Anti-kerry Film Sparks Dnc Response

[NWA/AMT]

We could argue for days about exagerations and elaborations of the truth on numbers on both sides... but to save us a whole lot of time and energy, I'll just say that it would be naive to think that the small business sector of our economy doesn't hold the biggest part of the pie.

[post="192316"][/post]​

You know, I was trying to point out that the two sides can't even agree on who the term 'small business' refers to and that this could make debating the concept kind of tough, but you're right, that might be a waste of 'time and energy'.

 

[KCFlyer]

Sprint is one of so many companies that are doing this now, as you know, simply because labor in other countries is so much cheaper that in order to stay competitive even in our own country now, they have to ship off. And Kansas City isn't unlike many other places in America all experiencing the same thing. But what is interesting, is that John Kerry's proposal to help this includes a raise in the minimum wage. Does that make sense to you? If you had two products next to eachother, one for $15 (made in China) and one for $85 (made in the US) that are the exact same thing, are you still going to buy American? What happens when we have to pay our workers more, and we have to change that $85/unit to $95/unit? It's going to dig us deeper into this problem.

There is no definite solution to getting jobs back in America, but we do need to acknowledge that this problem started long before GWB took office and has escalated from there for many reasons.

[post="192375"][/post]​

757...there is something that can be done...revoke any tax breaks for compaines who use offshoring to bump up the stock price (which Kerry proposes). Next time you see a headline "XYZ corporation to eliminate xxx jobs", check out what their stock does the next day...almost without exception it goes up. What's good for Wall Street is not necessarily whats best for America.

Revoke any tax breaks for companies who use sweat shop labor (again foreign jobs). A shirt made with sweat shop labor (let's use China) costs 2 cents in labor costs. Making the same shirt in the USA with someone paid a living wage (which BTW is more than minimum wage) would run about 25 cents per shirt. Factor in their benefits, and the labor costs would be well under a dollar per shirt. So even charging just $10 at Walmart is a helluva profit. It just doesn't meet those "profit targets" that Wall Street looks for quite as fast. But....imagine if someone was paid a living wage to make a shirt right here in the USA - and sold right here in the USA....and...EXPORTED to other countries for them to buy...why, those profit targets might still be met because people HAVE THE DISPOSABLE INCOME to BUY those products.

And think for a moment....what will you do if your company finds that someone in India would be willing to do your job for one fourth the pay? What if that person comes over HERE with an H1B visa and takes YOUR job from you? I've had friends and neighbors who were laid off from Sprint who had to take a job at Cabela's as a clerk to keep making their house payment. It's easy to say that crap until it happens to you.

 

[Fly]

Fly
I'm not usually one to bring up polls, because I think they are pretty irrelevant. But I get attacked on this board when I post "vitriol" against other posters. You did just that to me. Also, you put up (yet another) post that is nothing but opinion without one bit of fact to support it. Just wondering (yet again) why your fellow democrat posters aren't all over you like they are when I do that.

You're in the minority

[post="192372"][/post]​

Guess it depends upon the polls.

Electoral votes

Considering that the winner takes the electoral over the majority makes this poll, imho, more relevant.

Opinion!!! LOL That's EXACTLY what you post. You can post all your "data" from other sources, but those are, in fact, opinions too (the author's opinion) Like I said before, we (all of us) won't be changing anyones minds on this subject. I just would hate to see this country destroyed and I believe that is exactly what will happen if Bush wins (or gets selected) again.

 

[TWAnr]

...as you know, simply because labor in other countries is so much cheaper that in order to stay competitive even in our own country now, they have to ship off

[post="192375"][/post]​

I bet that you'd be singing a different tune if corporate America figured out how to outsource the jobs of airline pilots.

 

[Fly]

They will.

Buenos Dias, This is your captain....Juan.

 

[USAir757]

We are not talking about raising taxes. Just putting them back where they were before the tax give-a-way Bush gave to himself and all the other elite....Now when they got this tax break, how many more jobs were created, and how much did the owners just put in their pockets.
I am sure you do not know these facts and just take the party line that taxes hurt hiring..... I really think you are naive to think taxes promote work for anyone unless the business gets tax credits for hiring and training new employees.

