I'm depresseed by Kerry's economic plan. Am I being petty?

[Armstead]

Okay, I was ready to lie back and take it, in terms of acceptiung that this is just going to be a "To Bush or Not To Bush" election. No visionary progressive populism. No mild propgressive populism. Not even much traditional liberalism.

But Jeeze Louise, is this new economic plan the best Kerry can come up with? Give the corporations more tax money and hope they will keep a few jobs here?

My word. This is worse than I thought. The Centrist-DLC No-Position BoJive Election of 2004 brought to you by Corporate Americas.

"You want Bad or Worse? No Substitutions on This Menu."

I guess there really is a purge of anything remotely different than the old business as usual going on.

Somebody please remind me ABB, ABB, ABB.....

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. Armstead, you make me want to scream

Holding out a carrot to corporations via tax breaks specifically tied to hiring while tightening UP tax breaks for outsourcing IS a viable way to create jobs...don't forget cancelling the tax cuts for the top ONE PERCENT...there is NOTHING MORE progressive than progressive taxation which he is reinstating. It's the first LOGICAL step to income redistribution.

[Armstead]

11. It's fine as far as it goes, but that's not very far

The way Kerry has presented it, makes it obvious that he's going to be a diehard "free trader" and will avoid anything that even smacks of offending the corporate elite. He'd rather offend those who are not into the DLC mindset I guess.

I'm sure corporations would be happy for the tax break. But as even the right-wing commentators have poionted out, the tax aspects of going overseas is not high on the priority list in terms of the flight of the economy offshore. It's the cheap labor, no regulations that pushes companies offshore.

To deal with that we really have to take some clearer actions that mean something, not just handing out tax breaks to corporations.

By trying to have it both ways, Kerry will take us further down the wrong road by offering no alternative.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

13. I guess I need to start listening in "disgruntled Democrat" code talk

The way Kerry has presented it, makes it obvious that he's going to be a diehard "free trader" and will avoid anything that even smacks of offending the corporate elite. He'd rather offend those who are not into the DLC mindset I guess.

Yep removing those breaks for companies that outsource jobs really pleases the corporate elites, eh?

I'm sure corporations would be happy for the tax break. But as even the right-wing commentators have poionted out, the tax aspects of going overseas is not high on the priority list in terms of the flight of the economy offshore. It's the cheap labor, no regulations that pushes companies offshore.

I guess his own words aren't enough.

Q: Should the US seek more free or liberalized trade agreements?
A: I support free trade, but I don't support what the Bush administration calls free trade. I will order an immediate 120-day review of all trade agreements to ensure that our trading partners are living up to their labor and environment obligations and that trade agreements are enforceable and are balanced for America's workers. I won't sign any new trade agreements unless they contain strong labor and environmental standards.

Source: Associated Press policy Q&A, "Trade" Jan 25, 2004

Veto FTAA and CAFTA until they have stronger standards
Q: Your views on labor rights?
KERRY: I have been fighting to have labor and environment standards in trade agreements. I worked to make sure we had it in the Jordan agreement and in the Vietnam side agreement. You didn't need it in Chile is because they have high standards and they enforce them. The important thing is, I would not support the Free Trade of the Americas Act or the Central American Free Trade Act until they have stronger standards in them. If they sent them to my desk, I'd veto them.

Source: Democratic 2004 Presidential Primary Debate in Iowa Jan 4, 2004

Dean's trade policy is protectionist
Q : You have accused Gov. Dean of playing on workers' fears and advocating protectionism and saying that under him it threatens to throw the economy into a tail spin. It that fair?
KERRY: Yes, it is fair, because Gov. Dean has said very specifically that we should not trade with countries until they have labor and environment standards that are equal to the US. That means we would trade with no countries. It is a policy for shutting the door. It's either a policy for shutting the door, if you believe it, or it's a policy of just telling people what they want to hear.

DEAN: I supported NAFTA, I supported the WTO. We benefited in Vermont from trade. But in the Midwest, our manufacturing jobs are hemorrhaging. We have to go back and revise every single trade agreement that we have to include labor standards, environmental standards & human rights standards. If we don't, the trade policy that we seek to help globalize and help workers around the country & the world is going to fail.

Source: Debate at Pace University in Lower Manhattan Sep 25, 2003

FTAA needs more labor and environmental standards
I don't support the Free Trade Agreement of America nor the Central American Free Trade Agreement as it is today because they do desperately need to have increased labor standards, environment standards, to bring other countries up. You can't have trade be a rush to the bottom, and you can't leave other nations with a one-way street, and you can't abuse people the way it has been. It would be wonderful to have a president who could find the rest of the countries in this hemisphere. And I will do that.
Source: Democratic Primary Debate, Albuquerque New Mexico Sep 4, 2003

Fix NAFTA-canceling it would be disastrous
I am as strongly committed as Kucinich is to worker rights, but it would be disastrous to just cancel NAFTA and withdraw from the WTO. You have to fix it. You have to have a president who understands how to use the power that we have as the world's biggest marketplace to properly leverage the kind of behavior that we want. You also have to have a president who is prepared to have an enforcement structure through the powers of the various sections of the trade agreement.
Source: Democratic Primary Debate, Albuquerque New Mexico Sep 4, 2003
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Free_Trade.htm

[Armstead]

26. NSMA, He's still talking like a "free trader"

Please realkize these are just my gut reactions I'm saying here. Kerry can do whatever he wants and I will remain ABB, ABB, ABB.

