What they say vs what they mean

[Mairead]

I know this is going to be 'controversial', but I believe it is both an accurate translation from politicianese and something we damned well ought to be talking about, because it goes to the very essence of why Democrats are vilified as 'tax-and-spend'ers. (Note: If anyone doubts this is an accurate translation, please try to supply a more credible one.)

When he says:

To create new manufacturing jobs Kerry will provide new tax breaks to manufacturers who produce goods and create jobs in the United States. He will provide relief for manufacturers that provide quality health care and retirement. John Kerry will strongly enforce trade laws to assure that American industries are on a level playing field with our trading partners. To guarantee that American manufacturing will be strong in the future, John Kerry will invest in research and development, give tax incentives to help industries upgrade, and work to assure a highly qualified workforce.

he means:

To create new manufacturing jobs Kerry will further reduce the amount of corporate taxes paid by manufacturers who produce goods and create jobs in the United States, making up the losses by taxing workers. He will also reduce the taxes paid by manufacturers that provide quality health care and retirement, again shifting that burden to workers. John Kerry will strongly enforce trade laws to assure that American industries are on a level playing field with our trading partners. To guarantee that American manufacturing will be strong in the future, John Kerry will spend public money on research and development, normally an expected cost of staying in business, so that corporate profits can continue to be fully distributed to his and his spouse's wealthy peers (85% of all profits go to that group, 10% of the population). Kerry will also maintain profit levels by spending public money to help industries upgrade, something that would normally come out of net income, and work to assure a highly qualified workforce. 'Highly qualified' in this case means 'relative to wages and salaries expected', and there are a number of ways Kerry will explore to improve that ratio to meet business needs.

Note: Under rulings by the WTO et al., neither national nor local laws are permitted to infringe upon corporate profitability, whence the requirement that Kerry shift cost burdens to workers. Since every such shift creates a new set of 'facts on the ground', such changes are irreversible so long as the WTO exists.

[info being]

1. That's right

I WANT so BADLY to like what Kerry stands for. I listen with hope to everything he has to say. The sad truth is he is a master of spin and deceipt.

[sangh0]

2. What they say, and what they mean

I know this is going to be 'controversial', but I believe it is both an accurate translation from DUese and something we damned well ought to be talking about, because it goes to the very essence of why DUers are vilified as 'the loony left'. (Note: If anyone doubts this is an accurate translation, please try to supply a more credible one.)

when mairead says:


To create new manufacturing jobs Kerry will further reduce the amount of corporate taxes paid by manufacturers who produce goods and create jobs in the United States, making up the losses by taxing workers. He will also reduce the taxes paid by manufacturers that provide quality health care and retirement, again shifting that burden to workers. John Kerry will strongly enforce trade laws to assure that American industries are on a level playing field with our trading partners. To guarantee that American manufacturing will be strong in the future, John Kerry will spend public money on research and development, normally an expected cost of staying in business, so that corporate profits can continue to be fully distributed to his and his spouse's wealthy peers (85% of all profits go to that group, 10% of the population). Kerry will also maintain profit levels by spending public money to help industries upgrade, something that would normally come out of net income, and work to assure a highly qualified workforce. 'Highly qualified' in this case means 'relative to wages and salaries expected', and there are a number of ways Kerry will explore to improve that ratio to meet business needs.

Note: Under rulings by the WTO et al., neither national nor local laws are permitted to infringe upon corporate profitability, whence the requirement that Kerry shift cost burdens to workers. Since every such shift creates a new set of 'facts on the ground', such changes are irreversible so long as the WTO exists.


mairead means:

I don't like Kerry. He beat my candidate

[Old and In the Way]

3. hehehehe

I just love how some of our posters here think they have political liscense to distort whatever statements don't fit their misconceived notions about what Kerry stands for.

