Kerry on Bush and outsourcing--hypocrisy?

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Guest, Aug 10, 2004.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest


    Look at the label of a jar of Heinz sandwich slice pickles. Yep...."Made in Mexico" Check out some of your Heinz products.

    Sen. John Kerry keeps talking about U.S. corporations leaving this
    country and setting up shop in foreign countries, taking thousands of jobs with them. He is right, because that has happened.

    However, he is trying to blame it on George W. Bush.

    As far as I know, Bush has not moved one factory out of this country because he is not the owner of a single factory.

    That cannot be said about Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz-Kerry.
    According to the Wall Street Journal, the Kerrys own 32 factories in Europe and 18 in Asia and the Pacific. In addition, their company, the Heinz Company, leases four factories in Europe and four in Asia.

    Also, they own 27 factories in North America, some of which are in Mexico and the Caribbean.

    I wonder how many hundreds of American workers lost their jobs when these plants relocated to foreign countries. I also wonder if the workers in Mexico and Asia are paid the same wages and benefits as workers in the United States.

    Of course they're not. However, Kerry demands that other companies that relocate should pay the same benefits they did in the U.S. Why does he not demand this of the Heinz Company, since he is married to the owner?

    If Kerry is elected, will he and his wife close all those foreign
    factories and bring all those jobs back to America? Of course they won't.

    They're making millions off that cheap labor.

    If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in
    English, thank a soldier.

    Please pass this on. I think it is important we get the word out
  2. AV8R

    AV8R Active Member

    The Democratic National Committee is running television ads which state that President Bush's policies favor corporations that move their headquarters overseas. Now on the surface this charge seems pretty serious ... but it's a charge that only works with the uninformed. That's no surprise. Democrats know that the less a voter actually knows about the issues, the more likely that voter is to vote Democratic.

    To my knowledge, the United States is the ONLY industrialized nation in the world that taxes corporations headquartered within its borders on earnings realized from overseas operations. If you move your headquarters, but not your manufacturing facilities and workforce, out of the country that extra tax burden disappears. A European auto maker with a plant in the US does not pay taxes in their home country on earnings realized from sales in the US. An American auto maker with a manufacturing and sales operation in Europe pays US federal income taxes on earnings realized in Europe. It doesn't take a Ph.D. in economics to figure out that this puts the US automaker at a competitive disadvantage.
  3. Dennis Ruhl

    Dennis Ruhl member

    Does the company get credit for foreign taxes paid?

    Personally, but not corporately, Canadian residents get taxed on world income but get credit for foreign taxes paid, not exceeeding Canadian taxes on the income.

    An American anomaly is the taxation of dividends between corporations. In Canada the money is taxed once and intercorporate distributions are tax free. It is taxed again when dividended to an individual but at a reduced rate to remove some of the effect of double taxation.
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 11, 2004
  4. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    Snopes (a non-partisan urban legends site) says this is false. Excerpt:

    "Although Senator Kerry has been critical of the Bush administration for rewarding 'Benedict Arnold CEOs' who move 'profits and jobs overseas,' the above-quoted attempt to link Kerry (through his wife) with the very outsourcing he decries is flawed in two major ways. First off, Teresa Heinz Kerry does not 'own the Heinz Corporation' — she has no involvement whatsoever with the management or operations of the H.J. Heinz Company, nor does she own anything close to a controlling interest of the company's stock ... Moreover, the Heinz Company's operations are not an example of the type of outsourcing that is currently a hot political issue (i.e., sending out work to offshore companies to provide services which a company might otherwise have employed its own staff to perform). Heinz is a U.S.-based global business which sells its products in dozens of other countries, and like other food companies it has to localize some of its production at factories located in its foreign market areas."

    Other Snopes links:

    George W. Bush
    John Kerry

  5. Mr. Engineer

    Mr. Engineer member

    Thanks Tom for the research in clarifying this issue. I knew this was the case.