But I think we can and should do much better than see all of the positive aspects of the primary ferment tossed out and a return to milktoast centrism.

Bush's international economic policies are not solely responsible for the mess we're in. International trade is good, but "Free trade" according to the formula of both the Democratic and Republican elite has been a disaster. It is part of the larger panapoily of snake oil that has been sold for 25 years.

For Republicans it is not a disaster, becauae they are either happy or complacent about the consequences on average people and the poor. That's their philosophy.

But for Democrats it was a major mistake to sign onto it and buy the snake oil. We can't keep pretending the snake oil is wine.

Listening to Kerry, he is just giving a slightly modified of the same old, same old view.

IMO, the only way to really energize people and win is to call a spade a spade and offer some real alternatives that push in the other direction, presented in a hopeful and positive light. It doesn't have to be hard-core radicalism -- but it can't be a warmed over version of the same pap.

I believe that would also be successful in an electoral sense too. It is becoming more obviousl every day that it is a disaster. Even Those who don't pay attention realize that something's going wrong, although they may not be able to put a finger on it.

If we offer some truth and clarity, I belkieve enough people would respond to beat Bush the right way.
But

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

35. Sorry ARmstead but after three years of the Taliban, milktoast centrism

would be a hard left turn.

If you watched that dinner last night and watched Carter speak of human rights, Clinton speak of labor rights. and Kerry addressing big pharma, I really don't see how you can say that.

I guess I just have to accept that I listen to things with a different set of ears.

Last night I heard the party that I have always belonged to speaking like the party I have always belonged to.

I believe that cuts for corporations are not the same as cuts for individuals. I watched Clinton say he's rather have PAID $5,000 extra in taxes then to watch what is happening in America....if there is so much that is similar with the two parties then please send me a clip of a Republican saying that.

What you really want is a RADICAL change. We just had one...I don't care for RADICAL changes on either side of the coin...RADICAL changes create RADICAL reactions..RADICAL reactions are destabilizing.

[Armstead]

56. We've had radical change for the last 25 years

Maybe I'm too sensitive about these things, but we need radical change just to get back to the real center. I'm not talking about the socialist utopia -- just to restore the balance that is necessary for a healthy society.

I'm with Walter Cronkheit -- anotehr radical I guess -- when he said Kerry should stop running away from the liberal label, and instead fight for it.

The notion of a balanced society got tossed out the window since the mid-1970's. That was a radical corporate right-wing revolution that has been going on long before Bush came on the scene. It just keeps getting worse and worse, but Bush and his pllicies are merely symptoms of something much bigger and deepr.

And. although Clinton was good in many ways, he and the Democratic centrists contributed to that rather than turn it around in the 1990's. Corporations got bigger and richer and the middle and lower classes got poorer and weaker politically.

I figure we can keep going in trhat direction under Bush or under Kerry, if he chooses to perpetuate the policies of the DLC over the last 15 yuears. oir he can grow a backbonme and tell the truth -- which is much much bigger than tossing out insults at Bush.

Anyway, I'm just kvetching on a message board, I realize. ABB, ABB.....But I still thiunk we ought to aim higher.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

61. I don't think you are too sensitive and I don't necessarily disagree

with you on point. But you DO make a great point that is ha been for the last 25 years. The election of REAGAN made it possible but it didn't deliver it, much like the election of Kerry (clearly MORE liberal than Clinton) will make it possible. It didn't happen overnight. Repair won't happen overnight.

I'm with Walter Cronkite too on that point but with the current media climate one not only NEEDS to stand for the word, but TO REINVENT the images the term manifests...the latter being VERY difficult. There aren't many Cronkites cluttering the airwaves to reinforce that mission....hopefully the new liberal radio network will make a difference. I see Kerry as a STEP not a destination.

I think that it is difficult to assess when BALANCE left the picture.

As I look more and more at this notion of "center" I see assumptions made on many sides of the argument..one of the most fallacious of which is that 50% of America doesn't vote because they don't have anything to vote for.

I think a VERY big reason why MANY people don't vote ( and this is after NUMEROUS conversations with my staff in a small company - approximately 130)is that life has become INCREASINGLY complex...many people are flat out afraid to vote...we have had ballot initiatives so convoluted that a NO means a YES on the intiative and people worry about making mistakes.

Trade issues are another place where life has become complex..security issues as well..if anything PAINS me it is to read a board such as DU where people repeatedly attempt to boil these complexities down to something SIMPLE and fail.

Corporations getting bigger and richer isn't the issue...corporations getting MORE POWERFUL DUE to that bigger and "richerness" IS...

Likewise, while I find From and Reed to be IRRITATING and find much lacking in the DLC, I don't see them as the worst bogeyman on the planet. In fact, to some degree I am thankful they were there to balance the brainwashing of AEI.

You and I are not that far apart.... I see Kerry as a step..not a point to arrive at. I know you preferred Dean's policies and Kucinich's message...I had an appreciation of both but I see Kerry as one who can PULL the mainstream back a bit rather than YANK them.

Anyway...kvetch on :D

[Nicholas_J]

27. Kerry's economic plans

Areabout as progressive as you can get without the state taking over all corporations.

First, all of the tax cuts for the uppoer one percent of wage earners and all of the current Bush corporate tac cuts are repealed.