First of all, I never made the argument that taxes (I think you meant lower taxes) promote work for anyone at all. I'm not going to say that raising the taxes higher than they are now, coupled with payroll wage increases will be great for job growth in this economy. These companies are already struggling to compete in a global market that is playing hockey with us as the puck. You want to raise their level of expenses now? Raising their taxes "back to where they were before" is still a higher expense. Add to that wage increases, and I promise you, IT WILL NOT CREATE JOBS. Now prove me wrong.

What's good for Wall Street is not necessarily whats best for America.

I couldn't agree more with that statement.

Revoke any tax breaks for companies who use sweat shop labor (again foreign jobs). A shirt made with sweat shop labor (let's use China) costs 2 cents in labor costs. Making the same shirt in the USA with someone paid a living wage (which BTW is more than minimum wage) would run about 25 cents per shirt. Factor in their benefits, and the labor costs would be well under a dollar per shirt. So even charging just $10 at Walmart is a helluva profit. It just doesn't meet those "profit targets" that Wall Street looks for quite as fast.

Ok, revoke the tax breaks for US sweatshop companies. I have to acknowledge that I think your numbers are a bit off, numerically speaking. Plus you forgot things like shipping, infrastructure, depreciation, insurances, (and TAXES!) all kinds of overhead fixed costs that gets straight-lined across every product. And everyone that has anything to do with that is going to get a raise soon too, so think about that.

The thing is, we are not talking about the problem. What we're seeing is companies trying to compete in a global market. Many US companies can no longer sustain themselves any longer because we have so many imports that are just killing them on price and efficiency. Cheap labor is why. We need to get to a point in this country where we can figure out how to be competitive and export as much as we import. We need people in America to not only want to buy American because it's cheap, but because it's good quality too. It's a long-term goal that we need a bi-partisan effort to conquer.

But in the short term, I cannot see jobs being created by this plan you suggest. Nobody has made an argument as to WHY the Kerry plan will help CREATE JOBS.

 

[sentrido]

Cause Kerry would like to give the middle class more of a tax cut, which gives them more to spend, wich creates demand and then jobs.

Raising taxes on the higher brackets wont hurt the economy because the markets arent starved of capital, they are starved of demand. The higher brackets got a big ass tax cut and all we got was a bigger defecit. If we gave the middle a big ass tax cut, guess what, the "rich" would have got the money any way. Only the economy would be doing better for everyone.

Whats really going on here is the Republicans want to starve the Government of cash, eventually forceing reductions in spending, cause we "cant afford" things anymore.

 

[NWA/AMT]

Nobody has made an argument as to WHY the Kerry plan will help CREATE JOBS.

[post="192423"][/post]​

I think his plan for tax incentives for companies who create jobs here rather than overseas will create jobs and his plan to close loopholes in international law that encourage outsourcing will also.

On the broader front, however, we do need to think hard about the obvious conclusion that our fixation with cheaper and cheaper products will lead to and how it will effect the quality of life here. Our trade policies are so out of balance that it will take decades to redress the defects in our trade agreements with other nations.

Unless we are willing to reduce our standard of living to that of the third world nations with which we compete or we address the fact that the nations we deal with need to improve the standard of living for their own people, we will see the continued erosion of the American way of life.

 

[KCFlyer]

Ok, revoke the tax breaks for US sweatshop companies. I have to acknowledge that I think your numbers are a bit off, numerically speaking. Plus you forgot things like shipping, infrastructure, depreciation, insurances, (and TAXES!) all kinds of overhead fixed costs that gets straight-lined across every product. And everyone that has anything to do with that is going to get a raise soon too, so think about that.

The thing is, we are not talking about the problem. What we're seeing is companies trying to compete in a global market. Many US companies can no longer sustain themselves any longer because we have so many imports that are just killing them on price and efficiency. Cheap labor is why. We need to get to a point in this country where we can figure out how to be competitive and export as much as we import. We need people in America to not only want to buy American because it's cheap, but because it's good quality too. It's a long-term goal that we need a bi-partisan effort to conquer.

But in the short term, I cannot see jobs being created by this plan you suggest. Nobody has made an argument as to WHY the Kerry plan will help CREATE JOBS.