    For those of you who support outsourcing, you WILL think differently if your high tech job is outsourced. If you think that you can be retrained in another high paying job, think again. A majority of colleagues who had jobs which were outsourced had their Master's degrees and made over $80K a year. What are they going to be retrained to do? (work as a sticker distribution manager for WalMart - :p )

    I say outsource President GW Bush back to Texas where the good ole boy belongs. Perhaps Texans loved him, but this is one educated ex-Navy and ex-LE citizen who doesn't.
  6. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Thanks Tom, for the links. I've read "documentation" going both ways on the issue of the ownership of Heinz. Guess direct questions to Kerry or Heinz-Kerry will settle it.

    I liked the links because I found this info about presidential IQ's interesting:

    182 .. William J. Clinton (D)
    175 .. James E. Carter (D)
    174 .. John F. Kennedy (D)
    155 .. Richard M. Nixon (R)
    147 .. Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
    132 .. Harry Truman (D)
    126 .. Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
    122 .. Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
    121 .. Gerald Ford (R)
    105 .. Ronald Reagan (R)
    098 .. George HW Bush (R)
    091 .. George W. Bush (R)
  7. Mr. Engineer

    Mr. Engineer member


    OK - I think you know this is a hoax. Sort of like the Internet hoax thought up by a right winger associated with the Heritage Foundation who made up the list of people whose deaths are attributed to the Clinton's.

    Of course we all know that over 900 poor soul's deaths are attributed to GW. I hope the stump can sleep at night knowing that his lies contributed to their deaths. Of course, Coward Bush skirted his own duties during a time of war and far be it to have his coward daughters fight in his war. (yes, this is Bush's war - accept it, and get over it)

    It is easy to find out who owns the Heinz Corp. Therse is merely a very minority shareholder. Case closed.
  8. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    Mr. Engineer is correct; Heinz-Kerry does not own a controlling interest in Heinz. She does have serious control over the Heinz philanthropies, but not Heinz itself. Any claims to the contrary aren't just bad arguments; they're demonstratably false. Claiming that Heinz-Kerry has a controlling interest in the Heinz company is comparable to claiming that Bush has a controlling interest in Bush's Beans.

    The IQ listing, giving George W. an abysmally low IQ and Clinton an astonishingly high one, is also fabricated (as the Snopes site demonstrates--actually, their Bush page does a lot more good for Bush, from where I'm standing, than their Kerry page does for Kerry, probably because there are more urban legends about this divisive incumbent president). I would be very surprised if both Bush and Clinton don't have IQs in the MENSA range, though Clinton is much more articulate and Bush seems to have much more self-control (at least post-1980). You know which one I'd rather see in office, but I think Bush might leave behind a pretty good presidential legacy if we don't let him reshape the Supreme Court.

    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 11, 2004
  9. Guest

    Guest Guest

    That's why I said they're "interesting." I certainly question the numbers but think the rankings are interesting.

    I certainly think the rankings are fairly accurate from what we know of each man listed.
  10. Mr. Engineer

    Mr. Engineer member


    Just for the record, I don't think Bush has a low IQ at all. Public Speaking skills have very little to do with intelligence. I didn't think that VP Quayle was stupid either. Both are probably quite intelligent.

    With that said, I don't question thier intelligence, I do question their sincerity and ethics.

    (and we are talking about Bush and Quayle, not Clinton. Everyone already knows Clinton's ethics, so that is not the issue)
  11. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Actually, I agree with the first four or five (rankings). I would question some of the order of the last eight. I don't think LBJ, for instance, would have a higher IQ than either Bush.