Next, a new set of targeted corporate tax cuts are instituted. IN brief they state, you only get the tax cuts as deductions and tax credits for creating new jobs, investing in new technologies that are geared towards creating independence from foreign sources of energy, or if you replace old polluting plant equipment with new, lower polluting technologies.

Next, a re-write of the entire U.S. tax code to get rid of loopholes that allow companies to move offshore to avoid taxation, or that allow them to write outsource jobs to lower costs. The fact that under Kerry's new plans, a corporation will be able to deduct the expenses of paying the salaries and benefits of American workers as a legitimate business expense,at a much higher rate, but will not be allowed to deduct the salaries of workers outside of the United States, is a rather interesting incentive. If you outsource your jobs, the salaries of outsourced workers will no longer be deductable as a legitimate business expense (or will not be allowed to be totally deducted as a legitimate business expense). The companies then must eat the expenses of the workers salaries, no matter how small they are, and are not able to deduct them as a business expense or are only allowed to deduct a very small amount of those expenses.


The dumbest method of attemting to get corporations to do something is to try to regulate and thne enforce behavior you want to regulate, as it is almost impossible to police everyone. But if you simply tax behavior you do not want, and do not tax behavior that you do want, corporations will bend over backwards to avoid the taxation.

For example, in the cases regarding industrial pollution, you catch one corporation in ten thousand polluting the Hudson River, have to prove that how much that corporations factories were responsible for, take them to court, and in the end the fines livied by the courts or even juries are realatively small. compared to the profits the corporations made during years of polluting. So get rid of the regulations, allow them to pollute, but tax each company per pound of pollutant they produce, not by policing them, but by requiring meters to be placed on their equipment, with stiff fines for tampering with the equipment, and simply charge tax rates that make it more profitable for the corporations to avoid the taxation by limiting their pollution. Using this method, many corporations chose to used cheap, but efficent methods of reducing water pollution in order to avoid taxation. The devices used were not optimal technologies, but when large numbers of corporations decided that wanted to avoid the taxes the cheaper methods that largeer numbers of the companies started using resulted in a cumulative lessening of pollution that would have been totally impossible by using regulatory methods. policing, and only catching a tiny percentage of offenders.

Companies will do anything to avoid taxes if the tax system allows them to, but will risk breaking regulations that they know cannot easily be policed.

[papau]

34. very true - Companies will indeed do anything to avoid taxes

:-)

[Nicholas_J]

38. That was something they found about companies polluting the Hudson

Policing one very poluuted area, resulted in the state having to fine a bunch of companies, but they found one that was obviously pollting only 10 percent of the rest, but since this company was not using expensive high tech methods to reduce their pollution, they had to be fined as much as the others. This company voluntarily just decided to utilize some rather cheap methods to reduce the outflow of toxic chemicals, and it was not an optimal program, they still were polluting beyond the acceptable limits, but it was found that if they made it worth the while of the other corporations to utilize the sam inexpensive methods of refucing pollutants, the levels of water pollution could be rapidly reduced to levels that coul be dealt with effectively by the government.


There are really limited options in dealing with corporations. The Republican idea of taxation is just to lower taxes overall without rhyme or reason, and that somehow the wealth and large corporations will autmatically invest the money they do not pay in taxes in their businesses and to hire more peopple, while the Democratic idea, and Kerry's in particular is to set conditions and terms for corporations to recieve those benefits.

Pre-Reagan, if a corporation needed to do something with an excess 20 million dollars in profit, the corporation was linited in what it could do with thay money to receive the optimum tax benefit from it and reduce their income to lower the tax bracket they fell into. THey could buy new equipment for their businesses, they could increase or imprve the benefits to their non upper mangerial and executive employees, they could give executives and managers raises and benfits, but those were limited and they could only take a portion of spending money that way to relieve taxes. The tax laws had limits as to what were considered reasonable remuneration for a job well done by corporate executives. But after Reagan changed the tax code in 1986, if a corporation had 20 million in one it needed to spend in some way to lower their tax burden they could decide to give the CEO a 20 million dollar bonus or hire 1000 more people at 20,000 dollars a year and recieve the same tax benefit. Kerry's ideas for changing the tax code include the idea of placing limits on executive remuneration again, so it will no longer be of equal benefit for a corporation to buy an executive golf course to relieve the stress of the executives as it wold be for them to hire people or pick up a larger share of their employees health care benefits and so on.

The onlyoption is to offer tax incentives for corporations to keep jobs in the U.S. and make it simply less attractive for them to outsource. Examples all of those shoe stores that sell inexpensive shoes made in China. Certainly even the 45 percent tariff on those items do not prohibit those companies from being U.S. corporations but having the shoes made overseas. The idea of trying to get China to change its labor laws and its environmental laws is a charming little notion, but it would take decades, and many of us would be walking barefoot in winter for the years it took for U.S. companies to tool up to start making shoes at about 100 dollars a pair for a set of canvas tennnis shoes, and 500 a pair for a nice comfortable pair of working shoes. And forget about DU as once our computers break down, an American replacement at ten grand would be out of reach of most people. Unless the government gives corporations a relatively good reason to hire and make their products here, rather than in China. I find it rather amusing that Germany and most of the other European nations have a lower corporate tax rate than the U.S. but no corporations get out of paying taxes by cleverly manipulating the tax codes, and the tax codes are pretty much set up the way Kerry is planning. The only way to get out of paying higher corporate taxes over there is to keep the money in the company, or in benefits to the workers, not in executive perquisites.

