Anti-kerry Film Sparks Dnc Response

[atabuy]

I find very good information here to think about and appreciate all of the input debated on these issues.
We all form opinions based on what we know, our experiences, and sometimes even just from the envirorment we grew up in.

I think that when someone is flip flopping on their opinion, a lot of times it is because they have new information which corrects misconceptions they may have on a subject.
Although we all try to be objective, our bias sometimes gets in the way of some truths, and what we want to believe.

In every issue there is pro and con positions, and that is why a good debater can take either side and possibly sway someones opinion.

I want to apologize if sometimes I become a little caustic in my replies to posters. I do want to see all sides of the issues, so please continue with your opinions.
Thank you all

 

[USAir757]

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

What about the trillion other foreign countries we import products from.... this isn't only about what we do here in the US to manufacture and produce... we import far more than we export, and it isn't all because we offshored a whole bunch of our labor. It's because corporations from other countries have benefited from sending their products here for ages. If you don't think there are a huge deal of people here doing business for foreign corporations, I urge you to take a walk down 47th Street in Manhattan and write what you see. And that's just one street.

And by the way, just because Toyota builds a few manufacturing plants in the states doesn't mean that they among dozens of other foreign auto makers don't still bring them over the old fashion way.

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.

I see the dollar becoming more valuable these days rather than less valuable. We are getting used to paying less for things in this country, and when we see companies (like Kathy Lee and others) practicing this kind of business, we don't like the way it sounds to us, but most people will look beyond that if it will save them a few dollars. And that is what is important to greater America right now, less money is better. Not necessarily because we are coming out of recession, but it's more like a state of mind that societaly we have reached the conclusion that we will patronize the people who know how to do it cheaper. Without this m.o., companies like Walmart and Southwest would not be near where they are today.

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

Am I wrong in assuming the tax rollback includes any entity with over $200k annual income?

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.

With step one being to raise the minimum wage and make our American products that much more expensive to American consumers? That just throws gas on the company's cash flow fire so they will be that much more reluctant to make new hires.... HIGHER WAGES = LESS JOBS.

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

I've been to the website several times. Though it may claim to be bipartisan, I have read articles that have been obviously slanted to one side or the other. That article being one of them.

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'.

I don't have to tell you guys that the airline industry is far different from any other industry in this world. It gets treated differently from everything. While you may outsource your production of silicon chips, precious metals, or gourmet wicker arrangements... those are not things that endanger the safety of the general public if you purchase them. I thought the whole suggestion with outsourcing airline personnel and maintenance was a joke to start... but I guess we are being serious about it. In which case, I have to say, IMHO, it is extremely unlikely that this kind of practice would ever happen. And any work done on a US airliner must still pass the standards and undergo the scrutiny of the Federal Aviation Administration. Having airliners crashing on Miami Beach and elsewhere because they just got in from their routine maintenance in Haiti.... that's a bigger price to pay than any other outsourcing I can think of.

 

[NWA/AMT]

Am I wrong in assuming the tax rollback includes any entity with over $200k annual income?

[post="193069"][/post]​

You are talking about taxes on personal income and I am taking about the business tax rate. Apples - Oranges.

With step one being to raise the minimum wage and make our American products that much more expensive to American consumers?

No, with one step being to raise the standard of living for those making the least among us so they can participate in the economy rather than merely survive. For decades now corporations have socialized the risks associated with lower paid employees, risks such as health care and food stamps for the working poor, while keeping their profit levels high, so I think that the effects you ascribe to raising the minimum wage are somewhat exaggerated and balanced by the indirect costs of keeping wages low. LOWER WAGES = LESS CONSUMERS = LESS EMPLOYEES.

I've been to the website several times. Though it may claim to be bipartisan, I have read articles that have been obviously slanted to one side or the other. That article being one of them.

Interesting. Considering that they castigate Kerry exactly as much as they castigate Bush, I felt they were actually very even-handed. They seem preoccupied with the concept of truth rather than ideology, but I guess it's a matter of perspective.

I thought the whole suggestion with outsourcing airline personnel and maintenance was a joke to start... but I guess we are being serious about it. In which case, I have to say, IMHO, it is extremely unlikely that this kind of practice would ever happen.

I'm afraid you misunderstand - it is already happening, has been for years.

"Airlines such as Northwest and Continental and the delivery companies FedEx Corp. and United Parcel Service Inc. outsource so-called heavy checks, which are required when planes reach a certain age, to Asia."