[post="192423"][/post]​

757- What we have is...I hate to say it...corporate greed. Walmart - the po' folks store, imports shirts that have 2 cents in labor costs. YOu factor in shipping, infrastructure, depreciation, insurance and taxes, I you still haven't gone over $1 in costs for the shirt. That'll be $10.50. Let's say they only sold shirts that were made in the USA by people who were paid enough tp actually buy what they made. Even with all the other costs factored in, you're still looking at $2 in total costs going into making that shirt...except that since it was "made in America", they believe that they need to pass along those "higher costs" to the consumer. Price...$25. If they sold it for the same price they are selling the sweat shop shirt ($10.50) their profit is $9.50 versus $8.50. OR how bout this....why not charge everthing accordingly...that $50,000 GMC Yukon is built with 90% Mexican labor that is being paid $7 a day. Why does GM charge as though nobody but UAW workers with a minimum 20 years seniority touched that vehicle?

"Global market" is just bullshit words for "good excuse for cutting jobs stateside". Just read in business week that the pork train is pulling out of DC...$135 billion in tax breaks for corporations. So that they can what....offshore more work in the name of being a "global company". Meanwhile, the Chinese are finding it hard to recruite unskilled labor, so they are going to have to pay more to attract them. And those "increased costs" will be passed on to American consumers...who have less money to spend since THEIR JOB was offshored to China or India!.

Someone mentioned if you'd feel the same way if they offshored pilots. That's not likely...but something that IS likely is to have the MAINTENANCE on the jets you FLY offshored to some third world country so that the airline can "remain competitive". Would you feel comfortable climbing into the left seat of a jet that just got back from a D check in Haiti? Hey....gotta go where the costs are low...it's a "global economy" you know. All I can say is you'd better hope they do better work than they did on the Starter shoes I bought...dang things came apart in less than two months. Hate to have that happen at 35,000 feet.

So yeah....I'd yank each and every tax break from a company who used the tax breaks to "create jobs" overseas. I'd also like to see them get rid of the Bermuda and Cayman loopholes that allows their "headquarters" to be nothing more than a PO box. Just make a rule that you have to have a headquarters staff consisting of at least 1/10 of your total number of employees living and working at the "headquarters" building.

 

[NWA/AMT]

...That's not likely...but something that IS likely is to have the MAINTENANCE on the jets you FLY offshored to some third world country so that the airline can "remain competitive".

[post="192444"][/post]​

Happens all the time, and I can testify from first hand experience that the quality of work is not equal, no matter how many airline corporate flacks say different. If somebody figures out how doing the job twice is cost effective, please let me know.

 

[atabuy]

First of all, I never made the argument that taxes (I think you meant lower taxes) promote work for anyone at all. I'm not going to say that raising the taxes higher than they are now, coupled with payroll wage increases will be great for job growth in this economy. These companies are already struggling to compete in a global market that is playing hockey with us as the puck. You want to raise their level of expenses now? Raising their taxes "back to where they were before" is still a higher expense. Add to that wage increases, and I promise you, IT WILL NOT CREATE JOBS. Now prove me wrong.

[post="192423"][/post]​

I think you have implied many times that lowering taxes will help employment.
Before the tax breaks, did small business owners lay off anyone, unless there was no work for them?
Rolling back those breaks will just put them back where they were. Do you really think it will make a difference.
The only difference to the employer is how much money he takes home. Not how many more people he can hire with his extra cash from the tax break.
I never said it would create more jobs.
I said a tax break would not increase hiring. Just make employers a little richer.
Did you go to the site about how many small businesses are affected by tax hikes, that NWA posted?

 

[USAir757]

Cause Kerry would like to give the middle class more of a tax cut, which gives them more to spend, wich creates demand and then jobs.... If we gave the middle a big ass tax cut, guess what, the "rich" would have got the money any way. Only the economy would be doing better for everyone.

I have no major gripes with that idea. But the middle class, as a whole, does not employ people, and that's why I think they did not get included into the tax cuts (with the exception of a couple hundred bucks).

I think his plan for tax incentives for companies who create jobs here rather than overseas will create jobs and his plan to close loopholes in international law that encourage outsourcing will also.

How will many of these American company's be able to compete with their international counterparts? As it is, they are struggling with the overhead of what little workforce they have left in America.

On the broader front, however, we do need to think hard about the obvious conclusion that our fixation with cheaper and cheaper products will lead to and how it will effect the quality of life here.

Absolutely. Look at the airline industry... you can relate companies like WN/B6 to offshores, and DL/US/UA to those keeping their businesses here. And people are growing MORE (not less) accustomed to paying less for things these days. Meanwhile we're increasing wages and taxes to company's balance sheets.... it's a formula for disaster if you ask me.

757- What we have is...I hate to say it...corporate greed.