When you consider that the third largest business in the United State with regards to annual income is the illegal drug trade, you get a good idea of exactly how ineffective regulation and attempting to police those regulations are. The only thing that has been relatively effecitve in controlling the U.S., U.S. corporate power and the corporate favoritism that our recent bout of conservatism has caused has been the hated WTO, which has ben ruling against a lot of the Bush changes to the tax code that has caused a lot of our outsourcing as well as favoring what Kerry cals "Benedict Arnold" corporations.
THe WTO nailed the U.S. rather well on that one and the E.U. who have been fighting the U.S. since Reagans time on this type of tax subsidization jumped on it immediately.

Germany manages to keep a realtively high level of employment (when you factor in the uncounted unemployed in the U.S. our rate of unemployment is just as high as any European nation),Germans still make some rather high quality items in their own country and they do so by giving rather high tax incentives for companies that keep making those products in Germany rather than moving overseas, yet they also outsource twice as many jobs as America has by percentage of population. The government simply has a greater role in targeted taxation and does this using methods rather similar to those suggested by Kerry, and related to the methods Clinton used to grow the economy. You can give corpations tax cuts that are targetted to a purpose, such as job creation, rather than the blanket tax cuts that Bush and the neo-cons prefer. They work. This is the entire idea behind progressive tax policy. It is not simply progressively taxing people and corporations more and more as their income goes up. It also gives those who make more an incentive to spend it on items that benefit the many over the few. This is the heart of Kerry's ideas about tax cuts to corporations.

[Armstead]

58. OInly half the answer

>>>>There are really limited options in dealing with corporations. The Republican idea of taxation is just to lower taxes overall without rhyme or reason, and that somehow the wealth and large corporations will autmatically invest the money they do not pay in taxes in their businesses and to hire more peopple, while the Democratic idea, and Kerry's in particular is to set conditions and terms for corporations to recieve those benefits.<<<

That's fine as far as it goes, and carrtos anmd incentives are good. But I beliueve what you are sayings is much too fatalistic, and reflects the bigger problem by buying into that. It's what could be called the "message opf inevitability" that has been made into a meme by the oligarchy over the past 25 years.

If the US had bought into that sense of inevitability in the past, we would never have had things like minimum wage, Teddy Roosevelt's "Trust Busting," unions and the other progressive reforms that created the middle class or any environmental regulations.

Who says there's limited options in dealing with corpoorations? The corporations do, of course. That idea has become so pervasive because that's what the corporations want us to believe. And the more the Democratic Party has bought into it, the more it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It would be similar to saying that you have limited options in enforcing speed limits, so we ought to let everyone drive 160 mph, but provide tax breaks for those who drive slower.

Just because they can't catch every speeder doesn't mean we shouldn't have speed limits to set the guidelines for acceptable behavior.

[Nicholas_J]

64. The differnce is that with things like speeding

There is no effective carrot that the government can offer to effectively channel behavior. People are going to speed as ther is absolutely no way if enforcing speed limits. And statistics indcate that they do. regardless of the limits set. If you recall, for a few decades, the top speed was set at 55, and it was not drivers who slowed down. It was the government that changed the laws on speed limits to reflect reality.

The situations with corporations are totally different as the policy the government sets can effect the behavior of corporations. And there is over 70 years of proof that the punitive type of system that you are suggesting is does not, will not and cannot work which came out of the totally controlled economies of Eastern Europe.Th situation is even worse now, as regulations such as you are suggesting, would simply result in even more corporations becoming tax expatriots. Taking this plan to the extreme, the U.S. would become a nations of workers, with no industries to work in.

The only way that has the best chance of working is to reward the behavior you want, and to not reward the behaior that you do not want, which is exactly the plan that Kerry is suggesting, and which is not new, but based on the sam methods used in Europe, and right now are being used intensely in Great Britain, as applied by a close friend of Kerry in the Labor Government. Many of Kerry's ideas parallel the ideas of Gordon Brown, the Finace Minister in the Labor Government, who is also expected to replace Blair as head of the Labor Party.

[ewagner]

2. Cheer up

Somebody mentioned the other day that Kerry is actually irrelavent to his whole campaign. Why? Because of the ham sandwich syndrome. We democrats will vote for a ham sandwich before Bush and thus, it doesn't matter what Kerry says, we need a dem in the WH and it doesn't matter much how we get it.

[Armstead]

3. That depressed me even more

Just because he can get away with being a ham sandwich doesn;t mean he actually has to be a ham sandwich.

[ewagner]

10. won't be.....

once the election is over and we get some more votes in the Senate and house, you'll be surprised how progressive things will get.

Trust me.........

[Thrill]

5. I must say it

sounds like a great way to create jobs. By far a better way than what the chimp is proposing

[Frances]

4. I think this idea came from some of Clinton's advisors

And the economy was booming under Clinton

If this carrot and stick approach keeps more jobs here in the U.S., then I'm for it.

Don't forget Kerry is also for having the top 1% pay more.

Plus, it makes Bush look silly when he says that Kerry is for raising taxes.