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04154/325605.stm

"Although air carriers have outsourced portions of their
maintenance work for years, this practice has recently become more pronounced. As of December 2002, major air carriers were using repair stations for 47 percent
of their total aircraft maintenance costs."

http://www.aviationoutsourcing.com/PDF/DOT...IG%20report.pdf

And any work done on a US airliner must still pass the standards and undergo the scrutiny of the Federal Aviation Administration.

Not according to the GAO or the DOT Inspector General:

http://www.aviationoutsourcing.com/PDF/GAO...about%20FAA.pdf

http://www.aviationoutsourcing.com/PDF/DOT...IG%20report.pdf

Having had to repair aircraft that were 'repaired' at foreign repair stations, ostensibly with FAA oversight, and having seen first hand the quality of the work, I can tell you that they are not equal.

 

[USAir757]

Interesting. Considering that they castigate Kerry exactly as much as they castigate Bush, I felt they were actually very even-handed. They seem preoccupied with the concept of truth rather than ideology, but I guess it's a matter of perspective.

Actually, that is what I was trying to say, that they are even between the two. Perhaps it's not the website, but the actual truth that may seem balanced between the two candidates with factcheck.org. The truth... it's something that is so hard to find, and once it is actually found, it is always still going to be questionable. What a wonderful world.

I'm afraid you misunderstand - it is already happening, has been for years.

I stand corrected. I knew that overhaul work has been done for U.S. heavies in Asia for a while, but I wasn't aware to the extent your links have described. Though, it's not surprising that large contract jobs are being sent over. Interesting how Air China is sending them to SFO though.... anyway, I'm circling more on semi-routine aircraft checks and maintenance, and of course, the idea of outsourcing personell. Excluding reservationists and other tele-support, I don't see the baby going out with the bathwater on the flight crew side of things.

Having had to repair aircraft that were 'repaired' at foreign repair stations, ostensibly with FAA oversight, and having seen first hand the quality of the work, I can tell you that they are not equal.

Isn't that the truth. Another reason I don't think we'll see a whole lot of this in the future, large overhaul operations aside.

 

[KCFlyer]

What about the trillion other foreign countries we import products from.... this isn't only about what we do here in the US to manufacture and produce... we import far more than we export, and it isn't all because we offshored a whole bunch of our labor. It's because corporations from other countries have benefited from sending their products here for ages. If you don't think there are a huge deal of people here doing business for foreign corporations, I urge you to take a walk down 47th Street in Manhattan and write what you see. And that's just one street.

Yeah...and I'll bet those foreign corporations are paying a higher share of taxes in their home country than the American companies here are paying. Hope for your and Fred's sake there's not a trillion other countries out there....that sort of makes your 40 (and declining) "coalition of the willing" seem rather, shall we say...minimal. And in the telecom industry, which I'm familiar with, there isn't a lot of "production" of a product. Most of what is 'produced' is "intellectual property". And that is something we've shipped offshore, or have turned over to foreigners on H1B visas. Products could be produced here and priced very competitively, even with a totally union workforct. But....corporations in America view the worker as a "liability" or "cost center"...and that doesn't look good to Wall Street. Did you ever notice that the "health" of the economy is based on the Dow Jones Industrial Average? Nevermind if 50,000 people lose their jobs stateside...the "cost savings" associated with that move bumps up the stock price and profits for the corporation. And those same corporations are paying the lowest tax rates in history. So...it's good for large shareholders...it's good for execs...but it's not so good for the economy.

And by the way, just because Toyota builds a few manufacturing plants in the states doesn't mean that they among dozens of other foreign auto makers don't still bring them over the old fashion way.

No doubt...but what's the biggest selling Toyota in the USA? The Camry. Whats the biggest selling Honda in the USA? The Accord. Both of which are built here. The profits go to the Japanese parent, but the most popular of their vehicles are built here....by American workers. American SUV's are hugely popular in my area. Most are built in Mexico for super cheap labor, then brought back to the USA and given an MSRP that in many cases exceeds $50,000. And American automakers are "in trouble" because they have to offer rebates to move them. But the sad truth is, they could rebate $30,000 on one of those $50k trucks and STILL make a handsome profit. They could build those vehicles here and sell them for $40k and still make a very handsome profit. But, hey...it's a "global economy". Pure Horseshit.