I'm not going to argue that there is a high level of corporate greed in America. But there is a much bigger reason that company's like Walmart and others are importing 95+% of their products from other countries.... and it's the volume of sales they will make. Profit margins, from what I understand, for a company like Walmart, are not that high. They rely on sheer volume of sales, and the monster outlets they have and their name recognition alone will take care of that.

But what about our inability to export into the global market? I know you think that the "global market" is the b/s excuse to "cut jobs stateside"... but if you don't want to embrace what this economy is doing on a global scale, you're going to be lost in the dust like USAirways. It is almost too late for our nation to begin it's change if it wants to remain competitive with the rest of the world. And from the looks of how Americans want to buy things cheap - clothing, air travel, gas, etc. - it doesn't look like we're going to become self-sufficient. Not when we're raising costs on our businesses rather than finding a way to keep them the same or bring them down. If you're not thinking on a global scale these days, especially with regard to manufacturing, you might as well not even stay in business.

Someone mentioned if you'd feel the same way if they offshored pilots. That's not likely...but something that IS likely is to have the MAINTENANCE on the jets you FLY offshored to some third world country so that the airline can "remain competitive". Would you feel comfortable climbing into the left seat of a jet that just got back from a D check in Haiti? Hey....gotta go where the costs are low...it's a "global economy" you know.

Quite true! And I got a chuckle out of that! Although I don't think the FAA would ever allow it. And even if they did, it would put up some pretty bad press for the first airline to open up a maintenance base in Port-au-prince.

Did you go to the site about how many small businesses are affected by tax hikes, that NWA posted?

Yes I did. It seemed like a partisan article to me, so I took it at face value. And after reading it, I still find it's hard to ignore the large scale economic force of the small businesses in America. I'll admit there is likely far less people/businesses that would be affected by the tax hike than the Bush campaign suggests, but the contingent, whatever the actual number is, is still huge.

 

[KCFlyer]

How will many of these American company's be able to compete with their international counterparts? As it is, they are struggling with the overhead of what little workforce they have left in America.

The only ones I see them competing against are other American companies who offshored their labor.

But what about our inability to export into the global market? I know you think that the "global market" is the b/s excuse to "cut jobs stateside"... but if you don't want to embrace what this economy is doing on a global scale, you're going to be lost in the dust like USAirways. It is almost too late for our nation to begin it's change if it wants to remain competitive with the rest of the world. And from the looks of how Americans want to buy things cheap - clothing, air travel, gas, etc. - it doesn't look like we're going to become self-sufficient. Not when we're raising costs on our businesses rather than finding a way to keep them the same or bring them down. If you're not thinking on a global scale these days, especially with regard to manufacturing, you might as well not even stay in business.

I thought that we needed to export something other than jobs to the global market. You know, I think you need to look at the Japanese automakers...they don't export the cars they make in the US to other countries....instead they "exported" the manufacturing of the cars sold in the US to plants in the US built by employees who live in the US and can in turn buy the product they built in the US. Profits from that sale and from that global investment are returned to the parent company in Japan. American companies are exporting jobs to foreign countries to build products in those countries that are then shipped back to the USA to be sold to US consumers and charged a price that reflects "high" American labor costs. Look at the American automakers. They build cars and SUV's in maquiladoras in Mexico, ship them back to the US and sell them at an MSRP that is based on UAW rates. So...Japan...build cars in countries where they are sold...USA....build cars in foreign countries and sell them in the USA.

Quite true! And I got a chuckle out of that! Although I don't think the FAA would ever allow it. And even if they did, it would put up some pretty bad press for the first airline to open up a maintenance base in Port-au-prince.

Then again, the outcry was there when Kathy Lee Gifford used sweatshop labor to make her products. Nevermind all her competitors were doing the same thing. The outcry didn't last too long and the public accepted it. So what's different about aircraft maintenance. You yourself say that the public wants low prices. The general travelling public doesn't give a rats ass if the plane was fixed here or in Port-au-Prince...the marketing departments of the airlines will sell the image they want, and, since the price is right, the public will buy it.

 

[NWA/AMT]

I have no major gripes with that idea. But the middle class, as a whole, does not employ people, and that's why I think they did not get included into the tax cuts (with the exception of a couple hundred bucks).

[post="192699"][/post]​

Simple demand-side economics, although after two decades of worshiping at the altar of supply-side economics it's not surprising we don't recognize it. If you give a large tax cut to one person you get a different effect than if you give a smaller tax cut, but with the same total overall amount cut, to ten people.