[mobuto]

9. But its nothing

we're talking about all of $12 billion here. Bush's tax cuts are in the trillions. $12 billion just about runs the Pentagon's laundary service for an afternoon. The carrot and stick approach makes all the sense in the world. And if Kerry didn't include the carrot, every major corporation in America would declare war on him and do its utmost to get Bush elected. That's not really helpful. The price is small.

[Zhade]

6. No, you're not being petty. Many will likely accuse you of that, though.

But, in the immortal words of more than one DUer, "Fuck 'Em!"

Criticism and dissent are still allowed here, as far as I've been able to tell.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

8. Criticism and dissent are fine but can someone tell me what is NOT

progressive about taking away tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals? Progressive taxation IS THE HALLMARK of progressivism....stimulating the economy via breaks for businesses or subsidies has ALWAYS been a staple of our government/economy and factors pretty well into Keynesian economics which was probably the MOST progressive model.


So please DO TELL...if the guy wants to create targetted tax breaks to EMPLOY people in the Bush JOB LOSS economy, that is betraying the working class how?

[Armstead]

15. By perpeetuating the mindset that got us into this mess

"So please DO TELL...if the guy wants to create targetted tax breaks to EMPLOY people in the Bush JOB LOSS economy, that is betraying the working class how?"

Kerry obviously can't come off like Dennis Kucinich (though I wish he would) but token gestures are just going to keep things mired in the muck.

What disappoints me is that while these are fine on their own, they are very tame to the point of tokenism. And they are all little carrots to the same corporations that Bush is giving the whole carrotpatch to. So the people Kerry is trying to placate will work to keep himn out of the White House anyway.

Do you really think the executives of the multinationalss (or even smaller companies that are outsourcing) are going to weigh the ability to hire sweatshop workers overseas for $5 a day (with the added bonus of no regulations) against some small tax break by hiring here, and decide to stay?

I just hope we don't sell out to this extent throughoiut the election. My powers of denial and rationalization are not up to that.

But I know, ABB, ABB, ABB....sigh.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

18. If you have a better plan then tell me

If he pushes too hard...lots of those multinationals are employers here...they just scare the shit out of their work force and since they are concentrated in certain states...there goes those electoral votes.

[Armstead]

21. They are going to scare the shit out of their workforce anyway

Kerry could promise whatever he wants -- he could offer to personally pay the taxes of corporations himself -- and it doesn't matter. The business class wants Bush, they will push for Bush and they will do everything they can to scare their workforce from voting for Kery anyway.

Why not instead offer the members of that workforce something real, that will overcome that and inspire them to boot Bush instead?

Kerry has to get away from the rightist "free trade" mindset, and accept that he can't be all things to all people.

Those who are inclined to vote for Bush are going to anyway.

[sangha]

51. "They are going to scare the shit out of their workforce"Shallow reasoning

This sort of reasoning could justify Kerry saying just about anything short of supporting beastiality. After all, they're going to attack us anyway, so why not show our commitment to diversity by taking a stand in support of sheep-lovers, right?

Would you rather they have an argument that the Repukes can back up by pointing to Kerry's statements, or would you rather hear them blather about one of their ridiculous fear-mongering rants such as how Kerry is a terrorist?

We've got Bush* on the defensive over his "leadership" in the War on Terror, and demonstically speaking, Bush doesn't have anything to stand on. Why muddy the waters by giving Bush* something to latch onto?

[Armstead]

60. They will latch onto whatever he says

What you seem to be suggesting is a defensive avoidence of substance.

Whether Kerry advocates bestiality or some reasonable moderate liberal policy doesn't matter to the GOP. They will paint him as an ultra-radical leftist -- and paradoxically a waffler -- regardless.

So why not make it a real choice? Kerry doesn;t have to come across as Karl Marx to at least clarify himself as a liberal and defend it. Why muddy the waters by trying to run away from what they will say anyway?

[sangha]

63. No, I'm suggesting using your head. Is that so bad?

The excuse, and that's what it is, that "they're going to attack us anyway" is a poor excuse for justifying an argument or issue. So is a defense that leads you to say "a defensive avoidence of substance"

Instead of pointing out how your suggestion would help do some good, you try to misportray me using the "STFU" ploy even though there is not one word in my post that could reasonably be interpreted as saying such a thing. I repeat, you do nothing to show how your suggestion would do ANY good. The only way you can defend your suggestion is by criticizing those who disagree by claiming they are "avoiding substance".

Even more bizarre, you suggest that Kerry should not "run away from what they will say". Do you really think Kerry is going to agree with the Repukes criticism? And once again, you do nothing to show how this would benefit anyone.

The goal here is to get Bush out of office, and not to fulfill some emotional need or desire of yours. If you could show how your suggestion brings us closer to meeting that goal it would be one thing, but reading your posts in this thread, I see nothing of that.

You say Kerry should do something, without clarifying what it is exactly, or what good it will do aside from some "glittering generalities" like "real choice"

[RichM]

49. Silly gibberish like this results from trying too hard to defend Kerry.

The part about progressive taxation is fine; no argument there.

Then you say, stimulating the economy via breaks for businesses or subsidies has ALWAYS been a staple of our government/economy...
- So what? Just because it's always been done is hardly a strong argument that it should be done.

and factors pretty well into Keynesian economics...
- It has nothing to do with "Keynesian economics." In the US (as opposed to what Keynes himself proposed in 1936), that term simply means government spending to stimulate the economy. Here, you are talking about tax policy, not fiscal policy.