    If Bush does have a 91 IQ it's average, not low. 90 to 110 is considered to be average intelligence. Above 130 is considered exceptional intelligence. I certainly think Carter, Kennedy, Clinton and Nixon qualify here.
  12. Mr. Engineer

    Mr. Engineer member

    I hardly think Bush has an IQ of 91. I would surmise that he would have to have an IQ in the range of 120-140. I took a series of IQ tests for my cousins thesis paper and we came out with an average of 145. I talked about this with a friend who has an IQ of somewhere in the range of 180 (genius). He put it this way, in order to understand physics, semiconductor process, chemistry, etc, you have to have a higher than normal IQ. So 145 is probably around average for my chosen profession.

    I would surmise in order to have some effectiveness as a politician, you either have to be at least reasonably intelligent, or very cunning. I don't think GW is that cunning. I do think that GHW Bush as much more intelligent and worldly than his son (just an opinion).

    IQ has little to do with creative knowledge, cunningness, adaptablity, or personality skills.

    Johnson - now there is an President with the ethics of a snake. He scared me.
  13. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Wow! The last time I was tested I scored 128. With my poor math skills I doubt that is a true portrayal. I am sure it is lower than that.
  14. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    I'd bet that every president on that list has an IQ above 140, including Dubya. It's very hard to make it to the presidency these days without a freakish amount of cunning. I agree with Mr. Engineer that Bush suffers from a milder case of Dan Quayle Syndrome--plenty of intelligence, but an inability to convey complex ideas without sounding like Yogi Berra. (I'd also argue that Bush and Quayle are somewhat lazy thinkers on abstract issues, despite their intelligence, but the goods are definitely there.) I'd say that Clinton comes across as much more articulate, in interviews, than any other president I've seen--it's easy for me to imagine how folks could think he has a 180+ IQ, and he very well may, though he still wouldn't top my list (I'd put him behind Truman, Nixon, Kennedy, and FDR, in more-or-less that order).

  15. Casey

    Casey New Member

    Where did Bush learn to fly a fighter jet? In the military, where he served honorably. What branch did Clinton serve in again? Oh, that's right; he dodged. What did Kerry and his band of bruvvas do while they were in Vietnam? Apparently, they committed atrocious war crimes. I guess hope wasn't on the way for their victims?

    And no, this is not Bush's war. I will not accept such nonsense. Even pacifist Kerry (who barely votes) voted for the use of force. The only true anti-war candidate is that real tough guy hero type who enjoys riding a pink Huffy and spiking trees.

    If you are all for the first amendment, but hate the second one: Vote for Kerry
    If you are against the death penalty, but okay with babies being violently murdered via skirt devil vacuum: Vote Kerry
    If you are with jobs and college seats being awarded on the basis of race: Vote for Kerry
    If you are against holding colleges accountable for outrageous tuition increases: Vote for Kerry
    If you champion equal protection, but support our discriminatory tax bracket structure: Vote for Kerry
    If want to wait for the world's permission before engaging an enemy: Vote for Kerry

    And, if you are okay with elitist academics looking down upon YOUR distance education: By all means, Vote for Kerry.

    From Ginsburg to Teddy red face K., liberals are dead set against distance learning. Ginsburg made her position extremely clear when she inappropriately commented on DL law schools. Oakbrook, with a first time bar pass rate of 73% (second only to UCLA) continues to prove her wrong.
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 13, 2004
  16. AV8R

    AV8R Active Member


    One of the centerpieces of the Democratic stump speech these days has been that 'Bush lied.' The loony left likes to say that Bush 'misled the country.'

    Still, even though mountains of evidence, along with two reports by the British and United States governments, exonerate the president, it's still a rallying cry for the left. Let's examine the evidence.

    David Kay, the leader of the Iraq Survey Group, speaking about the intelligence said there was "no sign that the administration pressured analysts." Then there was the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee which completely absolved the administration of any lying. Over in Great Britain, something called The Butler Report found no evidence that Prime Minister Tony Blair misled anyone. Then, there's the 9/11 Commission, which found that the administration was misled by a flawed intelligence network. And finally, even Hans Blix himself said "I don't think they acted in bad faith."

    So why do people keep repeating the fantasy that "Bush lied?" Because their hatred of George W. Bush is so deep, they fail to see the facts (something liberals don't like anyway.)

