![]() |
"Michael Bryant" wrote in message ... From: (Brian) There are non-Americans here who also have jobs, some of them illegals. And they send U.S. $$$'s back to wherever instead of spending them in our shopping malls, our pharmacies, and our Blockbusters. But I don't hear you complaining about illegals or the amount of money leaving America. Wow, more stellar reasoning! First, I've never supported illegal workers replacing US workers. Attacking Bush outsourcing hardly means I support illegal workers. Duh. I don't support illegal workers replacing US workers, either.... however, the predominance of jobs taken by Mexican immigrants, legal or illegal, are agricultural jobs for low pay that you could not get the "average US worker" to take, and therefor would simply not get done otherwise. I know this from practical experience over a long period of time (my teens and beyond).. I was the only non-Mexican, non Native American worker in any of the fields I ever worked... we had people in town that griped about the Mexicans taking away jobs, but when they were offered those jobs, year after year, before the migrants came in, they always turned them down... BTW, Bush is now back to discussing a blanket amnesty for illegal Mexican immigrants, for the very reasons listed above, among others. |
|
"Michael Bryant" wrote in message ... From: (Brian) My mistake. I thought the subject was a Bush policy. You can bash Clinton all you want for all the good it will do now. Sorry, my post this early morn was mis-typed. It is Bush, not Clinton, that is encouraging the outsourcing of US jobs. Anyone with the minimal effort to check a URL could see that it was Bush. Check this URL: http://www.mcgladrey-family.us/kayne...h_permits_outs ourcing.html (For those with not enough time to click a link:) Bush Permits Outsourcing "Higher skilled jobs are going away," said Pricilla Tate, Director of the Technology Managers Forum, a New York-based group representing IT executives at large companies. "There are people who will not get jobs in the IT industry again -- they just have been replaced." And the President isn't going to do a thing about it. ComuterWorld is running a story titled "Bush Administration Won't Impede Offshore Outsourcing". While it's fully within the power of the President to make it harder for companies to outsource work to offshore firms, there are no plans to. Instead of providing a solution, Chris Israel, a deputy assistant secretary at the U.S. Department of Commerce, said that "the answer to economic challenges is growth and innovation." Growth and innovation. When Detroit and Japan went toe-to-toe over auto manufacturing, how quickly did growth and innovation help? Ten years? Twenty years? Or how about textile manufacturing, with the United States going up against China and other countries with poor human rights records? The truth is that the manufacturing jobs went overseas and didn't come back. How long can skilled workers remain unemployed? Growth and innovation aren't standing well in the face of greed and commoditization. Many of the IT workers in the United States created processes and technologies that have enabled the globalization of information technology, and they've lost their jobs as a result. They weren't rewarded for their innovation. The Gartner Group predicted that ten percent of all IT jobs are going offshore in 2004. Despite the failing economy, despite all the indicators that this is a crisis in the making, George Bush isn't doing a thing to prevent jobs going overseas. His economic policy of tax cuts for the rich did not create jobs, and his economic policy of tax cuts for parents did not create jobs. He's not even attempting to set guidelines for trade agreements based on comparable workers rights and human rights. His economic policy is a failure, and shows that he is incapable of helping to retain the jobs we have, even as more jobs are lost." Any evidence to the contrary? No? I wonder why not? Interesting. Pardon the interruption, but I'm curious as to why you equate doing nothing to -discourage- outsourcing (assuming that's the case) with -encouraging- outsourcing. They are not the same, obviously. The alternative is protectionism, which most who support a global economy oppose. |
MWB,
The First Rule of Politics is . . . It's Not Who Did the Work - That Gets the Credit of Blame. It's Who Signs the Bill (Act of Congress) into LAW [.] So Give then President Clinton the Credit of the Blame. ~ RHF .. .. = = = ojunk (Michael Bryant) = = = wrote in message ... From: nobody Msut be why Clinton signed NAFTA. Try again. GH Bush is the President that spent his whole term negotiating and supporting the NAFTA treaty. Clinton signed it shortly after the 92 election. The negotiating of the details took place under the two Republican presidents that preceded him. Actually, the US negotiations for NAFTA were initiated and supported by Reagan. Are you aware that GW Bush is currently pursuing a free trade agreement to cover US trade with the entire Western Hemisphere? His rationale: It will protect US corporate profits. As I said, try again. Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL Louisville, KY R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K, DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76 (remove "nojunk" to reply) |
ojunk (Michael Bryant) wrote in message ...