...which was probably the MOST progressive model.
- Now you're just throwing words around. What became known as "Keynesian economics" in the US was adopted purely because it was advantageous for the business class -- it had NOTHING to do with "progressivism." In fact, it was the OPPOSITE of progressivism. And in a very telling irony, the mix of policies proposed by Keynes himself - which contained progressive elements - became known by the late 1940's as "Left Keynesianism," to distinguish it from the US business-friendly variety.

Finally, your assertion in the last sentence painting Kerry as just wanting to create jobs - you're missing the point entirely. The point is that Kerry is making sure that every word out of his mouth is submissive towards business. He is not trying to "defend the working class," here; he is first & foremost trying to suck up to the business class.

============
PS on Edit: I misspoke on my 2nd point, & withdraw that remark. I stand pat on the other points, however.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

50. Really?

It has nothing to do with "Keynesian economics." In the US (as opposed to what Keynes himself proposed in 1936), that term simply means government spending to stimulate the economy. Here, you are talking about tax policy, not fiscal policy.

A tax break for jobs IS GOVERNMENT SPENDING.

Finally, your assertion in the last sentence painting Kerry as just wanting to create jobs - you're missing the point entirely. The point is that Kerry is making sure that every word out of his mouth is submissive towards business. He is not trying to "defend the working class," here; he is first & foremost trying to suck up to the business class

And every word out of your mouth is not intended to defend the working class but be dismissive towards Kerry.

[sangha]

52. It's ironic how some people dress up their arguments

with a concern for the working class in order to oppose policies that will benefit the working class.

[Zhade]

54. Please quote where I said he was "betraying the working class".

I never said, hinted at, implied, or intimated that.

I think your point should be made to someone who actually said that, not someone like myself who did not.

[mobuto]

7. Its actually a great plan

But Jeeze Louise, is this new economic plan the best Kerry can come up with? Give the corporations more tax money and hope they will keep a few jobs here?

The actual amount of money corporations are going to get is tiny. This is not something to get worked up about. The big thing is that he's taking away tax breaks for companies that do move American jobs overseas. That results in more jobs. But promising the tax breaks was brilliant - because it means it can actually get passed. That's really the issue.

[codegreen]

12. he only released a part of the plan today, he said in the speech...

there's more to come.

[yardwork]

14. What alternative do you suggest?

As far as I can tell, not being an economist, it is going to be extremely difficult for the U.S. to keep jobs here. We are competing in a global economy. Right now American wages are some of the highest in the world. In many ways, outsourcing is a way of spreading the wealth.

As a person who is in favor of reducing the gap between the haves and the have nots on a global scale, I see this as probably a good trend for the world population as a whole. The long term outcome will probably be to reduce American wages and increase wages in most other countries.

In other words, we're headed for a time when America might not get to use 90% of the world's resources. We might have to live in smaller houses and drive smaller more fuel-efficient cars. We might have smaller refrigerators. We might not be able to use ice like tap water.

When this starts to happen I suspect that good old American Yankee ingenuity might come up with cheaper and more environmentally sensitive forms of energy.

Before everyone flames me, believe me when I say that I have personally suffered from the outsourcing phenomenon and the loss of IT jobs overseas. It's not that I'm applauding it. I'm just seeing it as an inevitable process of redistributing wealth. In other words, no point in raging about what we can't stop. Might as well see the silver lining.

[Armstead]

19. No it's not inevitable

If we wanted to we could establish frameworks where this doesn't have to decimate the Amnerican working and middle class, while not really benefitting overseas workers eitehr.

It's late and I'm too tired to elucidate, but the answers are out there.

[no name no slogan]

32. If we actually had a government that stood up for PEOPLE instead of PROFIT

We may actually have a chance with this!

It's amazing how afraid the Democrats are of pissing off transnational corporations. You'd think that we didn't even HAVE a government, the way they mince around the issue of economic fairness.

What we need is a government that's NOT AFRAID to call corporations on their anti-capitalist, anti-consumer bullshit. If they eliminate American jobs and move them overseas, who says we just can't fine the hell out of them when they try to sell their products in our markets?

"Oh, but then the corporations won't sell here!". SO WHAT! Some other corporation will step in to replace it! For each and every corporation who won't respect our economy and our markets, there's at least one more that will be willing to step up to the plate. For Allah's sake, damn near EVERY company (and country!) in the world wants to trade here! What's wrong with throwing our weight around and making the system fair to everyone?

:shrug:

[Nicholas_J]

40. If some corporationswill not sell here because of the tax situation

All companies will not. It is as simple as that. The real issue is what you allow companies to use to lower their taxes. Either deductions for items that serve as many people as possible, or those that serve as few as possible. If you give corporations a million dollar tax break for creating a certain number of jobs, that is certainly more justifiable than giving them the same amount of tax break for buying a million dollar condominium for their executives to stay in when they visit the branch offices on Oahu. This is the differnce between the way the social democraies in Europe set up their corprate tax syste, nad the one that has developed since Reagan came into office.

[no name no slogan]

66. No they won't.

That flies in the face of logic and market capitalism itself.

If ONE company cannot "compete" in the US market, at least one more (if not many more) will fill the gap.

U.S. Corporations are NOT a single monolith: they each act according to their own self-interest. Think about it: if Coke were barred from trading here, would Pepsi unilaterally leave the US marketplace?

