. There are two reasons for this. The most likely is that these conservatives just have not thought it through. They see the "simple" analysis, and won't continue to listen to "the rest of the story." Either that, or a cheap, inefficient contractor has their ear.

So, that's my preliminary answer. With just a few specifics. Dubya makes it sound like it's all so very simple. But if I have noticed anything about analysis, it's that the correct answer to every question is the same. The correct answer: "It depends." These intricacies seem to be lost on Dubya, not lost on Kerry.

Overall, do you want to have a President running our country who hates government and does not believe in it? Or do you want your government run by folks who understand government, and believe in it, and know how to operate it? right now, it's like there's a child in the cockpit, playing with the levers.

Kerry will bring "good hair" back to the White House. Teresa is guaranteed a spot with the Mamie Eisenhower "bangs" if she'd just loosen up and switch conditioners.

http://www.firstladies.org/Bibliogra...Eisenhower.jpg

Well thats all good bush-bashing filler, but you really haven't said what real-world positives Kerry would bring. Save, you say Kerry is a better politician.

For the sake of argument, I'll go along with that. SO, do you really think that Kerry is such an effective politician? He has been a Senator for DECADES . . .and what has this "politically savy" man brought us?

Is it enough to sway terrorist in the slightest?

"So, market forces eventually will cause those problems to find an equilibrium, but what Kerry probably has in mind is to deliberately push those kinds of occupations closer to equilibrium."

So what are you doing for a living these days Sup? Would you like Kerry pushing your occupation's wages around? Is that the job of the President of the United States? It is scary to me that he might actually have such ideas in his mind.

Unequal pay may very well exisit (I tend to think so less than most, as I have seen my co-workers W-2s), but there is no law on the books that could be removed or any other law that could added that could change this phenomenon.

Kerry is a joke, he brings up these disingenuous code phrases to scare up the votes of the feebleminded.

this thread is lame.

island, how many times must we explain? I would think you would atleast remember the reason even if you don't understand them.

christ.

Just once would help.

Root causes of terrorism.

Kerry has promised to adopt all the suggestions of the 9/11 commission, which address both force and root causes.

Bush doesn't stand a chance at this point of developing a coalition of moderate muslims to work towards this goal. All Bush is doing is making them (and the world) more angry. Which of course is not addressing this problem, and just helps the terrorists recruit more of them.

Even if Bush wanted to start, I don't think he can anymore.

That's what it comes down to me. That's what Kerry promises that I want to see finally happen.

Well "promises" from Kerry aside, I've got to say I think that you don't understand that according to the 9/11 commission report, Bush's actions (which he statrted prior to any report of the obvious) are right in line. ...Kerrys Plan is suspect.

You have thrown up the words : "Root causes of terrorism." many times now; w/o explaination. Just a hope that those words will mean Kerry has a leg -up there.

Here is a link to the 9-11 commisions Overview: The Rampant Allure of Jihad in the Muslim World.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_emerson.htm

I agree with most the view there. . . though believe there is some hedging going on.

The only PLAN Kery has is to pander. . .to tell people what they want to hear. Some people really want to hear how everything will be peachy-keen, if only they give rich-boy THE POWER. (because as a Senator for decades, Kerry just couldn't do SQUAT)

I didn't think Bush wasn't the best governor either. And we had even less to go on when Bush campaigned in 2000.

And personally, I don't think Kerry was that bad of a senator, as everyone makes him out to be. Have you researched his voting record, vote by vote?

I think Kerry can do a good job. And as everyone mentioned here, which is true, balance would be restored...democrat/republican. I honestly don't like when a president and congress is controlled by one party, either democrat or republican.

And finally, I don't know how you feel about issues such as abortion, christian things, etc., but the next president can affect our future for possibly decades to come in the form of Supreme Court. Rehnquist has thyroid cancer. He's 80. Stevens is 84. I honestly think that Bush would pick the most conservative justices possible. Not that I want liberal judges either, I want fair judges. And I feel extreme conservative judges could possibly hinder our freedoms by eventually shaping our constitution to be the Bill of Restrictions instead of the Bill of Rights.

