Which president do you want to vote for on a financial stand point?

[Th3 RiCk]

Originally posted by memphis_raines:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MustangEater8251:
Not sure where it fits in 100% but I know here in FL, hosuing is skyrocketing do to the concrete and raw material shortages because of China, and of course, all the workers out fixing houses instead of bulding new ones.(Hurricanes)

You think China's bad now? Wait until the free trade thing opens up next year.

I normally go with the Republican side of things, unless there's a Bush in office. Nothing has ever changed with them. They're all about the oil and that almighty dollar. I will say this though....he must be very well hung, because not too many guys can f*ck a whole country at once. </font>[/QUOTE]Hey, it's the Democrats that pushed so hard for China to join WTO....

Thomas Sowell of the Wall Street Journal "Management guru Peter Drucker has pointed out that this country imports far more jobs than it exports and no one has contradicted him. Indeed those who are loudest in denouncing the exporting of jobs totally ignore the importing of jobs."

Take NAFTA for instance. Who here predicted America would lose several thousand jobs to Mexico. When in reality America benefited tremendously and went on to incredibly low unemployment rates.

Allowing outsourcing and freetrade only encourages other countries to move into America. Take for example BMW and Toyota.
Since 1993 exporting jobs have accounted for nearly 20 million people. With no freetrade imagine the how much worse America would be.

The economy is stabalizing and things will be turning around under whoever the next president is. It's just easier for someone to point the finger at whoever is in charge even though it's not their mess in the first place. They're only there to find ways to fix it, and it won't be fixed over the weekend.

Memphis, you got to get off this whole "Bush is screwing us with oil to make big bucks!". Bush does not own any part of any oil company. I said it once in another post. Oil prices are high because of Willy's Administration. Once prices slumped to $12 a barrel he encouraged OPEC to raise prices to keep the market stabalized. The oil companies weren't making any money with prices being $12 a barrel. This has the potential to cause extreme volatility.

[Th3 RiCk]

Originally posted by Pheonix64:
One last time, seriously go check out factcheck.org, I was talking about Bush's cliam that Kerry is going to "federalize" Health care. Kerry's only intention is to give healthcare to children. As far as healthcare reform I have no idea what kerrys plan is.

One last time, Kerry himself said that he would save Americans $1000 a year in healthcare. He didn't say I will save all children $1000 a year in healthcare. He said "Americans". I'm an American, I wouldn't mind an extra grand.

There's no secret that the Democrats will "federalize" healthcare. That's the biggest difference between Bush and Kerry. One's all for letting the people do their thing, while the other stands behind us while we take a piss.

[phoenix64]

Kerry has no plans to federalize health care. He plans to reform health care, but only children would get federal healthcare under Kerry's plan. He is talking about reducing the cost by 1000 dollars by reforming health care not federalizing it. Oh and I guess its 97% of americans healthcare would be unaffected not 95.7.

Please click on the link. Excelent article on kerrys healthcare plan.

http://www.factcheck.org/article264.html

[speedy-v6-camaro]

Originally posted by GrigoryRasputin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by speedy-v6-camaro:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GrigoryRasputin:
9/11 should have created jobs if Bush had properly funded his homeland defense and first responder programs. However, he did not.

Thats the stupidest comment ever.
</font>[/QUOTE]Expert analysis tiger. Too bad you dont know what the **** youre talking about. </font>[/QUOTE]Its easy to say something and not bother to explain what the hell you are talking about. Others have said that most of the jobs lost were in the transportation sector...listen the **** up. This coming from the same guy who complained about Bush running up the defecit and then *****ing about him not giving jobs to a million people. Sounds like a flip-flopper to me.

I don't pay anything per year for healthcare. How exactly will I save $1000. How exactly will Kerry save $1000 for all the people who don't have healthcare?. I highly doubt healthcare cost will decrease until there is a cap on liability cases and with Edwards in the White House that would never happen.

[ October 20, 2004, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: speedy-v6-camaro ]

[Th3 RiCk]

Originally posted by speedy-v6-camaro:
I highly doubt healthcare will decrease until there is a cap on liability cases and with Edwards in the White House that would never happen.

Agreed.

[phoenix64]

Just so you guys know, you have to get a pannel of 12 doctors to agree that what another doctor did was gross incompetence, or malpratice before you can even bring a case. Anymore legislation on liability cases and it will be completly impossible to sue doctors.

Trust me, speaking from personal experence this is not a good thing. A friend of mines wife died at the age of 35 Due entirely to the doctors incompetence, She had a back problem doctor gave her the wrong dosage of painkillers, she died. He never got a penny, he was never even allowed to sue.

Rick why wont you click on the link? Afraid to open your eyes?