From: (Brian) There are non-Americans here who also have jobs, some of them illegals. And they send U.S. $$$'s back to wherever instead of spending them in our shopping malls, our pharmacies, and our Blockbusters. But I don't hear you complaining about illegals or the amount of money leaving America. Wow, more stellar reasoning! First, I've never supported illegal workers replacing US workers. You did by omission. Attacking Bush outsourcing hardly means I support illegal workers. Duh. BUSH, Bush, bush. Why is Bush so evil? Second, please explain, very carefully, what this has to do with Bush outsourcing? You tell me. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Bryant ) Subject: Dear Rush View this article only Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave Date: 2003-12-28 17:11:50 PST From: (Brian) I only had time to look at one of your links. Unfortunately, I don't have unlimited time to follow all of your links, so I would suggest in the future that you be more specific before wasting everyones time with useless, vector links. I.E., get to the point sooner. Bull****. The combination of multiple links indicate that the unions are protesting an official Clinton policy. The fact that you can't (more likely won't) realize that the official Clinton policy encourages outsourcing is clearly more a product of your non-objectivity than your shortage of time. But what evidence is there to the contrary?I've provided evidence, and you've chosen to ignore the bulk of it. Prove my facts wrong. Come on, try to prove something you assert. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- So which is it that you're complaining about? Clinton or Bush? Third, when it comes right down to it, what has Bush done to stop illegal workers? Nothing. It might have a negative impact on corporate profits. You seem to enjoy being an idiot! You can't tell the diff between Clinton and Bush. Who'se the idiot? |
ojunk (Michael Bryant) wrote in message ...
From: (Brian) Bryant, you're confused. That's why you have yet to respond to my latest posting. Once again, you prove that you lack basic reading capabilities. I said I would respond as soon as I got off work. Some of us actually have to work for a living. My response has already been posted. Timing your attempt as refutation, Bryant So you respond from work that you'll respond after work? You're a genius. |
ojunk (Michael Bryant) wrote in message ...
From: (Brian) (RHF) wrote in message .com... NOTE: The "Down Sizing" (Peace Dividend) of the US Military in the 1990's was not the sole single act of the then President Clinton. It was an ACT of Congress. Daddy Bush got that one rolling, not Clinton. I was there. Wow. Some hint of honesty on your part. How surprising! Always. You just might get it someday. |
ojunk (Michael Bryant) wrote in message ...
From: (Brian) My mistake. I thought the subject was a Bush policy. You can bash Clinton all you want for all the good it will do now. Sorry, my post this early morn was mis-typed. It is Bush, not Clinton, that is encouraging the outsourcing of US jobs. Anyone with the minimal effort to check a URL could see that it was Bush. Check this URL: http://www.mcgladrey-family.us/kayne...h_permits_outs ourcing.html (For those with not enough time to click a link:) Bush Permits Outsourcing "Higher skilled jobs are going away," said Pricilla Tate, Director of the Technology Managers Forum, a New York-based group representing IT executives at large companies. "There are people who will not get jobs in the IT industry again -- they just have been replaced." And the President isn't going to do a thing about it. ComuterWorld is running a story titled "Bush Administration Won't Impede Offshore Outsourcing". While it's fully within the power of the President to make it harder for companies to outsource work to offshore firms, there are no plans to. Instead of providing a solution, Chris Israel, a deputy assistant secretary at the U.S. Department of Commerce, said that "the answer to economic challenges is growth and innovation." Growth and innovation. When Detroit and Japan went toe-to-toe over auto manufacturing, how quickly did growth and innovation help? Ten years? Twenty years? Or how about textile manufacturing, with the United States going up against China and other countries with poor human rights records? The truth is that the manufacturing jobs went overseas and didn't come back. How long can skilled workers remain unemployed? Growth and innovation aren't standing well in the face of greed and commoditization. Many of the IT workers in the United States created processes and technologies that have enabled the globalization of information technology, and they've lost their jobs as a result. They weren't rewarded for their innovation. The Gartner Group predicted that ten percent of all IT jobs are going offshore in 2004. Despite the failing economy, despite all the indicators that this is a crisis in the making, George Bush isn't doing a thing to prevent jobs going overseas. His economic policy of tax cuts for the rich did not create jobs, and his economic policy of tax cuts for parents did not create jobs. He's not even attempting to set guidelines for trade agreements based on comparable workers rights and human rights. His economic policy is a failure, and shows that he is incapable of helping to retain the jobs we have, even as more jobs are lost." Any evidence to the contrary? No? I wonder why not? This stuff was going on while Bush was hungover and not showing up for his UTA weekends with the Guard. Now it's all his fault. States all over the Union are giving tax breaks (i.e., 10 years of operations w/o paying taxes) to corporations to try to retain jobs in America. And when the tax breaks wear out, the company is likely to pick up and move somewhere else anyway. Do you want the Labor Unions to accelerate the process? What do you propose Bush do aboaut it? |
ojunk (Michael Bryant) wrote in message ...
From: nobody Msut be why Clinton signed NAFTA. Try again. GH Bush is the President that spent his whole term negotiating and supporting the NAFTA treaty. Now wait just a damned minute. You Bush haters (Libs) have been saying that he has spent his whole term waging war against innocent Saddamites. Now we learn that the war against terror was just a ruse to take our attention away from what he was really doing - supporting NAFTA? You ought to go on one of them Art Bell shows and 'splain your conspiracy theory. Clinton signed it shortly after the 92 election. The negotiating of the details took place under the two Republican presidents that preceded him. Actually, the US negotiations for NAFTA were initiated and supported by Reagan. Are you aware that GW Bush is currently pursuing a free trade agreement to cover US trade with the entire Western Hemisphere? His rationale: It will protect US corporate profits. As I said, try again. Mike, I take it that you consider yourself an IT professional? Have you ever considered moving yourself and family to India to snatch one of those jobs, and a better way of life? I understand that ARAMCO is currently paying very high wages for IT workers. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:28 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com