Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 39

Thread: Jobs issue will destroy Bush; Nader can't help

  1. #1
    I always thought I was Republican to the core, but I guess not.

    To be a Republican these days, your main focus must be to push your corporate backed "globalist" agenda and bludgeon the American worker to the point you destory their wages. It's almost like Republicans are the biggest, baddest goons in ice hockey, while the average American is reduced to the 100 pound weakling getting his face pounded in, while his jersey is wraped around his head :rolleyes:

    On January 7th, George Bush arrogantly got up and proposed amnesty for the 10 to 15 million illegal aliens his cheap labor corporate pals and the Libertarian freaks at the CATO Institute adore with so much lust .

    If that "slug in the face" to the American workers wasn't enough, Geoge announced he wanted more guest workers. Talk about a kick in the mid-section :o

    Millions of guest workers only? Why not billions of guest workers George? Let's make it so no American with a college degree can pay his rent and needs to go around begging with a tin can....That would be good for stock prices, right?

    Well, the last laugh may be on George and Karl Rove. Unless you believe his moon aspirations angered Americans, it safe to presume his amnesty/ guest worker program sent his approval ratings down to historic lows <_<

    The Republican dynasty of the 1980&#39;s was built on the perception that Americans always came first and smaller gov&#39;t and enforcing our laws were paramount. Seems like, these days, being a Republican means wearing stripped check-pants and hanging out at exclusive country clubs, served by low-wage, imported surfs.

    As a registered Republican, it&#39;s nice to have known you :rolleyes:


    By the way, a radical socialist like Kerry can&#39;t beat Bush....But Bush can beat himself, if he tries to to please that out of touch %1 percent he represents. Right know, he&#39;s going down the same road George Sr. did.


    Any job is now replaceable, per the Republican party...F&#39; them [url=http://www.etherzone.com/2004/sher022304.shtml]http://www.etherzone.com/2004/sher022304.shtml[/url]

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    8,682
    Riggins....you aren&#39;t the only &#39;republican&#39; who has been greatly upset by some of Bush&#39;s policies.

    Many Republicans, including yours truly, is deeply troubled by what I see as the export of American jobs overseas through &#39;globalization&#39;, a policy that has been going on for years, not just under Bush. Being a Republican doesn&#39;t mean blindly following the party into fire and trusting thay&#39;ll make the right choice, hell all parties can be described as that.

    You like myself, probably share a set of values and ideas that makes us a Republican by name, but we also have reservations about the direction or our domestic policy in particular. For what ever it&#39;s worth, I would urge you not to completely abandon the Republican party, but join me and others like us in trying to make a change within the party. Trust me, I have written as many Angry letters to Republican congressmen, senators and &#39;players&#39; as I have to Democrats in the last few years. Perhaps if enough us start raising hell, those powers to be within the party will get the message.

    I&#39;m not going to lie. I have obviously declared myself a pretty staunch Republican around this place with my arguments, etc. But years ago, I was a staunch supporter of the &#39;thrown the bums out campaign&#39; and actually voted for Perot in my first ever presidential election. American for better or worse, is a two party government. Third party candidates will never be a viable option in this country. So the only way to change things is support the party that shares the same ball park beliefs as you have and make changes from within.

    Just my humble opinion bro, not trying to talk you out of anything or ram my opinion down your throat. Just thought you&#39;d like to know you&#39;re not the only Republican with reservations about our party&#39;s direction at times.

    Now that said, you still couldn&#39;t get me to vote for Kerry if you gave me &#036;1,000,000. :D

  3. #3
    Thanks GOB. Your opinions are valued and, I believe, in line with the majority of Americans that favor either party.

    Let me say this, flat out: I won&#39;t vote for Kerry. Just can&#39;t; just wont. Thing is, I&#39;m about 90% sure I&#39;ll sit this election out, which means Bush not only losses, but every other Republican in that voting both losses, too. (This is Bush&#39;s biggest fear--millions of distgruntaled Republican&#39;s staying away).

    I guess, in reality, I can&#39;t really harm Bush, due to the fact I&#39;m in Connecticut, which always goes blindy for Democraps. However, like I said, I could harm the chances of the other Republicans greatly by not showing up.

    I would hope true Republicans do as you say, and change the party from within. However, how do you get the message out, unless you oust people that have little to no regard for the American people they represent and want to turn our nation into some slum, where all the good jobs are gone?