How will many of these American company's be able to compete with their international counterparts? As it is, they are struggling with the overhead of what little workforce they have left in America.

That's the idea behind the tax incentives, to address the balance between outsourcing and insourcing. Enforcing our current trade agreements and renegotiating those that have put our nation at a disadvantage would be another positive step.

Absolutely. Look at the airline industry... you can relate companies like WN/B6 to offshores, and DL/US/UA to those keeping their businesses here. And people are growing MORE (not less) accustomed to paying less for things these days.

I don't know how WN stacks up for the pilots, but their mechanics are some of the best paid in the industry and the trend for them has been toward more insourcing as other airlines outsourced their work and drove up the prices at the vendors. JetBlue is the only airline I know of actually BUILDING hangars rather than scrapping them, and compared to other airlines pays it's mechanics pretty well.

Indeed, people are getting used to paying less and part of what's driving that is that they're getting used to making less. Settling for cheap junk you have to buy more twice rather than buying a quality product once never made much sense to me. I don't care much for Wal-Mart on any level, actually haven't been in one since 1988, and so I don't shop there. I don't look down on those who do, but we need to realize that the decisions we make have long term effects and shop accordingly.

Meanwhile we're increasing wages and taxes to company's balance sheets.... it's a formula for disaster if you ask me.

The proposals I've seen from Kerry actually reduce the taxes on businesses to encourage growth.

But what about our inability to export into the global market?

We represent 3% of the world population yet consume 25% of its products and resources. We are the largest consumer market in the world, so maybe we should concentrate on meeting our own needs rather than relying on imports ourselves or exports to support our economy. The imbalance in our trade agreements with nations like China virtually insure we will never be able to compete for the emerging Chinese market, so until we address that issue we should concentrate on winning back the American consumer.

It is almost too late for our nation to begin it's change if it wants to remain competitive with the rest of the world.

You are absolutely right there, but what form should that change take? One of the few areas where the nipple-ring generation and I agree is on the WTO. Until we realize that the WTO is more about insuring corporate profits than about securing good lives for people, we are going to see a continued erosion of our ability to compete and the resultant decrease in our quality of life to third world standards.

Quite true! And I got a chuckle out of that! Although I don't think the FAA would ever allow it. And even if they did, it would put up some pretty bad press for the first airline to open up a maintenance base in Port-au-prince.

Nothing in FAR 145, which covers overhaul operations, prevents it. When you consider the standards of some of the Asian overhaul operations currently in use by many US airlines, and some of Third Party operators in this country for that matter, I don't see why Haiti would be excluded. Particularly when it would probably be "spun" as 'helping the poor Haitians help themselves'.

Yes I did. It seemed like a partisan article to me, so I took it at face value.

Actually it was from Factcheck.org, a bipartisan website that even Dick Cheney recommends, although he got the name wrong at the debates.

And after reading it, I still find it's hard to ignore the large scale economic force of the small businesses in America.

Small businesses need consumers and consumers need money.

 

[KCFlyer]

To sort of get back to the original topic, I found these quotes in this weeks issue of Time magazine:

Clearly, John Kerry has made his Vietnam service the foundation of his presidential run. This is an issue that is certainly topical.

That was from Mark Hyman, vice president of Sinclair Broadcasting Group public relations concerning the documentary they are planning to run. Now, keeping that in mind, review this quote:

We do not believe such political statements should be disguised as news content.

That comment was from a Sinclair Broadcasting company statement explaining why they refused to air a special edition of Nightline that consisted of reading the names and showing pictures of the 523 US soldiers who died in Iraq...the true "heros" of this conflict...

Now...while I oppose the war, I have never not supported the troops. And I find it to be the ultimate insult to those that gave their lives because they obeyed their call to duty from their commander in chief cannot be recognized for their sacrifice. I won't say "defending this country" or "defending my freedom" to describe the conflict that took their lives. Because I honestly don't believe that this war has anything to do with defending this country or my freedoms. And that's what makes the loss of these fine men and women truly sad.

But the "conservative media" views the act of recognizing the fallen soldiers as a "political statement", but the airing of a politically charged "documentary" is considered "news".

I suppose to make the Bush team really happy, we could just have a hometown "tomb of the unknown soldier" in every town that's lost one of their own in Iraq. What a sham...."you are our heros....until you're killed in action...then you are not worthy of being recognized for you sacrifice".