    Next time somebody tells you Bush lied, ask them to prove it. They won't be able to.
  17. Orson

    Orson New Member

    No Tom: historians and psychometricians would definitely not rank FDR's IQ as high - his accomplishments, yes. And Kennedy's rank for IQ is certainly questionable; persuasive charm and intellect are not really fungible (except to the coterie of intellectuals he surrounded himself with that became the bearer's of the myth of Camelot). You remember that his book that was ghost written, don't you? Ever since their deaths, JFK's reputation has sunk while Eisenhower's has keep growing among historians.

    Guys, you're forgetting Herbert Hoover - probably the smartest man in the office in the 20th century (despite an historically low finish), along with Woodrow Wilson - the only Ph.D holder (and University president) elected to the higjest office. whose accomplishments also suffered despite great intellect.

    (Of course one may carp that I have blurred IQ and reputation somewhat; I'm guilty.) Who has the termerity, sycophants aside, to rank Clinton above Jefferson and Lincoln (both judged by one source at about 160)?

    A neuroscientist writing in the The Wall Street Journal (February 4, 2004), summed up Bush's intellectual place: he isn't one. Just a leader.

    "When intellectuals tell me how much they hate President Bush and how stupid they think he is, I know that he excelled at the crucial form of learning whose importance I didn't fully appreciate when I was in college. It sank in only years later as I watched people in business do wonders by drawing on their personal relationships, much as scientists do wonders by marshaling knowledge that is more abstract. This focus on personal relationships may be the key to the president's success--and to why so many intellectuals disdain him."

    But "Being a good judge of people and having a great team is of huge importance."

    "To a typical intellectual, how much you know is far more important than knowing whom you can trust and count on. This is why Mr. Bush is so infuriating to intellectuals. He makes no pretense that he has all the answers, and he talks like a regular guy--but the team he leads is reshaping the Middle East with a brashness and vision equal to that of his Reaganite predecessors, as well as making major changes in domestic policy."

    "Polls show that most Americans admire Mr. Bush's personal qualities, but to intellectuals he doesn't show the personal quality they most admire. Thus to them Mr. Bush's successes seems undeserved, attributable to others. Although the president's IQ is estimated (based on SAT scores) as greater than that of 90% of Americans, he is portrayed as the puppet of smarter men."

    People with the higest IQs do not generally make successful managment people. Such skills neither require nor reward an Einstein - they require more social connectivity and empathic identification than intellectuals stereotypically possess.

  18. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    I should mention here that I was only ranking folks on the original list (which had Clinton at the top and Dubya at the bottom); obviously I'd rank Jefferson, Wilson, and Lincoln at or near the top of any more comprehensive list, particularly Jefferson, who was arguably the best political philosopher of his time in addition to being one heck of an amateur scientist and engineer (he invented the coathanger and the hideaway bed, among other things)--and not too shabby as an ambassador, lawmaker, and president, either. James Madison was also brilliant, and Washington and Adams weren't exactly slouches either. Didn't know about Herbert Hoover, but I always kind of felt that history gave him a bad rap for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    I've never claimed that Bush was unintelligent, just occasionally lacking in judgment, so I'll leave your second point to folks who disagree with it.

    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 13, 2004
  19. Guest

    Guest Guest

    According to The Hoover Presidency: A Reappraisal, by a number of scholars, Hoover was actually a very progressive President.

    The book also discusses FDR's initial enthusiasm for Hoover to run for President as a Democrat. After Hoover joined the GOP and announced for the White House FDR began to undermine him.

    The book details how FDR strong armed his fellow Democratic governors into non-action into state economies so Hoover would look bad nationally paving the way for an FDR presidency.
  20. Rob Coates

    Rob Coates New Member

    I'm sceptical due to the fact that no valid IQ test measures IQs this high. This is just somebody's guess.

Share This Page