|
Home > Archive > Certifications and IT jobs/Salaries > March 2004 > Proposed bill to ban government outsourcing
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Proposed bill to ban government outsourcing
|
|
|
|
| Freddy 2004-02-25, 11:37 am |
| A lot of people are convinced that sending our jobs overseas is going to create a huge bonanza at some point in the future. I am not one of them. I think that we should be taking care of our own countries needs first, then sending what is left outside. Stopping our government from sending jobs overseas with our tax dollars makes sense, we need to keep that money working at home. | |
| curiousgeorge 2004-02-25, 12:03 pm |
| I want someone to give me an intellegent explanation of how putting ten thousand workers out of work is going to help the local economy.
the gains in productivity (if any) will never match or exceed the financial loss of the individuals or the local economy.
The only person who gains is the company executive. They will receive a fat bonus because they increased profits.
So the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. That's the Republican way.
I used to work at a manufacturing company. I reported to one of the Vice Presidents. One year they decided they needed to lay off 60 workers to hit their profit goal. They gave the workers 4 weeks of pay. At the end of the year, every executive received an $80,000 bonus for meeting the profit goal. Two of the VP's had the nerve to go by brand new cars. One bought a convertable BMW, the other bought a Land Rover. They bragged that their bonus check paid for it.
And that's exactly what's going to happen when companies outsource to other countries. The American worker is going to get screwed while the executives reep the benefits.
That's one of the many reasons why I don't vote Republican. They don't protect the American worker. | |
| cmelch 2004-02-25, 1:11 pm |
| I honestly think that the politicians are more concerned with who is funding their campaigns than protecting American jobs. | |
| Freddy 2004-02-27, 3:27 am |
| Excuse me there Curious George, but the GATT agreement as well as the NAFTA which permits all of this outsourcing in the first place was signed by a DEMOCRAT President and Ratified by a DEMOCRAT controlled Senate in 1994. How does that make this a Republican issue? | |
|
| quote:
Originally posted by Freddy
A lot of people are convinced that sending our jobs overseas is going to create a huge bonanza at some point in the future. I am not one of them.
I agree. Nike's are made in sweatshops, aren't they? Notice how expensive they are? I think that outsourcing is just an excuse to get cheaper labor and keep the costs the same, thereby screwing the public once again. Republicans or democrats . . . whoever lines the pockets of either will have more bargaining power. Don't think this is a party issue. | |
| curiousgeorge 2004-02-27, 11:10 am |
| Freddy,
Under evil Clinton, the US was gaining 2 million jobs a year. His original goal was only 1 million new jobs a year.
Under Bush and the Republican controlled congress, we have lost 1 million jobs. Bush's goal was to gain 1 million each year.
You look at rhetoric. I look at facts. | |
| DivxGuy 2004-02-28, 3:58 pm |
| quote:
That's one of the many reasons why I don't vote Republican. They don't protect the American worker.
Not true--this issue cuts across party lines. There are many Democrats who are staunch believers in offshoring, and many Republicans who are against it.
As an example, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) has fought for American I.T. workers (including an appearance on CNN Crossfire), and Paul Streitz of the Programmer's Guild (a independent organization of I.T. workers) is running as a Republican for a U.S. Senate seat in CT.
Remember, although offshoring hurts American workers (it is furthering the transfer of wealth and income from the middle-class to the rich), it benefits corporate bottom lines, and there are as many pro-Democrat multinationals as there are pro-Republican ones.
RD | |
| DivxGuy 2004-02-28, 4:03 pm |
| quote:
You look at rhetoric. I look at facts.
In "fact," your argument contains at least one logical fallacy, "card stacking," and possibly others. | |
| curiousgeorge 2004-03-01, 12:30 pm |
| Under Clinton and Democratic controlled Congress- 8 million new jobs
Under Bush and Republican controlled Congress- 3 million jobs lost
Those are just facts. Whatever your opinion is, the facts remain that massive jobs were created under Democratic leadership and massive jobs were lost under Republican leadership.
We've been talking about a jobless recovery for two years. Why? Because Republicans don't care about American workers getting their jobs back. They just look after their rich cohorts, and to hell with the masses.