    You are 100% correct, we are, regrettably, a two party system. However, if voter particpation continues to drop to historic lows, maybe Americans will demand a viable 3rd party? Or at least I hope.

    By the way, I always believed Clinton was a freakin&#39; total travesty/ train wreck. Just seeing his face on TV made me cringe in fear. However, now I&#39;m not so sure that the Republicans would&#39;ve been any better. I think there are some real bad apples in the backround of that party (former QB Jack Kemp, Bill Bennett, John McCain, Orin Hatch, Chuck Hagel, ect) that have basically been bought by the worst slime in corporate America and sold out the American people.

    I&#39;ll say this: Most Republican congressmen are great. For whatever reason (too much job security?), the Republicans in the Senate have totally sold out and are worthless.


    Thanks GOB, again, your opinions are solid and well put forth.

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Any true Republican that thinks this crop of dems are better equipped to handle the problems facing America is a fool.

    In 1992, I voted for Perot as a protest to Sr. for raising taxes and hiding behind the skirt of the UN in dealing with Iraq. All it got me was 8 years of an even worse option. An option that culminated in a busted stock market, "Don&#39;t Ask, Don&#39;t Tell" (lie), the tallest structures in NYC and the people in them reduced to dust and North Korea, Iran, Syria and Pakistan playing nuclear hot potato.

    Sitting out this election or protest voting is just plain foolish and nowadays, downright dangerous.

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    8,682
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Spirit of Weeb[/i]@Feb 23 2004, 06:22 PM
    [b] In 1992, I voted for Perot as a protest to Sr. for raising taxes and hiding behind the skirt of the UN in dealing with Iraq. All it got me was 8 years of an even worse option. An option that culminated in a busted stock market, "Don&#39;t Ask, Don&#39;t Tell" (lie), the tallest structures in NYC and the people in them reduced to dust and North Korea, Iran, Syria and Pakistan playing nuclear hot potato.

    [/b][/quote]
    Glad to see I&#39;m not the only one that made that mistake. I had to sit there for 8 years and say, "My god, what have we done".

    The fact of the matter is that this nation&#39;s most improtant item at this moment is the war on terror and dealing with the terrorist threats that exist. They are greater than any other issue facing this nation. When it comes down to it, GWB is the man to lead us in that war, not Kerry. While it has its issues, the economy is improving and things are looking better domestically, at least in my eyes.

    We must deal with the greatest threat to our nation, terrorism, and GWB is the man to make that happen. Kerry would be a disaster.

  6. #6
    Anybody who saw [b]Breaking Point[/b] last night, a Fox News special on how vulnerable the U.S is to terrorist attacks domestically, might disagree that the Republicans are truely the answer.

    Even Congressman Hoekstra from Michigan talked about our B.S policies putting us at risk.

    Just a few, quick points:

    **The 9/11 attacks didn&#39;t happen with Clinton in the White House.


    **Mohamed Attah, should&#39;ve been arrested the night before 9/11 on a vehicle infraction, but was let go. He was in the country illegally and should&#39;ve been arrested and deported, not let let go with speeding ticket....Thing is, Republican&#39;s and Democraps both decided enforcing our immigration laws would harm companies like IBP, Hormel Foods, Mohawk Industries, ect.....so let Mohamed go, right?


    **The mastermind of the 1993 WTC attack was granted "amnesty" by the Reagan Administraion, as a "farm worker" :blink:


    **Are we really safer? For years, Al Queda bragged about setting huge forrest fires and burning the West.....Anyword on what caused last summers fires out west? Or no explanation :rolleyes:

  7. #7
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,415
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Riggins44[/i]@Feb 23 2004, 06:54 PM
    [b]
    **The 9/11 attacks didn&#39;t happen with Clinton in the White House.
    [/b][/quote]
    A pitcher who gives up 13 runs and is in the showers when the game ends isn&#39;t on the mound when the game is lost either.

    Clinton (and kindred bums like Toricelli) decimated our intelligence services and their capabilities. But I guess that doesn&#39;t matter, because "Bush knew."