Of course not! Pepsi would jump right in and take over Coke's market share. Why would it pass up the opportunity to be the most popular cola brand in the largest consumer market in the world?

If a corporation does something detrimental to the economic well-being of the country, plain old-fashioned logic dictates that you do something to stop it from doing more harm, not encourage it with more tax breaks. That's the main reason why things are so ack-bassward today. We reward bad behavior AND good behavior.

[LandOLincoln]

41. You know, I'd had some of those same thoughts but they

were not so clearly delineated, even to me.

Unfortunately, it's probably going to take some cataclysmic event(s) before the (by and large) fat, lazy and decadent American public gets it that it's going to have to go back to an older and much leaner way of living if any significant portion of it is going to survive.

We are certainly living in interesting times, my friends.

[ScreamingMeemie]

16. ABB,ABB,ABB...Some jobs are better than no jobs Armstead.

My husband is directly affected by automotive outsourcing and this is still a far better deal than anything BushCo or dare I say Nader will give us. I still think we need to go the route of globalization to even the playing field...that will come with time.

Chin up!

Laura

[union_maid]

17. This is what seemed logical to me months and months ago...

Before anyone was an candidate, let alone a nominee I'd been saying, in a very simplified way, exactly this. Make it better for companies to keep jobs here and worse for them to send them offshore. Did you think that he was going to nationalize them all? Did you think that anyone could begin to do that? Short of that, you have to have both negative and positive reinforcement to get the end you want.

[xray s]

20. I am still letting it sink in

But I tend to see it this way. The media has reported that Kerry's tax cut will benefit 99% of the corporations in America. But the 1% that will pay more are doing all the overseas outsourcing, the huge multinationals.

So, in a way, Kerry is making the big guys who are screwing America pay more while letting the little guys pay less. Net effect, making the corporate tax structure more progressive. It mirrors Kerry's individual income tax ideas.

In the end, the labor differential of US labor at $28 per hour average + benefits vs China/Pakistan/India at $2 per hour will continue to send the jobs overseas. But the corporations reaping windfall profits from cheap labor will now have to pay taxes to the US on those profits.

Actually resolving the outsourcing of jobs will have to fought on other fronts; promoting environmental regulation, trade unionism and a universal health isurance system that is federally administered to take advantage of lower administration costs.

[tedoll78]

22. Say what I remind myself: Justice Stevens is 86.

Stevens is 86.
Stevens is 86.
Stevens is 86.
Stevens is 86.

The average term for Supreme Court appointees currently? About 19 years.

[no name no slogan]

33. Good point, but

Bush I appointed David Souder. Who'da thunk he'd turn out to be a liberal?

Or look at Nixon's appointees. Sure, Rhenquist is a little nazi, but not all his appointees turned out to be raving right-wing nutjobs.

Maybe we'll get lucky, and Kerry will get to appoint a liberal. But even then that's a total crapshoot, as justices "evolve" over time.

[tedoll78]

39. We seem to have had good luck lately.

The GOP has many more disappointments than we do. Souter from Bush I, Stevens from Ford, one of Eisenhower's appointees. Hell, even Kennedy and O'Connor from Reagan have turned-out okay on gay rights most of the time.

I'm willing to take the chance on Kerry.

[TheStateChief]

23. Brilliant political move, but

I don't see how it really creates jobs. It will bring in some tax revenue, but I can't see companies repatriating jobs because of the tax implication. I'm not convinced that most companies who go overseas do it to avoid taxes - I think they go over there because of the slave labor working for $.10 an hour.

But it should blunt the Kerry is a tax-and-spend liberal from Massachusetts bile coming from the Republicans.

[mobuto]

24. No they don't do it for taxes

They do it because its cheaper. The cost consists of a number of factors, including taxation. You raise the cost of doing business overseas, you make America by comparison look cheaper. That means more jobs in America.

[no name no slogan]

25. I share your concerns

I see it as nothing more than appeasing the transnational corporations that have us by the shorthairs, while we somehow get the "trickle-down" that's left after they've gotten theirs.

I don't think the nominee-apparent is above criticism on this. We need to show him that, although we support him, we STILL believe in an economy that treats PEOPLE fairly-- not just big corporations and their lackeys.

It's unfortunate that our chosen candidate(s) won't show any backbone on the economy, but he's still a Democrat-- and one with a decently liberal past, to boot.

I'm hoping that somehow John Kerry v.2004 will somehow show more signs of John Kerry v.1988. For the sake of the future of our party, I hope this happens...SOON.

[cryofan]

28. Circumstances may cause a Kerry mutation..

....I really like the circumstances of this election and the timing of it with respect to the economy and outsourcing and the increasing awareness of the voters to the pulleys and levers that Big Money has always pulled behind the scenes of the global economy. Kerry has never been a real lefty, it is true, at least not as a Senator. But his wife appears to be somewhat of a lefty activist, and Kerry was not afraid of political controversy when younger.

CorpGovMedia would never allow a real Lefty into office. Look at how they savaged Kucinich this campaign.

But these particular circumstances may cause a mutation in Kerry and in the Democratic party. The Democratic rhetoric is very strongly populist this campaign. Very strongly populist, at least when compared to other campaigns.....

[flaminbats]

29. This is an issue I have mixed feelings about...

I support the motives of this proposal. Corporate tax-rates are lower in other countries than in America.