I see the dollar becoming more valuable these days rather than less valuable. We are getting used to paying less for things in this country, and when we see companies (like Kathy Lee and others) practicing this kind of business, we don't like the way it sounds to us, but most people will look beyond that if it will save them a few dollars. And that is what is important to greater America right now, less money is better. Not necessarily because we are coming out of recession, but it's more like a state of mind that societaly we have reached the conclusion that we will patronize the people who know how to do it cheaper. Without this m.o., companies like Walmart and Southwest would not be near where they are today.

So how will you feel when you climb into your 757 thats fresh out of a Honduran D check? Gotta be competitive, and your customers for the most part haven't a clue if your plane was fixed in Pittsburgh or Tegucegulpa. It's all about the costs, right?

With step one being to raise the minimum wage and make our American products that much more expensive to American consumers? That just throws gas on the company's cash flow fire so they will be that much more reluctant to make new hires.... HIGHER WAGES = LESS JOBS.

Seems like several folks at your airline took wage cuts twice, and it looks like a third is on the way. Yet at the same time, the number of jobs has also decreased. Doesn't that go counter to your formula?

I don't have to tell you guys that the airline industry is far different from any other industry in this world. It gets treated differently from everything. While you may outsource your production of silicon chips, precious metals, or gourmet wicker arrangements... those are not things that endanger the safety of the general public if you purchase them. I thought the whole suggestion with outsourcing airline personnel and maintenance was a joke to start... but I guess we are being serious about it. In which case, I have to say, IMHO, it is extremely unlikely that this kind of practice would ever happen. And any work done on a US airliner must still pass the standards and undergo the scrutiny of the Federal Aviation Administration. Having airliners crashing on Miami Beach and elsewhere because they just got in from their routine maintenance in Haiti.... that's a bigger price to pay than any other outsourcing I can think of.

Here's where it gets fun...don't think the airline industry is immune from "offshoring". While YOUR job might not get offshored, the job that impacts the safety of your profession can and IS being offshored. And with the Bush Administration feeling the "global economy" is of the utmost importance...that the stock price of a company is the driver of how well it's doing....and considering that the FAA (as most every other federal agency is heavily influenced by the sitting administration...how much longer do you really think it's going to be when it starts happening? Will "hey, it's a global economy" justify what's happening? BTW...I haven't seen jets crashing on Miami Beach, but I HAVE seen divorces and suicides that happened because of outsourcing. And in my mind, that's a pretty hefty price to pay for "shareholder value".

 

[atabuy]

Here is a site that speaks about the global economy. There are many sites to choose from, so you may find pro and con. This was the first search site I clicked on.

To read the full article:
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.js...l+economy&page=
1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3Dcf154d2dc
406d06%26clickedItemRank%3D2%26userQuery%3Dglobal%2Beconomy%26
clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.globalexchange.org%252F
economy%252Fecon101%252F%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DNSCP
Index2%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2F
www.globalexchange.org%2Feconomy%2Fecon101%2F

Partial
Race, Poverty & Globalization

Poverty & Race
May/June 2000
By john a. powell and S.P. Udayakumar

The world economy is in a state of what is commonly viewed as unprecedented growth. But with this growth has come dangerous and destructive economic disparity. On the one hand, we see the "impressive" economy in the Northern Hemisphere, particularly in the United States, where Silicon Valley, a region of 2.3 million people, has produced tens of thousands of millionaires, with 64 new ones every day. There are regular U.S. reports of historically low unemployment rates, labor shortages and booming economy.

On the other hand, many people of color, particularly those in the Southern Hemisphere, do not have enough food to eat, resulting in malnutrition and disease. They face growing inflation while their governments, which used to subsidize some aspects of their marginal living, are urged to stop subsidies for food and adopt a more market-oriented economics. Many workers in these economies are trapped in poor working conditions with low pay. Women are often expected to do back-breaking farm and domestic work, with few rights or benefits. Yet many of the fiscal policies pushed onto developing countries and adopted in northern countries exacerbate the problem of the most marginal while celebrating the wealth of the rich.


Home page
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.js...al+economy&page
=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3Dcf154d2dc406d06%26clickedItemRank%3D2%26userQuery%3Dgl
obal%2Beconomy%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252F
www.globalexchange.org%252Feconomy%252Fecon101%252F%26invocation
Type%3D-%26fromPage%3DNSCPIndex2%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=
http%3A%2F%2Fwww.globalexchange.org%2Feconomy%2Fecon101%2F

 

[atabuy]

Another site where you might get a view from American workers.
http://www.aflcio.org/

Just go to a search engine and type in global economy.
You will have many sites to look.