States are already anticipating this and are prepared to make abortion illegal.

I'm not for or against abortion, but I'm afraid if it becomes legal, I'll be supporting these additional indigent kids with my tax dollars.

Hmmm... how about Kerry won't be a complete disaster on all those fronts like Bush is.

Well, all be. . .. cool_chick can answer a question without a rhetorical question as an answer. nice :)

"supporting these additional indigent kids with my tax dollars." Well I've never had a dog in that fight, but why would you think that additional kids would be indigent?

In fact the big problem with Social sec. is the so-called "Baby-bust".

The pill, and common-place abortions have slowed population growth. SO I expect you are fine letting Social Sec. go dry .. . .not having enough indigent kids to support YOU in your old age. LOL ;)

more later ...

Because I think many, many of abortions are performed on young people who can't afford a kid and feel that abortion is a better choice.

I also think "abortion as a form of birth control" isn't as common as you would think. I can't imagine that would be an easy decision to make, let alone make it often.

Think about it...seriously, think about the implications on our system.....

don't think cool_chick.
be afraid.

Here, I'll let my girls do the talking:

http://www.liegirls.com/quicktime.html

<a href=http://www.liegirls.com/quicktime.html><img src=http://www.dannybot.com/lie/images/index_07.jpg></a>

Okay. Done saying stuff to closed ears.

Gajinda. Some folks seem to be pretending that government has no place regulating anything. Those folks are dishonest. Even the absolutely most rabid of all "hands off" economic theorists will admit that there are regulations in place that are necessary. Please take a business course if you do not understand this. Anti-trust, for example. In some industries, entry barriers are high enough, and economies of scale are important enough, that if the industry were unregulated, a monopoly would eventually form not other competitor would arise.

So, regulation of business is not a "go / no go" decision. It is simply a matter of how much regulation, and what kind. If you do not care for wage regulation, or fighting injustice, then fine. I do. Each major society has had its over-arching myths. First, it was the Greeks and the Gods on Mount Olympus. Then, it was medieval science and the Earth as the center of the universe. Today, it is the "self regulating market."

And regulating the employment relationship is actually an excellent example of what I mentioned earlier about the role of government being hugely important, and counter-intuitive to those who are not paying attention (like for example, those who hate government and want to kill it): When I say I would favor a $15 national minimum wage, I am not kidding. Of course, neocons pretend that the sky would fall if that happened. For those of you whose brains are in the "on" position, please consider this:

At the turn of the 20th century, we had eight year-old boys getting hurt and killed in underground mines, and young girls the same age getting hurt and killed in garment sweat shops. Unemployment among adults was rampant. Few children attended school.
Then there was that fire in New York City that killed more than a hundred young girls ( the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire). New York, and then the nation, passed sweeping labor laws. They removed children under 14 from the work force, period (there is currently an exception for young boys who want to ride their bikes along roadways in the dark hurling newspapers). Overtime for hours over 40 per week. Minimum wage.
With the verbal reaction from industry, you'd think the world was going to end. What really happened? What happened is now termed the "Roaring Twenties." Adults got the jobs. Kids went to school. Work days were shorted, and weekends were created. And economic prosperity reigned.

So yeah. I think government has a role.

If minimum wage were increased to $15, hamburgers might get more expensive, perhaps by two bits. But there would be much more competition for those jobs, and the budget for public assistance ("welfare") could probably be cut by 75%.

But no. Business likes getting lower-than-market costs, and having the taxpayer pick up the difference. Is this what you call "conservative?"

Of course government has a place in regulation.

What is dishonest, is when you argue that since regulation is necessary, that govt regulation can proliferate. . . well. . . UNREGULATED.

It's a balance thing.

Id just like to see my President in public to hear what he has to say without signing a loyalty agreement. It would also be nice for me to choose what shirt, button, and hat I'll wear instead of the Secret Service. If thats not reason enough to vote the bum out, I don't know what is.

