Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal: A Weblog

And who can believe a word of it when Cheney says he's just a loyal servant of his master's will. That comes across as the most transparent lie of them all.

Exactly. The Chimperor now has no clothes.

DeLong: "What's he doing on any major party ticket, anyway?"

I sometimes think that the Republican Party decided to test the intelligence of the American people by finding the biggest idiot they could, who was already in some political office, and running him for POTUS. The GOP wanted to see if its PR machine was good enough to actually package and sell a dunce to the electorate. If so, I think they have their answer now ... and so do the rest of us unfortunately.

Edwards claimed during the debate that he and Kerry are against off shoring, in contrast to Bush/Cheany. But the facts belie his debate statement. While Kerry rails against tax breaks for these companies (the “Benedict Arnold” companies), he takes their money. In trying to explain this contradiction Kerry said:

“I don't believe the American taxpayer ought to be giving them [the companies off shoring jobs] a benefit. That's what I object to. I don't object to global commerce. I don't object to companies deciding
they want to compete somewhere else.” (From the February 26, 2004 edition of the Washington Post)

Notice he is not against off shoring at all, only tax breaks. So take the tax breaks away already. Is that going to change anything? Is that why American companies send work overseas? Of course not, it’s the cheap labor stupid!

Even Kerry’s own campaign officials don’t believe it. Look at what they say:

“Campaign officials acknowledged that the new plan would not stop
the broader trend of outsourcing jobs to low-wage countries. But
they said it would at least remove what they called a bias in the
tax system that encourages such practices.” (From the New York Times, March 26, 2004).

So the truth of the matter is that Kerry and Edwards are no better than Bush and Cheney on the issue of off shoring. What’s happened to the party of labor? Why won’t they admit what they are: pro industry?

Give me a break. There's a labor party?
Could have something to do with the fact that only half this country votes.

At one time the Democrats did function as America’s labor party. Of course it was never anything like the British Labour Party—a true political manifestation of the trade unions. But the Democrats did pass things like the Fair Labor Standards Act. The party of Hubert Humphrey would have opposed sending blue collar, and now white-collar jobs overseas. Now we get millionaire Democrat candidates who take contributions (along with the Republicans) from Silicon Valley CEOs in exchange for favors. According to Business Week Kerry is telling the Silicon Valley CEOs he opposes the expensing of options. How about that? Their big supporter Warren Buffet opposed expensing of options very publicly. My objection is Kerry/Edwards are trying to pose as a friend of labor, while they stab the workingman in back.

Well, here's a new meme to spread:

"Reason not to vote for Bush: Cheney is in poor health. If you think the first term was bad, think of how much worse it could get if Cheney were to die, leaving Bush in charge..."

Cheney is comparable to John Howard in Australia. Cunning, efective, clever and many, many other things which are generally admirable in a politican.

Your opinion on his polices are totally immaterial to your views of him as a politican (aside from bringing politics into disrepute by telling manifest untruths that is)

It's HARD work...

It's hardwork, it's hardwork, it's hard work...

While I won't disagree that the Dems have not been very much of a labor party recently, your comments about Warren Buffet are wrong. He is quite vocally FOR treating stock options as an expense, this from his editorial in WashPost:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29807-2004Jul5.html

If you're looking for a stereotypical evil businessman against the interests of the common people, look somewhere else. He is also a vocal opponent of the Bush tax bills.

Help, help, nobody is ideologically pure enough for me!

A. Zarkov wrote, "Why won’t they admit what they are: pro industry?"

Are you going to hold Bush/Cheney to the same standards of honesty?

When Bush asks how Kerry will pay for the things he wants to do, John can refer him to the taxwisdom.org website.

Not all of you will be interested in an analysis of tax policy options, but if you've taken a course or two in economics and you believe that rich people should be taxed more to pay for the pressing needs of this country, then you can expect a very good read.

By the way, it looks like the well-known progressive organization United for a Fair Economy is going to run with the Taxwidom.org arguments. Stay tuned...

Linette
linette@taxwisdom.org

When Bush asks how Kerry will pay for the things he wants to do, John can refer him to the taxwisdom.org website.

Not all of you will be interested in an analysis of tax policy options, but if you've taken a course or two in economics and you believe that rich people should be taxed more to pay for the pressing needs of this country, then you can expect a very good read.

By the way, it looks like the well-known progressive organization United for a Fair Economy is going to run with the Taxwidom.org arguments. Stay tuned...

Linette
linette@taxwisdom.org

When Bush asks how Kerry will pay for the things he wants to do, John can refer him to the taxwisdom.org website.

Not all of you will be interested in an analysis of tax policy options, but if you've taken a course or two in economics and you believe that rich people should be taxed more to pay for the pressing needs of this country, then you can expect a very good read.

By the way, it looks like the well-known progressive organization United for a Fair Economy is going to run with the Taxwidom.org arguments. Stay tuned...

Linette
linette@taxwisdom.org

When Bush asks how Kerry will pay for the things he wants to do, John can refer him to the taxwisdom.org website.