I don't care what a politician SAYS. I look at results. | |
| ndevine8930 2004-03-01, 3:15 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by curiousgeorge
Under Clinton and Democratic controlled Congress- 8 million new jobs
Under Bush and Republican controlled Congress- 3 million jobs lost
Those are just facts. Whatever your opinion is, the facts remain that massive jobs were created under Democratic leadership and massive jobs were lost under Republican leadership.
We've been talking about a jobless recovery for two years. Why? Because Republicans don't care about American workers getting their jobs back. They just look after their rich cohorts, and to hell with the masses.
I don't care what a politician SAYS. I look at results.
Agreed!!! And furthermore to add, when NAFTA and GATT were signed, the economy was roaring along and on the way to budget surplus. Back then no one ever dreamed that an administration with such fiscal negligence would come in and change the economic course of this nation, let alone change the direction and history of it entirely. I'm so sick of people saying that all this was bound to happen, all this crap was happening when Clinton was in office. Let’s not forget who was behind the Enron mass-racketeering scam. Who had ties to all those companies this administration, hell Enron was based in good ole Texas. After watching the Enron debacle, im not even surprised with the fiscal habits of this administration. I mean in the end they ran Enron into the ground and made millions doing it, why not apply the same theory to the country, I mean isn’t paying gas and power just like taxes? Something that no matter how much it is you still have to pay, or suffer the consequences? Anyone who feels safer now then they did before our alert rainbow, I say you were a coward to begin with. There is no way you can just start sneaking and bullying people, and expect them to bow to you. You bully and sneak enough people and soon somebody will sneak you. Remember Columbine? | |
| DivxGuy 2004-03-01, 3:22 pm |
| You are doing more than presenting certain facts; you're trying to imply that they are inter-related, and that somehow, the two million jobs lost are due to ineptitude on the part of the Bush Administration. However, your logic is flawed; just because two events (in this case, the Bush Administration and the downturn) occur together, doesn't make for a causative relationship.
The mere presence of facts doesn't make for a logically complete or consistent argument. Your logic leaves out important facts, such as how U.S. business cycles tend to span several years, that they end in downturns, and that Clinton was fortunate enough to have assumed power at the very beginning of such a cycle, and thus the downturn portion did not start until the last months of his presidency. In contrast, his successor assumed power at the very beginning of a downturn (aggravated by the effects of monumental events of Sept. 11).
For the record, Congress was Democrat-controlled for only two of the eight Clinton years, and for the remainder of his presidential tenure (the period comprising the boom), both houses of Congress were controlled by the GOP. Thus, one of your "facts" is incorrect.
RD | |
| curiousgeorge 2004-03-01, 4:00 pm |
| Divx,
The president LEADS THE NATION. He projects his vision of where the country should go and asks Congress to follow in that vision. At the same time, he has veto power to override congressional bills that he does not agree with.
By your theory, the president has no power to steer the nation in any direction. It's all up to forces beyond his control. If that's true, why do we have elections?? Your theory is completely flawed.
I'm sorry, but it's not dumb luck that Clinton showed prosperity and Bush put us in the tank.
Bush is doing the EXACT same thing his idiot dad did:
Both Bush's had recessions that they couldn't recover from.
Both Bush's went against their campaign promises (Bush I- no new taxes, Bush II- we will not get into nation building)
Both Bush's left the country worse off than when they came into office.
Both Bush's set record level spending (Bush I spent more money than the 40 presidents before him COMBINED. Bush II has spent more than his dad!)
Both Bush's increased the national debt to such a high level that economists can no longer predict when the country will be able to pay it off.
Both Bush's concentrated all their time on international affairs to the point that the domestic economy was strained.
Both Bush's started a war with Iraq to get people's minds off domestic problems.
Both wars did not have an exit strategy, only an attack plan.
Both wars did not have the desired result as anticipated.
Both Bush's had an extremely high approval rating during the war, and then it dropped dramatically when people started looking at domestic issues again.
So for you to claim that the president has nothing to do with the state of the country, you don't have to look far back in history to see that presidential leadership (or the lack of) has a direct correlation to the state of the country. | |
| ndevine8930 2004-03-01, 4:21 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by DivxGuy
You are doing more than presenting certain facts; you're trying to imply that they are inter-related, and that somehow, the two million jobs lost are due to ineptitude on the part of the Bush Administration. However, your logic is flawed; just because two events (in this case, the Bush Administration and the downturn) occur together, doesn't make for a causative relationship.