God bless America.

actually a bunch of FDNY was hanging with him alone in a small group. No SS, no handlers, nobody. It was a bit arkward for a few minutes hanging with the most powerful man in the world. After the ice was broken he just melted into being just another guy cracking cynical jokes with everyone else. No superiority complex, no bs, just a real guy hanging with real men.

I have no doubt. He's a personable guy, thats obvious. In face-to-face interaction, I bet he's even fun to be around.

I really don't like the way he manages his work life though, his job time. The loyalty agreements, the censorship... You're not even allowed to ask him _real_ questions at his townhall meetings. The White House is run under extreme secrecy, more secret than any other administration in our history.

Furthermore, his rallies (from what I see on the TV) sound more like NHL Hockey games than political discussion. The RNC was basically a WWF Smackdown, it was rediculous! I saw footage just the other day of the President in some swing state. He wasn't talking about issues, he was using smears to rile up the crowd. The way he uses theology in his speeches I find disengenious too. Its not honest or complete or personal. Its just meat for the crowded masses to chew on to calm them down for the next smear.

You want to call John Kerry a French poodle, thats fine. We can all have a laugh. But then lets get back to the issues. And lets leave faith and jokes and 30 year old history out of it.

Nice guy, but an ********* on the stump. The ends do not justify the means.

Supe- I am not saying there is no role for govenment regulation, and the minimum wage issue has many sides to it. (What are most 16 old employees really worth, you might think?? What were you worth?? I was not worth $15 an hour..)
But Kerry talking up this wage gap issue is disingenuous bull$hit. There is nothing he can or will do if elected. Look at the differences in college majors? Should Kerry suddenly start demanding that males and females be represented in every course of study equally? Are we going to start assigning jobs? Or maybe govenment wage regulation? What about dirty, dangerous and difficult work like construction? Going to send your female family members off to do such work in the name of gender equality? The wage gap is part of natural gender differences, cultural, historic educational opportunities and a zillion other reasons. 99.9% of folks get equl pay for equal work. Lets keep the social engineers un-elected..

Budweiser with Bush, Kettle One with Kerry...YMMV.

"Of course government has a place in regulation.

What is dishonest, is when you argue that since regulation is necessary, that govt regulation can proliferate. . . well. . . UNREGULATED.

It's a balance thing."

I agree with that, Island.

Gajinda, I'm going to try to be nice, so I'd better be brief (not easy for me). One of the enduring fallacies about minimum wage is that most of those jobs are held by HS kids living with their parents. In truth, the typical minimum wage worker is rural, adult, supporting themselves, and a high proportion are heads of households (with kids, for example). Kerry is wooing the female voter. All's fair in love and politics. War has rules. Yes, there is government wage regulation. We've been over that. Women do very well in the construction trades, thank you very much. And finally:

"The wage gap is part of natural gender differences, cultural, historic educational opportunities and a zillion other reasons. 99.9% of folks get equl pay for equal work."

I'm not going to touch that with a ten foot pole, except to say that your figures are not correct, and the problem is not a genetic one. In certain rooms, you'd have been tarred and feathered for that remark.

OMG!

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1098820931.jpg

:D

Supe - I will try and be brief too. That is why I support earned-income tax credits. But to burden employers with some hare-brained $15 an hour is not going to work. Look at Europe. Look at the unemplyoyment rates there. Is that what you want, cause that is what you will get.

Look at illegal immigration. The least educated US citizens are competing in the job market with millions to whom $120 a week is a lot of money. Raise the minium wage too high and you had better build a much bigger fence.

As far as Kerry lying - it has everything to do with what people fear most in him. I fear he will lie about anything to get the job.

As for women in construction - there is a few out there and they do make the same money as men. But check out any job-site, there is just not that many. So bring on the tar and feathers. Genetics have nothing to do with this problem. Just reality getting in the way..

Women in their prime earning years did not get the same educational opportunites as men the same age. Men dont have babies. Women today are not highly represented in college majors that lead to the same high paying jobs. A million reasons why and all the PC nonsence in the world will not make it not so.