 

[USAir757]

There are three sides to this... what is good for the American labor worker, what is good for white collar America, and somewhere in between, what is good for the United States economy.

The factors that are within our control, meaning the entities that still maitain their corporate offices within the United States, will always have to contend with their foreign counterparts that, in many cases, do not have the same regulation and laws protecting their workers. It is a fact of life that we as Americans have to deal with. We've come to the conclusion here together that it doesn't matter whether your in communications, manufacturing, electronics, airlines, etc.... because virtually no industry is exempt from the outsourcing we are seeing every day. So let's say we levy heavier taxes on those corporations that outsource offshore... what does that do for those that just chose to move their corporation offshore altogether? The tax incentive, while a decent idea, will not solve the problem. What's more is that it really does nothing to attack the fundamental issue of the need to create jobs. There will always be corporate greed. And the world will always have "ditch diggers" too. And between everyone, it is our responsibility TOGETHER to bail out this economy... And I think where many Republicans cannot see eye to eye with Democrats is this..... as it is you know that the "elite" (as they are called) are already paying more than a substantial portion of this nations taxes. Why should we penalize those who have more than others? I work just as hard as the guy who served me my egg mcmuffin this morning. That doesn't mean that I should be paying for his health care because McDonalds doesn't offer it. I am not the personification of "corporate America", so why penalize me more than I am already? Why isn't there a flat tax? Why are we not all treated equal, like our constitution promised us?

 

[NWA/AMT]

I work just as hard as the guy who served me my egg mcmuffin this morning. That doesn't mean that I should be paying for his health care because McDonalds doesn't offer it.

[post="193403"][/post]​

The problem is that you are going to pay for his health care, either directly or indirectly. When employers don't offer health care plans, employees still get sick and when they get sick they still need medical attention and the taxpayers end up paying for it. Saying that something isn't our problem doesn't solve the problem or make it go away.

 

[KCFlyer]

So let's say we levy heavier taxes on those corporations that outsource offshore... what does that do for those that just chose to move their corporation offshore altogether?

Many already have...that's the point. Many companies set up a P.O.box in Bermuda and call it their "headquarters". Presto - NO taxes. But it they want to move the entire corporation offshore, fine...put the CEO and other top execs in their comfy bizjets and tell them that we really don't want the executives of a foreign based company to reside in the United States. And if they move their headquarters to Europe, they'll be dealing with the differences in cultures when it comes to their staffing and labor. but here's the thing that would prevent that from happening...CEO's and executives of corporations in foreign countries don't get anything close to pay and perks that their US counterparts get. No...the company would stay in the US, mostly because of the self interest of those at the top. So if you tell those at the top that they are going to either have to lose their corporate tax breaks if they offshore jobs, or keep their tax breaks and create the jobs here at home, I've got a feeling most of them would opt to keep their tax breaks and rethink their offshoring strategy.

Why should we penalize those who have more than others? I work just as hard as the guy who served me my egg mcmuffin this morning. That doesn't mean that I should be paying for his health care because McDonalds doesn't offer it.

Ah...but you DO pay for his health care. Maybe not in your federal taxes, but in your state and local taxes, which, as federal tax cuts are enacted, state and local governments have to increase their taxes to make up for the shortfall in federal funds. Trust me on this....I work in public health. Many of our clients have jobs like Walmart or McDonalds jobs. They come in and get services that cost you, the local taxpayer, to provide. Walmart's maternity benefits are so poor that even when covered, it doesn't cover much prenatal care at all. So guess who picks up the slack? It takes two years for a Walmart employee making minimum wage to get coverage from the company. When they finally qualify, they are responsible for almost 80% of the monthly premium. That means that this employee, if he is single, would have to pay in the neighborhood of $270 a month for his insurance. If he has a wife and kid, the rate he'd pay can go to more than $500 a month. That's a big chunk of his paycheck when he grosses around $1,000 month. Then, in turn, many qualify for food stamps, of which more and more is being turned over to the states. So....I hate to break this to you, but you already are paying.

 

[TWAnr]

I work just as hard as the guy who served me my egg mcmuffin this morning. That doesn't mean that I should be paying for his health care because McDonalds doesn't offer it.