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    Jobs will destroy Bush...until everyone is reminded that the bills which led to jobs leaving the country were endorsed and signed by none other than john kerry...then the kerry hyopcrisy will lead to further destruction of the democRATS&#33;

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    4,530
    I saw the Breaking Point show. God only knows who has crossed the borders. It seems Republicans can&#39;t bring themselves to actually enforce the law, and the Democrats view every immigrant as a potential voter for their side. And some of the biggest lobbyists are argricultural consortiums that want cheap farm labor and give to both parties with both hands(though historically, Bob Dole was the biggest taker). And nobody wants anyone -even if they&#39;re in country illegally for 5 minutes-to call them racist.

    This is INSANE. My father-in-law wasn&#39;t a citizen, but became one only by joining the US Army. My grandparents had to be sponsored by relatives who expressly promised that they&#39;d support them and they wouldn&#39;t take welfare(which, given how hard they worked, never came close to happening). Some of my family in California are so disgusted by the army of penniless jobless Latinos who drift in with no plan and no education all that they all want to go into Nevada, Idaho, Utah, to get away from the mess. No one can fault these immigrants if they are willing to work hard and learn the language, we should welcome them- IF THEY WANT TO BECOME AMERICANS. Or should I say, some of them. But this is almost an invasion. It&#39;s too damn much. Schools and hospitals is many cities, especially in the Southwest,are being bankrupted. Police and courts are overwhelmed.

    And they don&#39;t want to be Americans. They had a whole press conference in NYC the other day how they&#39;re going to provide non-English speaking parents with translators so the could become "more involved" in their child&#39;s education.Want to help your kids-LEARN ENGLISH. Would any of you show up in a foreign country and expect to be caterd to or would you make it a priority to learn the langauge? How would you or your children get a job in such a place if you didn&#39;t learn the language? And we&#39;ve been so inured to PC BS that no asks that common sense question. You show up and expect US to bend over backwards for YOU?

    As a Republican, I&#39;m dissappointed that there hasn&#39;t been any real mention of this. And the family of that murdered Park Ranger really brought it to heart that there&#39;s really no immigration policy at all right now.

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Supreme Court nominations - this is the single biggest issue around for the 2004 election. The USA proper is heading in a globalist direction, BOTH parties included. Protectionism will only lower our standards of living and eventually cause inflation. There is simply no way to avoid the market influences of globalization.

    We need to educate our workforce, that is the solution. Alan Greenspan is actually right about this, IMO.

    In any event, BOTH parties have major flaws. The difference is that two SC judges may be appointed over the next four years and who do you want appointing new ones, a Dem or the GOP?


    To me, it HAS to be Bush for this very reason, and that is why I will not vote against him. no matter how pissed off I am. I&#39;ll probably have to hold my nose when I pull the lever, but I am voting GOP. (Not that it matters, since I live in MA&#33;)

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,281
    I am would also consider myself a disenfranchised Bush supporter (now pro-Kerry), but I think that GWB is getting a bad rap for the demise of the American worker.

    In my opinion, no president can safely protect American manufacturing, Steel, or farming jobs. Why? Because over the past 50 years, America has been transitioning from a production-based economy into one where the costs of production are too high for any American company to compete with overseas competition. We simply can&#39;t compete, no matter who the president is. We&#39;ve become a service-oriented economy, and people need to stop lying to themselves about our economy. The US Steel industry is dead, regardless of any tariffs that Bush may impose on inports. The American low-tech manufacturing industry is dead. There&#39;s no way we can compete with cheap, overseas labor and overhead, regardless of how many NAFTA&#39;s and Carribean Basin agreeements you sign. The large-scale American farmer is a thing of the past too, now that we can easily and cheaply get fresh product from cheaper places. For people who support an open economy and free markets (myself included), this is what we&#39;ve asked for, and this is what we&#39;ve gotten. It&#39;s real life supply and demand curves that you were taught in Economics 101. Given the same final product, the person who can produce said item the cheapest wins. Simple as that.

    For me, I look at other parts of the economy when trying to help solve the country&#39;s problems. Does anyone else know that the inflation-adjusted minimum wage has decreased steadily since the early 1970&#39;s? People who ARE willing to take low-paying jobs simply can&#39;t exist anymore. They can&#39;t feed and clothe their families, so they look a other jobs. And in come the migrant workers, who are happy as hell to work for &#036;5.25/hour.

    Give the lower-bracket American a reason to take a job like this, and they will.