[ October 20, 2004, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: phoenix64 ]

[Th3 RiCk]

Originally posted by phoenix64:
Just so you guys know, you have to get a pannel of 12 doctors to agree that what another doctor did was gross incompetence, or malpratice before you can even bring a case. Anymore legislation on liability cases and it will be completly impossible to sue doctors.

Trust me, speaking from personal experence this is not a good thing. A friend of mines wife died at the age of 35 Due entirely to the doctors incompetence, She had a back problem doctor gave her the wrong dosage of painkillers, she died. He never got a penny, he was never even allowed to sue.

Rick why wont you click on the link? Afraid to open your eyes?

Sorry, I got distracted by a game of Madden foozeball. I read the article and it does make an attempt to disprove the ads of Bush claiming Kerry will "Federalize" healthcare. The democrats are usually blammed for "federalizing" anything.

The article however still doesn't disprove what Kerry means by saving Americans $1000 dollars a year in healthcare. Explain to me how finding a way to insure the uninsured and kids will save people $1000 dollars? We're spending more money on insuring the people who can't afford it.

[speedy-v6-camaro]

Originally posted by phoenix64:
Just so you guys know, you have to get a pannel of 12 doctors to agree that what another doctor did was gross incompetence, or malpratice before you can even bring a case. Anymore legislation on liability cases and it will be completly impossible to sue doctors.

Trust me, speaking from personal experence this is not a good thing. A friend of mines wife died at the age of 35 Due entirely to the doctors incompetence, She had a back problem doctor gave her the wrong dosage of painkillers, she died. He never got a penny, he was never even allowed to sue.

Rick why wont you click on the link? Afraid to open your eyes?

Wrong....laws vary state to state...example:

Oregon:
Oregon does not require that claims of medical malpractice be heard by an arbitration panel or a medical review board prior to litigation.

Washington:
In 1993, Washington adopted a system of mandatory mediation of health care claims under rules to be established by the Supreme Court. A mediation request tolls the statute of limitations for a year, but mediation does not abridge the right to trial by jury.

California:
California allows health care providers and their patients to contract for the arbitration of disputes. However, absent the parties' agreement, California does not require that claims of medical malpractice be arbitrated prior to litigation.

There are few states that require a medical review panel prior to litigation. This kind of requirement would be another way to decrease the amount of frivilous lawsuits.

[token sebring]

I would vote for Kerry on the economic issue any time over Bush... someone mentioned the travel industry a number of posts ago - I can tell you that the Bush administration has been devastating to the industry. Nevermind that 9/11 caused a massive problem, which couldn't have been helped. But the Administration attempted to weaken the dollar slightly in order to make our exports more attractive, and they lost control of it - our currency has weakened against almost every other currency in the world compared to what it once was.

One Euro now costs over $1.25 and is still going up - 3 years ago, it only cost $0.80...

The British pound is closing in on $2. So not only are the airlines being devastated by fear of flying since 9/11, and now that they are finally coming back fuel prices are extortionate; but the cost of travel to foreign countries is at least 50% higher than it used to be, which in today's economy, fewer and fewer people can afford - everyone from big companies to small travel businesses like my family's are being devastated by the exchange rate.

so that's my currency rant for now... [img]smile.gif[/img]

oh, and stefan's correct about the small businesses thing not being affected by kerry's over $200,000 tax plans...

[maxcamaro]

Originally posted by GrigoryRasputin:
9/11 should have created jobs if Bush had properly funded his homeland defense and first responder programs. However, he did not.

dumbest thing ive heard all week

[ABH]

Originally posted by Th3 RiCk:


Oil prices are high because of Willy's Administration. Once prices slumped to $12 a barrel he encouraged OPEC to raise prices to keep the market stabalized. The oil companies weren't making any money with prices being $12 a barrel. This has the potential to cause extreme volatility.

Oil prices are not high because of Clinton. The man has been out of office 4 years now. Oil prices are high for the following reasons.

The emerging industries of China and India. The more they industrailize, the more oil they need.

Many of the refineries in the US are obsolete. IIRC the last one was built in 1975 or so. They are either inefficent or working to capacity, but they can't keep up with demand.

The situation in Venezuala. Not too stable right now.

The Iraq war (Duh). Sabotage of oil pipelines. Not to mention that war eats up oil at a fantastic rate.

The lack of a US energy policy. We are too used to cheap gas. And yes, it is cheap compared to what Europe pays.

[GrigoryRasputin]

You guys are so proud of Bush after 9/11 except he cut veteran's benefits. He cut funding for first responders. He didnt properly finance Dept. of Homeland Security.

IF he had funded first responders and Homeland Security as he said he would, there would be more first responders, more coast guard, more US Customs to keep our borders and our lives safe. However, this didnt happen. Sorry.