A thoughtful response, Gajinda. Relatively speaking. I still shake my head at what I see as one of your underlying messages (the main one, I think), which is" "Yeah, that's the way it is. So what?"

The $15 per hour might seem less burdensome to employers when

1. Their taxes are rolled back substantially and

2. More people are buying their stuff.

$15 amortized over the volume of burgers (just one example, but it's the example most cited when conservatives rail against minimum wage increase proposals) sold in an hour, does not exactly double the price of a burger. And if workers all up and down the streets can afford to eat burgers for lunch each day, then the sales volume increases. Again, conservatives will not believe obvious facts right in front of them, yet they understand compex (and disproved) concepts like trickle-down economics. So, they're never going to accept some of these counter-intuitive aspects of economics and government. Fact is, it's just possible that, if this many people (all the minimum wage workers) have their incomes doubled or tripled, then their spending and the tax savings may create a bigger economic boom time than anyone has seen recently in their wildest fantasies.

But again, business prefers to pay less than market, and have the taxpayer pick up the difference. And it's a nice time for business' wishes, since our Congress has been Republican for at least a couple of decades now.

I know things will get better, and I'm willing to wait. Wait until the voter remembers what it has known for most of last century. Which is that what's best for business is NOT NECESSARILY best for citizens.

In the meantime, let minimum wage workers be in poverty and qualify for welfare. So the taxpayers can pay their expenses instead of industry.

Superman, you're a genius. If $15 per hr is good for the minimum wage then why not $50 grand a year? Then all the minimum wage employees could go buy new cars. Hell, they'd be making more than the auto workers. No wait, thats not right, cause they'd want MORE than minimum wage (sustantially). So lets see, now the $20 k car costs $80k so the min wage guy still cant buy it. How did that happen?

Supe - I do think your heart is in the right place. A working person, no matter how humble their job should be able to support themselves. But this is impossible to put on the backs of employers. Burger flippers making $15 per hour?? Make way for automated-burger-making machines. Look around your world and see all the folks making the minium wage - push that too high and you are looking at all those folks not being employeed at all. So a kid living with their parents, let them make the $5 or whatever. And someone with a family and other deductions (healthcare, rent, college loans), let them get an "earned income" tax rebate. All should work and all work should be respected. This is a basic rule for any society to florish. We kind of forget these things some times..

In days of old.

Son says "Dad I need some money."
Dad says "I thought you had a job?"
Son says "I do but it doesn't pay me enough."
Dad says "Work harder."

Well spoken Gaijinda. People tend to forget all kinds of things when their clarity of thought is obscured by the miasma of Socialism.

"Why not just make the minimum wage $50 per hour?"

Well, in order for wages to increase, productivity has to increase by a corresponding amount.

Let's take Jim's example of a fast-food place in Oregon, which has a state minimum wage of $7.05 per hour.

Now, McDonald's corporation serves 47 million people per day at over 30,000 restaurants globally. That's an average of 1,566 customers per restaurant per day, or 130 customers per hour. (You have to figure that the majority of customers are in the USA, but that's the only data in the Annual Report and I'm not spending any more time on this example than absolutely necessary to destroy the argument) Let's further assume that the average size "crew" consists of two burger flippers (anecdotal data gathered by ME) or 65 burgers flipped per hour.

Now, if you want to double the minimum wage for those flippers (let's euphamistically call them Meat Inversion Technicians) without increasing the cost of the burger, then you have to have each do double the work. If their PRODUCTIVITY increases to 130 burgers per hour, then you can afford to pay them double. But in the absence of increasing demand for burgers, you only need ONE M.I.T. So you fire the other one.

Next time you're at a high-volume McD's, look behind the counter. It's entirely possible that you will see the substitution of CAPITAL for labor in the form of an automated soda-filling machine. There's an equilibrium point where the cost of wages rises to the point where substituting a machine is more efficient than hiring a marginal worker. (Which has NOTHING to do with the worker's productivity, it's an economics term).