    Sorry for the rambling, just some thoughts.

  12. #12
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Riggins44[/i]@Feb 23 2004, 06:54 PM
    [b] Anybody who saw [b]Breaking Point[/b] last night, a Fox News special on how vulnerable the U.S is to terrorist attacks domestically, might disagree that the Republicans are truely the answer.

    Even Congressman Hoekstra from Michigan talked about our B.S policies putting us at risk.

    Just a few, quick points:

    **The 9/11 attacks didn&#39;t happen with Clinton in the White House.


    **Mohamed Attah, should&#39;ve been arrested the night before 9/11 on a vehicle infraction, but was let go. He was in the country illegally and should&#39;ve been arrested and deported, not let let go with speeding ticket....Thing is, Republican&#39;s and Democraps both decided enforcing our immigration laws would harm companies like IBP, Hormel Foods, Mohawk Industries, ect.....so let Mohamed go, right?


    **The mastermind of the 1993 WTC attack was granted "amnesty" by the Reagan Administraion, as a "farm worker" :blink:


    **Are we really safer? For years, Al Queda bragged about setting huge forrest fires and burning the West.....Anyword on what caused last summers fires out west? Or no explanation :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]
    First off, be honest. You are as Republican as I am democrat. I am a registered democrat (a truly foolish mistake made at a young age). I never bothered to switch, because, quite frankly, it&#39;s too much fun attempting to screw dem primaries or talking on the phone to the dem operative trying to get me to vote for their candidate. When a party is filled with the likes of Jimmy Carter, Ramsey Clark, Tom Hayden, Billiary Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Al Sharpton, the Jesse Jackson clan, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters -- that ain&#39;t the party for me. Talk to me when that party is filled with Zell Miller types.

    We live in a [b]free[/b] country, not communist China. There are certain security measures we can&#39;t take or don&#39;t want to exactly because we are free.

    That give&#39;s thugs the world over an advantage to operate within our borders. So what do we hear from democrats and the left -- "undo the Patriot Act", "the FBI/NSA/DIA/CIA can&#39;t deal with shady characters", "we spend too much on defense", "ILLEGAL aliens should have the same RIGHTS and privileges as US citizens", "make love, not war on terrorists" and on and on.

    Past mistakes were made on both sides. The important thing is what&#39;s being done [u]since 9-11[/u] into the future. Only a fool believes Kerry/Edwards/Sharpton/Kusinich/Nader/LaRouche or Kofi Annon would make America any safer.

  13. #13
    Big Al, America is in big time trouble and it&#39;s probably not the fault of just one person or just one party. As Bugg sort of alluded too, both parties have been bought by big business.

    We saw the manufacturing base totally decimated in the early 1990&#39;s. The country clubs snobs from the CATO Institute can spin it any way their sorry, golf-clubing swinging, nerdy asses want to, but that has bought tangible pain to millions of real Americans.

    Know we see the same thing going down in Hi-Tech and other white collar jobs fleeing by the millions to India, mainly. We were told after NAFTA that training for hi-tech jobs was the ticket, but honestly, where are those jobs heading now?

    In addition to that, we probably have like 20 million unemployed folks in the nation, but 50% of the new jobs created since 2000 are now going to "non Americans"....Mainly illegal aliens.

    So, we&#39;ve got no manufacturing base. We are bleeding hi-tech and white collar office jobs, and now we have the illegal aliens taking just about any job that can&#39;t be outsourced. It was reported last night, that despite the "shortage of workers" in construction that Bush claims, wages were falling steadily. That doesn&#39;t sound like a real shortage to someone with even a modest backround in economics. [b]It sounds like an oversupply of chead labor flooding the market[/b].

    Before any country-club Republican wets his pants in glee over all these "cheap laborers" doing work for very little, they must remember this: While the boss that employs these illegals is getting stinking rich, the rest of us are screwed bigtime in terms of having to pick the billions in social care--Look no farther than the entire western U.S, which is going broke at a rapid pace.

    I guess maybe doing what&#39;s good for stock prices is the way to go? Why not turn the U.S into something closely resembling Brazil, where you have a few elites living behind barbed wire, while the rest of the surfs fight for scarps. We&#39;re told our jobs mean nothing, right?