[Nicklz]

Simplified

Bush less taxes, theory is we are americans we will spend our money on something, somewhere to restimulate the economy, then in return have more of an "economy" to tax.

Kerry more taxes, government spends your tax dollars for federal programs and to stimulate the economy.

Now who would you trust to spend your money yourself, or government??

Not to mention the fact that during Bush's term so far he has done more economic aid for lower and middle class than any other president (including clinton).

And if you look at the numbers of Kerry's plan they don't add up.

[ October 20, 2004, 08:32 PM: Message edited by: Nicklz ]

[Nicklz]

Here is something I found on kerry's plan on the economy. (I copy/paste so you don't even have to click on the link, but if you don't trust me here it is http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=5156)


Quick question: What is John Kerry's economic plan? Can anyone reading this column name even one key element of it?

With the economy being a central issue in the election, one would think that any reasonably well-informed voter could easily answer these questions. But, in fact, I doubt that more than a tiny handful of professional economists or economic journalists could do so. The reason is pretty simple -- there really is no plan.

Kerry has policies, of course -- lots of them. The problem is that they don't hang together in any logical way that could even loosely be called a plan. They look like items chosen from a menu -- one from column A, one from column B, etc. Viewed in isolation, any one of them might be defensible. But when you put them together, they often contradict each other and don't really add up to very much. Having a plan implies that some thought went into creating a coherent set of policies that are linked together philosophically. It is on this basis that I say that John Kerry has no plan.

Kerry clearly recognizes that he has failed to articulate an economic message that goes beyond attacking George W. Bush for every ill of the economy. But even if people are inclined to agree that Bush's economic policies have been lacking, they are still unlikely to replace him unless they have reason to believe Kerry will do better. After all, he might do worse.

Last week, Kerry made an effort to present a coherent economic plan. In a Wall Street Journal article titled, "My Economic Policy," he made his case. It has four key elements: create good jobs, cut middle class taxes and health care costs, restore America's competitive edge, and cut the deficit and restore economic confidence.

Kerry's proposal to create jobs involves reducing outsourcing by closing a tax provision that he believes encourages U.S. companies to invest abroad. The $12 billion per year that this would raise would be used to reduce the corporate tax rate slightly. He would also reinstate a failed tax credit for new jobs and crack down on imports from China and elsewhere.

Economy.com, a respected independent forecasting service, looked at these tax provisions and concluded that their net impact on job creation would be "very modest." On the other hand, Kerry's implied protectionism could be very damaging to economic growth. Renowned Columbia University economist Jagdish Bhagwati calls Kerry's trade policy "muddled and maddening" and "the voodoo economics of our time."

Kerry's tax plan basically involves extending all of Bush's tax cuts except those affecting the top 2 percent of taxpayers, whose taxes would be raised to their pre-2001 level. The revenue raised by this tax increase on America's principal job creators would pay for a $1 trillion expansion of federal health insurance. However, Kerry says it will only cost $650 billion because he will cut $350 billion worth of waste and red tape from the health system.

Economy.com calls Kerry health savings "questionable." This is a polite way of saying that they are non-existent. More than likely they would require additional spending in order to begin to achieve them. This means that the Kerry plan will add substantially to the deficit.

Kerry's plan for restoring America's competitive edge involves increased government spending for research and development, tax credits to expand broadband service to rural areas, and encouraging more women and minorities to study math and science. His only proposal that might actually accomplish something is elimination of the capital gains tax for long-term investments in small business startups.

Finally, we get to Kerry's plan to cut the deficit, and all that he offers is his word that he will do it. "Americans can trust my promise to cut the deficit because my record backs up my word," he says. This is like Dan Rather telling us that we can trust him when he says that obviously forged documents are actually genuine.

Even Kerry's own allies don't believe him. A Washington Post editorial called his deficit reduction plan "flawed" and "undercut by his fine print." A New York Times editorial said, "It's hard to imagine how he could combat the deficit, expand health care benefits, increase spending on education and grant middle class Americans more tax breaks simply by rescinding the Bush tax cuts for those earning more than $200,000."

In the end, all Kerry has is the charge that everything Bush has done on the economy has been wrong. This may be enough for hard-core Democrats and Bush-haters. But anyone who is remotely open-minded is going to have a hard time believing that Kerry will do better. He would have helped himself by proposing something bolder and more interesting. You can't beat something with nothing.

Hope this helps you decide who's best for the economy.

[Th3 RiCk]

Exactly what I think. His plans are just too unrealistic. Things coming out of his mouth are appealing and would be great if they worked, but it's not going to happen. This race has went from "what can you do for your country" to a popularity contest for getting your name in the history books.

In 4 years we'll be arguing over Hilary's Plan and why she shouldn't be in office. Kerry is only filling her shoes until Bush is out of office. [img]tongue.gif[/img]