But I also know that America's National Debt is higher, our military is larger than most of these nations' combined, and that American corporations are not relocating mostly because of our tax code. The best thing to do in this situation is to focus on the positive aspects of Kerry's plan..like universal healthcare or balancing the budget, and prey that Kerry will continue to see the light! :thumbsup:

[sandnsea]

30. That's really the least of it

It's getting the media attention because a Democrat is proposing a corporate tax cut. But the real guts of his plan is enforcing trade agreements, which he also talked about today. The health care cost cuts and tax credits for small business, which he also talked about today. Investing in alternative energy, which he also talked about today. Tax credits for new hires, which he also talked about today. These are the real plans that will create jobs. The corporate tax cut is just a little carrot to get the rest of it through.

[Jersey Devil]

31. You expect him to unveil his whole plan at once?

Patience. It is a long way to November and this was just the opening hand.

[shivaji]

36. I heard Rush Limpballs say that Kerry & Teresa

has 72% of employees in the corporations they own are
in foreign countries. If true (I am skeptical always of
Limpballs) should we be worried repugs will make political
hay out of it?

[shoopnyc123]

37. The plan is good...

...very different from the REALLY centrist years with Clinton. The numbers are good, and it makes sense. As a new President, you inherit the past and create the future. He's working now on what he's inheriting. You'll be REALLY HAPPY when he begins work on the future. Amen.

[G_j]

42. isn't this a form of 'trickle down' economics?

I don't recall that ever having worked in the past.

[mobuto]

43. Nope. Next question?

This isn't trickle-down at all.

[MAlibdem]

45. no, he's reinstating clinton-era tax code on the richest

while cutting taxes on middle class. that's progressive tax code.

[G_j]

46. I'm not familiar with this new proposal.

Of course when one hears 'corporations' names like Walmart and Exxon come to mind.
How is this aimed at the middle class?

[sangha]

53. It's not aimed at the middle class

It's aimed at workers

[union_maid]

47. No, not trickle down

Trickle down is literally just that. It's about giving every possible break to corporations with no strings attached and hope that after the CEOs gorge and the shareholders get a piece there are some crumbs left on the floor for the masses. It's what Bush refers to as "creating a healthy environmnent for job creation". This is using the tax codes to tweak the direction of the economy in favor of job creation. It's a very different philosophy that drives it, especially when they review the trade agreements in light of what's happened.

[G_j]

48. thank you

for the explanation. I suppose it must be up at Kerry's website and I should check it out.

[PATRICK]

44. Depressed about hope?

Kerry is open to change, reason and democratic participation and ideas. Keep that in mind when something you don't agree with has you throwing out the bay, the bath water and yourself out the window.

Why can't you keep within the context of valid points and ideas instead of latching onto the worst dread and giving up? That is not a debate, that is pique, tantrums and unreality.

Hey, we haven't got to the point where such points as discussion have any valid meaning. There is no democracy without Kerry.

It is all the "doomed" syndrome the Right laughs at unless they are losing and then burying the truth with truculence. Open up the possible by voting for Kerry and for heaven's sake get his full positions straight at least.

[TreasonousBastard]

55. I think you are missing the point here...

NSMA, Nichols_J and a few others have pointed out that this plan isn't bad after all, but that's still not the point.

No President can actually do all that he proposes, and no one expects that Kerry will get any or all of this. What is being put out there is that there is a world of difference between Shrub and Kerry.

Shrub has no plan and no clue. He has his tax cuts and a prayer that something breaks before the election. That's it.

Kerry is coming up with a huge wishlist of programs and plans to prove that at least he has a handle on some of the real problems with the economy.

The real plan is that what people will remember about these "plans" is not the details, but that he is someone who is a proper alternative to the ineptitude we have now. He is someone who will act and at least try to get us on the right track. They're more than "Chicken in every pot" speeches.

If you're trying to get elected, that's a plan.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

57. I'm with you, Armstead, (if that's any consolation)

Corporations need to pay more taxes, not fewer, so that the burden can be shifted away from individuals.

Also, there is plenty of work to be done in the U.S. that isn't being done. What about incentives for companies to build affordable housing and grants to cities to repair infrastructure and build transit systems and refurbish schools? These will create blue collar jobs, which will have an immediate ripple effect in low-level and mid-level businesses as pent-up demand causes people to make purchases they have been putting off, which in turn will create even more jobs.

And yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm still ABB, but I won't hide my disappointment with Kerry's conventionality, as opposed to the Republicans' willingness to go out on a limb.

[Armstead]

59. I can always count on you Lydia

I just hope that the Demnocratic Party didn't go through all of the bubbling up of new ideas and energy of the primaries back to the pre-Dean, pre Kucinish torpor and fear of actually standing for something.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

65. Well, the Minnesota Kucitizens

are busily insinuating themselves into the DFL :evilgrin: so we shall see how it works out.

[no name no slogan]

67. Very true Lydia!!!!

I know of several new members of the DFL Central Committee who are DK folk-- and several precinct chairs, state senate district officers, etc.

Not to mention we'll probably have at least 25% of the delegates at the state convention if things continue as they are.

There's even a rumor that DK may come to Duluth to address the entire convention. How cool would that be???

:D

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

62. Actually several of your issues ARE addressed by Kerry

as well as once again making college educations AFFORDABLE.