    P.S: Bugg, anybody who watched Breakin Point, should be shaken. It totally debunks the theory that we are somehow totally protected by anything....We are protected by nothing and being totally scammed...Asa Hutchinson sounded like he was scared to even answer the questions, knowing how weak things are.


    P.S: I&#39;m I a true Republican? I guess I can&#39;t compete with the out of shape nerds at the CATO Institute who now run the party based on whats good the stock market....Therefore, I guess I&#39;m an independent conservative.....Which is better than than most Republicans now, who are Jimmy Carter clones.....Absolute Jimmy Carter clones&#33;

  14. #14
    5ever is right the supreme court nominations are the only thing that matters in this election

    and if you want another 3 (or 4) reactionary loony-bin antonin scalias then by all means vote for Bush - by 2008 jesus H christ will be appointed supreme leader of the american theocracy

    --

    all joking aside we don&#39;t vote for people we vote for parties. Who will Kerry surround himself with? Edwards as VP, Wes Clark as secretary of state... i could live with that... its all about the handlers

    will Kerry save the world? most likely not but he can&#39;t possible be as bad as bush who has basically done nothing of value since inaugeration... seriously i want to know what has Bush done to make this country better since he entered office? folks when the best you can do is point to the patriot act and shriek its time to take a good long look in the mirror.

    and no one has worse more evil handlers than George W Bush - he is so easy to persuade and Cheney/Wolfy have their way with him... also lets face facts people he has no real ideas of his own...

    by the way if i intimated that the forest fires were started by Al_Q every GOPer on the site would call me a tin foil hate wearing lunatic but because Riggins a registered Rep suggests it there&#39;s nary a word.

    --

    by the way i supported Perot as well... this country desperately needs a third party candidate like TEddy Roosevelt - a great man who broke up the monopolies... i don&#39;t care how many corporations buy candidates there will always be the chance for another teddy roosevelt if the timing is right

  15. #15
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Feb 24 2004, 12:48 PM
    [b]




    [/b][/quote]
    [i]all joking aside we don&#39;t vote for people we vote for parties. Who will Kerry surround himself with? Edwards as VP, Wes Clark as secretary of state... i could live with that... its all about the handlers [/i]

    You vote for party&#39;s..I vote for people and have voted for democrats and third party candidates in the past. I despised D&#39;amato so much I voted for chuck shciester and what a mistake that&#39;s turned out to be.

    [i]and no one has worse more evil handlers than George W Bush - he is so easy to persuade and Cheney/Wolfy have their way with him... also lets face facts people he has no real ideas of his own... [/i]

    Of course the people clinton surrounded himself with were men/women of character that would&#39;ve lead this country in the right path with gore right? I&#39;m talking of the likes of madeline k., chrissy warren and all the other crooks that were indicted.

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    4,530
    I was also struck that Asa Hutchinson wouldn&#39;t answer simple questions, asi f he&#39;d lose his job were he remotely honest. Nonetheless, As bad as this is, under Clinton&#39;s INS chief, Doris Meissner, it was even worse. To hell with enforcing the law-get to work on the diversity quilt and celebrating lesbian month. Kerry would be a disaster. And if you contention is that he&#39;s "proworker" (what ever that means), he voted for NAFTA. But hey-he changes his opinion at least a few times every day on important issues. When you hear him, he might say otherwise.

    For better or worse, America isn&#39;t ever going to be competitive ion labor-intensive maufacturing on a cost basis. But someone has to explain how it is that skilled union construction trades-who are supposedly big, rough&tumble guys-allow their workers to get screwed over by cheap illegal immigrant labor in corner shakeups in every town in America. Those guys are costing American jobs, and nobody wants to put an end to it and send them packing. Pay some Mexican &#036;20 and buy him and his pals a pizza, or pay an actual union construction guy? On a cost basis, that&#39;s an easy choice. But there shouldn&#39;t be such a choice for builders to begin with. If these unions reallty cared about the people they supposedly represent, they&#39;d demand immigration laws be strictly enforced. And it&#39;s doable, if you don&#39;t mind all the PC nonsense you might face from whiny media types. Most Americans in polls support it as much 85%.

