Quote:
Originally posted by Hwed
Kerry is nothing but a vessel for Bush hatred. He has no plan, no positive agenda, no nothing.
|
Bush's extremely negative ads that use the same editing techniques that Michael Moore himself employs does not make it so. Have you listened to what Kerry has to say? I've listened to both Bush and Kerry. Bush: America is safer! Kerry is bad! Kerry: Long list of things he wants to do that are positive.
Yes, the contingency that supports Kerry are angry. There are a lot of reasons for this, but do not directly reflect Kerry's campaign strategy. The Republican noise machine is having a field day with the anger that is brewing in America over Bush's failed policies, manipulation of public opinion, and exploitation of the horrendous attack on our soil 3 years ago. Let's just see what November brings, shall we?
Quote:
|
As far as Clinton's tax hikes boosting the economy, utter hogwash.
|
Let's see. Reagan cuts taxes (for the wealthy), deficit booms, economy falters. Clinton raises taxes back to where they were (for the wealthy) with a modest increase (4.3 cents to the gallon) on gas, economy booms, budget balances, surplus for the looming social security disaster begins to accumulate. Conclusive? Not at all. I tend to agree that these things don't have much of an effect on the overall economy. But with Bush selling the line that tax cuts (to the wealthy) will make our economy prosper, it is only prudent to examine history and see how that claim stands up. It doesn't stand up very well, at least superficially.
Quote:
|
How does taking money from the rich and throwing it at the poor help anything? The poor spend it on lottery tickets, tattoos, cigarettes and booze.
|
Do you actually believe this? I mean, really?
Quote:
|
On the other hand, extra money in the hands of the rich tends to be invested in new business opportunities, leading to new jobs, technological advancement, etc.
|
Extra money in the hands of the rich tends to be "invested" in offshore tax shelters to make them more rich. It is either naive or dishonest to suggest that any surplus income -- to someone who already has a vast amount of surplus income -- will automatically be spent on improving society and the lives of those who actually
work to sustain it.
Corporations lobby to remove
any necessity to provide
anything back to the workforce that sustains them, including worker safety, basic benefits that everyone should enjoy if they are contributing to society (health, dental, pension), and much needed regulation to protect the populace from pollution and dangerous goods.
Corporations are
not interested in spending their profits on anything that benefits the workforce or society. Corporations exist to make as much money as they can, and keep it. It does not take a genius or a "liberal" to understand this, just one who is willing to see past the shallow Conservative pro-business rhetoric that is supplied directly to the talking-points pundits by the corporate lobbyists.
Add to this that a lot of the "new jobs" being added are either overseas or in the service industry, the argument just falls flat. I am a skilled work and gainfully employed, but I recognize that the society I want to live in isn't just me and my peers. It is everyone. That is what society is. Continually degrading the quality of life of those who are less fortunate and then trying to reign in the crime that results with a growing police force is not a recipe for a sustainable society.