"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.

From: "Brenda Ann"

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...

Right you are, BA! Most US workers couldn't survive on the wages of most
illegal workers. That makes Bush policy favoring the export of higher-paying
job cause even more resentment of illegal workers.


BTW, Bush is now back to discussing a blanket amnesty for illegal Mexican
immigrants, for the very reasons listed above, among others.



Again, you're right on the money. But don't tell any of the Bush-ites. You
might rock their reality!

"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.

"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.



Well, where to start? Bush, not Clinton, signed NAFTA in December,
1992. IMO it's also rather ridiculous to suggest Bush spent his
"whole term" negotiating it. I'm quite sure he did a couple of other
things from '89-'92.

The implication that NAFTA was entirely Bush's baby is equally
incorrect. In fact, Clinton expended political capital and -actively-
campaigned for its passage in Congress throughout the early part of
his presidency, leading to the passage in November, '93--10 months
into Clinton's first term. He was not in the least a passive
participant in its Congressional approval, and, again contrary to
implication above, was the most active of the past several presidents
in supporting free trade. This is evidenced by his total support for
GATT in 1994 and the creation of the WTO.

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.