[youngred]

9. What the Say what they mean Part II

I know this is going to be 'controversial', but I believe it is both an accurate translation from Kerryisgodese and something we damned well ought to be talking about, because it goes to the very essence of why DLCers are blind to the elcetoral defeat awaiting their centrism. (Note: If anyone doubts this is an accurate translation, please try to supply a more credible one.)

when sangh0 posts sangh0 means:

Being Bush Lite is better than being a True Democrat and we don't need any of those durn ideologically pure, head-in-the-clouds, think for themselves, arrogant leftists!
:eyes:

I'm being sarcastic, but c'mon

Constructive criticism is allowed, especially when its particularly true. fanning the flames of divisiveness helps no one

[sangh0]

13. Putting words in someone's mouth

has never been considered "constructive criticism". Neither has personal attacks.

[youngred]

15. sitting in a glass house pitchin stones

I said I wasn't serious but was parodying your personal attack and putting words in others mouths.

nice try

[sangh0]

17. "I said I wasn't serious"

but for some reason, it's only *my* personal attack that getds parodied, even though my post was obviously a parody of the original post, which you obviously knew because you did the same thing I did.

But Mairead would never do that, right?

[youngred]

18. But she wasn't posting a personal attack on Kerry

whereas you were on her.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

14. That's what you did Mairead

Instead of "I disagree with Kerry on _______ and here's why", you went for the "Kerry is a liar" route. You attacked the messenger and not the message.

[Mairead]

20. Check your facts. I extracted the deep structure from what he said

If you think I didn't, then how about you come up with a different meaning that people find more credible.

[jpgray]

4. You are a babe in the political campaign woods, friend. :-)

If this is your translation, you are more knowledgeable on issues than you are on campaigns.

This is like his saying he will solve the manpower shortage in the military. How is he going to do this? By your 'translation' rules, he would have to draft workers. In reality he will make some steps that are conducive to recruitment and then say he's doing all he can.

It's a campaign. Promises are made that are not kept in spirit, though they will techincially be kept in word. He will make the effort to do the above, but he won't actually be able to do it. If he can do it, then he will have to make up the loss in revenue.

If you expect a candidate running for president to be wholly honest in his proposals, or wholly populist in enacting them, you must have the magical fairy book of United States political history, because such a thing has never happened.

[info being]

7. Maybe we've just become accustomed to Bush's tactics

Let's hope Kerry is different. Let's also hope you guys stay objective when he isn't.

[Mairead]

21. Are you saying "they all lie like rugs"? I don't disagree, I object!

And we should all object, because when we accept shite as though it were gold, guess what we get more of next time.

[Trinity]

5. yeah, but with MoveOn and all the other progressive lobbying groups..

we can effect change with a democrats policy positions, the current pResident just ignores everyone but the religous right ond the corporate entities. Democrats CAN change their positions, most republicans can't....... :think:




Peace? :hippie: :smoke: :freak:

[DuctapeFatwa]

6. I don't think any co who has cut personnel costs by 90% gives a fuck

about a tax break. Kerry is a shrewd politician, and I think his pledge of no tax breaks to outsourcers is nothing short of brilliant. I saw people who have been outsourced stand up and cheer it.

[jpgray]

8. Consider this an addendum to my post, Mairead

The tax increase will only cut down on the profit margin, unless the increase is on an order of magnitude that it eclipses the wage differences in developing countries. In two words, it won't. :)

This is a campaign--like Bush, Kerry will have to maneuver himself into a balancing act that galvanizes centrists, capitalizes on the unease of Bush's base by not energizing them, and avoids alienating leftists. It would be nice if he could move left non-stop, but he would probably lose to George 3.0, the upgrade that will shift violently to the center as he did in the 2000 election.

[Mairead]

11. Pathetic, isn't it. You'd hope--I don't say expect-- that people would be

a bit quicker off the mark than that. :(

[DuctapeFatwa]

12. Kerry is just really really talented. I think 4 years of bush, and people

have forgotten that a good politician makes people feel like they are the most important thing in the world to him, and they can just feel it coming from him as he tells them to be ready for execution tomorrow.

[sangh0]

16. So who are you for again?

.

[corporatewhore]

19. workers unhappy with both partiesregarding freetrade-Loudobbs

its on right now i also started a thread on it
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x434746