Not all of you will be interested in an analysis of tax policy options, but if you've taken a course or two in economics and you believe that rich people should be taxed more to pay for the pressing needs of this country, then you can expect a very good read.

By the way, it looks like the well-known progressive organization United for a Fair Economy is going to run with the Taxwidom.org arguments. Stay tuned...

Linette
linette@taxwisdom.org

Bush is a president in the Reagan model, but without the faith in what is being done in his name.

Republicans have discovered that if you can run a clebrity or a dope, provided he is very affable & down-home folksy like Bush, you can get him elected. Their $$$$ & infrastructure will take care of the real job once they win.

Look to the Illinois race when they tried to enlist Mike Ditka to run for the senate seat in the aftermath of the Ryan "orgy-gate", or Ted Nugent even tho Ted lives in Michigan.
Now it seems Arnold is being groomed to eventually run as plans are up to amend the US Constitution to permit "off-shore born" citizens.

The Dems still field "politicians", stiff, wonkish, nerds when voters respond to bubbas, like Bill.
Makes sence to me that Springsteen, Redford, Bono, should all get fitted for stump'n boots.

When I turned off the TV last night, this is EXACTLY what I said! I thought that with Cheney's win of this debate, it will be an overall loss for his ticket because it further exposes what a buffoon our president it.

Am I the only person who looks at Chaney and thinks Chauncy Gardner with edge?

See, it's like how in Star Wars everybody thought of Vader as the evil face of the Empire, but it was really the wizened old Emperor behind it all.

Wonder if Bush has made his first red-bladed lightsaber yet.

If Bush didn't have the last name Bush he would have a hard time getting hired as a mid-level manager in an average corporation. This is not an exaggeration.

Correction: I did mean to say that Buffet *supports* expensing of options. That was my point. While Kerry is telling SV CEOS he opposes expensing options, his big supporter Buffet is saying the exact opposite. Does anyone want to defend not expensing options?
Don’t we expect better of the Democrats?

Running in 2000 the choices were Gore, Bradley, McCain, and Bush and we got ... Bush?

You see, you all missed the whole point of the past 4 years.

"Get in, get out" rule that most crooks have.
Everyone knows that when you rob a bank (I mean treasury), time is of essence. You get in, get out.
The whole point of Ken Starr and Clinton investigation was to tarnish the whote house, so they could get in, set the agenda, ruin the treasury, line up debt over 3 generations, enrich he donars, (Military-Industrial complex, big oil concerns, big industry) enrich Enron, enrich themselves, all they needed was 4 years, they never cared about being elected for another term. It was all about 4 years, then let someone else clean up the doo-doo. It is all so clear from the beginning. They have no shame, never had any. As George Herbert Walker Bush stated in a interview during his waning days as president: "It's all about the rewards".
(Did you know that the other senior Bush...Herbert Walker Bush's father was a big Hitler fan in 1936-through-'39, helped supply the Nazi's with arms and weapons, When the big one commenced, Bush was very upset and protested what a great leader Adolph was, then when Poland was invaded...his shipments to Germany were shut-down, bummer. It was not fair, but Bush had to make a living doing other things after 1939...
You see, it is a family tradition. Wars=$)

A.Z.
Do I care what Buffet thinks? Nope.
Do I care what Kerry said to some Silicon Valley CEOs about expensing stock options?
No, but I do care about what his position on stock options is. And I'm not going to get that by running to what he said to some Silicon Valley CEO.
Do we expect better of Democrats? I think the consensus is overwhelming: How could we do worse than these Republicans?
Do I expect better of you? I do. Here is a blogger with a head on his shoulders and eyes in his head complaining that Kerry's no different.
Yes, you can do better.

George W. Bush was: clearly outclassed by all three of the others. What's he doing on any major party ticket, anyway?

There's a Dead Kennedys lyric about this:

In Daddy's Car,
You'll Go Far.

~

You can get very far with Daddy's name, too. The prodigal son should have been estranged, not annointed. Now we all suffer.

If anyone wants to know the real "FACTS" about Richard "PENIS HEAD" Cheney, read "Worse than Watergate, by John Dean. The section about Azerbaijan is worth the purchase price.

"What's he doing on any major party ticket, anyway?"

He's a "legacy."

calmo:

It is not my position that Kerry is no different. But on the issue of out sourcing, there is little difference. Many unemployed IT professionals are hoping Kerry will come to their aid, and I’m afraid they will be sorely disappointed. American IT workers will continue to lose jobs to non-immigrant visa holders, and continue to see their work sent off shore, no matter who is elected. In the debate last night Edwards said:

“We're going to get rid of -- by the way, they're for outsourcing jobs. I want to make sure people hear that, the fundamental difference with us. The administration says over and over that the outsourcing of millions of American jobs is good. We're against it.”

This statement does not match their previously announced positions as I pointed out in my post.

As for expensing options, I think we need to know Kerry’s position. If he is in favor of expensing options, then why is he telling CEO the opposite? Unless Business Week got it wrong.