[post="193403"][/post]​

I must say that you are consistent. First you support sending jobs offshore, because it is good for the economy. Of course, the airlines have yet to figure out how to export your job to Bangalore, India. So you are safe for the time being. Now, you don't want to pay an extra nickel or a dime for your Big Mac, so that the hamburger flipper will have company sponsored health insurance. Guess what, employee health insurance is part of the cost structure of airlines. If you were to lose that employer paid benefit, airfares might come down or, in the alternative, the airlines may not bleed as much red ink as they do now. Maybe you will lose your health care in the next round of concessions.

I am not the personification of "corporate America", so why penalize me more than I am already?

[post="193403"][/post]​

You may not be the personification of "Corporate America", however, you certainly are the poster child for the selfish individual who does not seem to care about the well being of your fellow citizens if it may affect your pocketbook, no matter how little.

 

[KCFlyer]

I must say that you are consistent. First you support sending jobs offshore, because it is good for the economy. Of course, the airlines have yet to figure out how to export your job to Bangalore, India. So you are safe for the time being. Now, you don't want to pay an extra nickel or a dime for your Big Mac, so that the hamburger flipper will have company sponsored health insurance. Guess what, employee health insurance is part of the cost structure of airlines. If you were to lose that employer paid benefit, airfares might come down or, in the alternative, the airlines may not bleed as much red ink as they do now. Maybe you will lose your health care in the next round of concessions.

[post="193455"][/post]​

To add to this...Where I work, I have 3 health care plans available. Here are the breakdowns between employee paid and company paid monthly premium for a family:

Limited HMO - Employee pays $165, Employer pays $786
Flexible HMO - Employee pays $203 Employer pays $786
PPO - Employee pays $313 Employer pays $786.

I think I've got pretty decent coverage, but I know that most airline employees only pay a fraction of that amount. And my employer picks up a significant chunk of the premium.

Now 757...if your airline suggested increasing your portion to what I have to pay for mine, would you feel that's a fair trade to cut your employers costs? And imagine if your employer didn't offer health care benefits for the first two years (ala Walmart), and then when you qualified you paid 80% of your total premium, or...between $500 and $800 a month (also like Walmart). Remember...the consumer is saving money because of the efforts of your companies management to cut costs. When those costs start hitting a little closer to home, what will you tell the customer of your airline who says

I work just as hard as the guy who flew my plane to Pittsburgh this morning. That doesn't mean that I should be paying for his health care because USAirways doesn't offer it.

 

[NWA/AMT]

You may not be the personification of "Corporate America", however, you certainly are the poster child for the selfish individual who does not seem to care about the well being of your fellow citizens if it may affect your pocketbook, no matter how little.

[post="193455"][/post]​

TWAnr, while I usually agree with you, I have to say you're being a bit harsh on USAir757 this time. He has been far more openminded than most of us to the arguments of others and willing to discuss matters of substance in a constructive manner and I don't think calling him 'selfish' is fair.

Personal attacks only seem to cause people to become more entrenched in their positions and less receptive to the ideas of others. Thanks.

 

[TWAnr]

Personal attacks only seem to cause people to become more entrenched in their positions and less receptive to the ideas of others. Thanks.

[post="193482"][/post]​

I am sorry. I did not mean that to be a personal attack, so I will apologize if it is perceived as such.

I struggled to articulate my impressions that some people are fervently intent to have their trivial tax cuts regardless of the overall negative affect on our society as a whole.

 

[TWAnr]

Limited HMO - Employee pays $165, Employer pays $786
Flexible HMO - Employee pays $203 Employer pays $786
PPO - Employee pays $313 Employer pays $786.

[post="193480"][/post]​

Those plans are expensive.

I have a Flexible Benefits Cafeteria Plan, so I pick and choose my perks and pay for them with my employer's contribution which is equivalent to 10% of my salary. If I select benefits that cost in excess of my allowance, the extra cost is deducted from my pay.

The Blue Cross POS plan which I chose for myself and my family will cost me $640.99 a month in 2005. Other choices were: Kaiser HMO $429.41, Blue Cross HMO $429.41, Blue Cross PPO 787.85 and Blue Cross Catastrophic $337.31.

At TWA, my wife received full coverage (Aetna PPO) for the entire family without paying any employee contribution (I did not buy any health insurance for the family and carried only catastrophic coverage for myself from my employer until she was furloughed). At AA, as of the middle of last year, her monthly employee contribution for the UHC POS plan for the entire family was $80. The cost of COBRA - which we fortunately did not need - for that plan was just under $700 a month in 2004.