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?

Bryant
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)

In article ,
ojunk (Michael Bryant) wrote:

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.


Msut be why Clinton signed NAFTA.

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)

"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: 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.

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
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?

Wrong Bush.. they're talking about King George I... who WAS instrumental in
NAFTA

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message ...
"Brian" wrote in message
om...
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?

Wrong Bush.. they're talking about King George I... who WAS instrumental in
NAFTA


Ooops!

From: (Brian)


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?

Wow, you really ARE stupid! GW Bush has fought the war against terror. GH Bush,
GW's father, was the one responsible for NAFTA. How old are you? You seem to
have the reasoning powers of a 3rd grader!

You ought to go on one of them Art Bell shows and 'splain your
conspiracy theory.

No, I'd think they'd be more entertained by hearing about an idiot, like
yourself, who seems incapable of distinguishing GW and GH Bush. They are
different people, even if they are related.

You've really proven yourself as an entertaining source of idiocy.

Keep trying.


Bryant

ojunk (Michael Bryant) wrote in message ...
From: (Brian)


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?

Wow, you really ARE stupid! GW Bush has fought the war against terror. GH Bush,
GW's father, was the one responsible for NAFTA.

My mistake.

How old are you? You seem to
have the reasoning powers of a 3rd grader!

And you, the grace and emotional maturity of a 3rd grader.