And just what are you trying to say? From what I gather you are trying to show how the two happing could be mere coincidence? Using your stance I can just as well say the fact that they happened at the same time you cannot 100% rule out a connection or relationship.
quote:
The mere presence of facts doesn't make for a logically complete or consistent argument. Your logic leaves out important facts, such as how U.S. business cycles tend to span several years, that they end in downturns, and that Clinton was fortunate enough to have assumed power at the very beginning of such a cycle, and thus the downturn portion did not start until the last months of his presidency. In contrast, his successor assumed power at the very beginning of a downturn (aggravated by the effects of monumental events of Sept. 11).
Assuming this is true, knowing that there is going to be a big pull back in the economy going on ur theory, what sense does it make to cut taxes-(Decrease Gov. income), and then increase spending to record levels, all the while knowing that the economy is in or either heading to the crapper. This administration openly support's outsourcing which further decreases the local tax base, thus the gross fiscal mismanagement by this administration.
quote:
For the record, Congress was Democrat-controlled for only two of the eight Clinton years, and for the remainder of his presidential tenure (the period comprising the boom), both houses of Congress were controlled by the GOP. Thus, one of your "facts" is incorrect.
All this says is, we will go along with your ideas as long as you are in charge. Everyone knows that when one controls the executive and one controls the legislative, the president will veto, and congress vise versa, and you have a big cluster*&^%. They were just going along for the ride-(No complaints as their pockets were getting lined as well), they get no credit. When they control the entire thing as they do now the true nature of greed and self promotion they are really about. And for me it is as evident as racism. | |
|
| I have to say there are three reasons that I do not vote Republican. Keep in mind, if I believed in that person I might change my mind, but here they are:
Failed promises: "no new taxes" I was there when Bush Sr. said it and went through the 7 stages of loss reaction within a heartbeat; shock, denial, anger, guilt, bargaining (internally), depression and finally acceptance. I knew where it was going to lead when he said it and lost respect and tolerance for him after.
Sheer Stupidity: Need I tell you whom? See here, or here .
Trickle down theory: What a crock! theory being (in a nutshell) that money given to rich will trickle down to lower classes. How on earth do you think the rich became rich? I seriously doubt they let it trickle out of their hands, lol.
Anyways, I am registered as a Democrat, but I would not hesitate to vote for a Republican with moral fibre and a brain. As long as he is loyal to the American government to which I have allegiance as a leader of this country should.
P.S. - Good calls on both sides of this arguement guys. I can't take a stand on future candidates, but I can on what i've seen of previous ones. Don't get me wrong, all presidents have made bonehead moves and said things that would generally be considered "stupid". Bush Jr. just seems to do it more often. | |
| DivxGuy 2004-03-10, 1:00 am |
| quote:
Failed promises: "no new taxes" I was there when Bush Sr. said it and went through the 7 stages of loss reaction within a heartbeat;
Ironically, it was an important step towards a balanced federal budget. In return for relatively modest tax hikes, he received from the Democrats substantial spending cuts; the combination staunched much of the red ink, and helped lay the groundwork for the Nineties prosperity. | |
|
| quote:
Originally posted by R3D
Trickle down theory: What a crock! theory being (in a nutshell) that money given to rich will trickle down to lower classes. How on earth do you think the rich became rich? I seriously doubt they let it trickle out of their hands, lol.
I think the idea is that the tax cuts given to the rich allow them to create more jobs which benefit the poor and invigorate the economy. the rich wont give the money away, but supposedly use it to make more money for themselves, but to do this they have to invest in creating more jobs as well.
I have never seen any solid evidence that this actually works though.
If Bush was really a moron, he probably would not have graduated from college. I recall reading that a moron was someone with the I.Q. of a 12 year old. I don't know of many 12 year olds who graduated from college (even with daddy's help). | |
| DivxGuy 2004-03-10, 3:23 pm |
| quote:
If Bush was really a moron, he probably would not have graduated from college.
Of course it's a misuse of the term, but ad hominem attacks can be a highly effective substitute for logic. |
|
|
|
|