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    The supply curve has certainly shifted outward. In economic terms, the population has increased, which has driven wages down. Immigration is merely one factor in this population growth - the other factor is international competition and free-trade. Not only are immigrants taking our jobs, but also citizens of other countries. This is has driven prices downwards, well past our artificially-imposed minimum wages. American workers are not willing to accept the lower wages that others are. The American government is not willing to abolish or lower the minimum wage, even though that would dramatically improve our employment. If more people work, even at lower wages, the government will spend less in transfer payments to lower income families than they probably would for a strict welfare-state, although I have yet to do the math.

    Blaming this or that party is not going to help bring manufacturing jobs back - they&#39;re gone and are not coming back, unless we want to sacrifice the benefits that economic flexibility brings us. It is the market that is dictating this, not politics, although politics has retarded the process somewhat. Workers are part of the market&#33;&#33;&#33;

    There were many coal miners that lost their jobs too back in the day, which caused intense pain for them and their families but IMPROVED the standard of living for every American alive today. No matter what politicians tried or didnít try to do, coal was no longer king. Look up the "lump of labor" fallacy in remedial economics; you will understand that the hysteria about the free markets and globalization is a bit unfounded, IMO. This fallacy also explains while socialist countries also have insanely high unemployment, even though unions are far more powerful there than in the US. We are better off in almost every conceivable way due to increased economic flexibility, especially in terms of our standards of living. Since it is now less costly for businesses to fire employees, it is also less costly for them to [i]hire[/i] employees. Gone are the days of working 30 years at one company or even in a single industry. Getting laid off in 2004 is not nearly as catastrophic as it was 50 years ago, especially if you are not an older person. Financial institutions are able to use derivatives to diversify and hedge their leverage and our economy is very well suited to recover from shocks, much, much more so than we were during the highly regulated, centralized systems of years past because our resources are not concentrated in a few highly levered institutions, as they were back in the 30&#39;s. Efficient markets do have to have some level of unemployment; it is not the end of the world. The scars of the Depression caused a major aversion to market forces, but Keynes was right in his observation that some unemployment was inevitable and the markets, unmassaged by government, will NEVER ensure 100% employment, even if operating efficiently, which they don&#39;t. The government does need to step in, but cannot over-regulate as they did in the immediate aftermath of the Depression. The productivity we experienced during the WWII economy was due largely to government programs; however demand in various industries was simply at an unsustainable level due to the extenuating circumstances of wartime economics. Greenspan had some remarks about flexibility lately that explained this more eloquently than I can....

    People need to re-adjust and get re-educated. Other industries are going to sprout up. How many IT people were around 20 years ago when there were manufacturing jobs to be had? (Yes, those jobs are also getting outsourced now, too.) It is a perpetually cyclical thing. We changed from agrarian (which was once the highest employer) to an industrial economy, and now to a global economy, mostly due to improvements in technology. This is going to raise the standards of living throughout the world&#33; It is a natural progression and a shifting of the employment paradigm. We are just going through it, rather than reading about it ex post facto, with all of the benefits of hindsight. William Jennings Bryan was a very, very popular figure with certain types of workers, but his ideas were not good. Populism was very popular too back during the days of farmers, etc. But it is unreasonable to suggest that moving away from that basis was "bad" for America.

  18. #18
    [b]Bugg[/b], Hutchinson did look totally emasculated and confused. He was trying to hedge, in the sense that he wanted to say America was being protected, but don&#39;t expect to be anywhere close to 100% safe :unsure:

    The unions, like both parties, have sold out to lawlessness and the idea our nations soverignity is superseeded by stock prices. Something like 7% of American&#39;s want more immigration (including illegal immigration), while the President and just about all 100 Senators want more, more, more and even more illegal immigration. So, there seems to be a major disconnect between the American voter and the political elites, who desperately want to hand Hormel foods, Microsoft and the other sellouts cheap labor.

    To that effect, there is a similar disconnect between the unions and their rank and file members. Union head John Sweeney, for whatever reason, fully backs no borders, which makes no sense, because an oversupply of workers will devastate his union members.

    Oh well, why should union folks expect more from Sweeney, when our top leaders in Washington, who not only condone breaking our laws, but set out to reward it with amnesty behind the guise "compassion" :rolleyes:

    Bugg, all this non sense could be ended tommorow if the employer santions put forth in the 1986 Immigration Reform act are enforced. Basically, the government, without question, can fine any U.S employer for hiring illegals. Start handing these contractors &#036;10,000 fines for each illegal hired (as the law CLEARY states), and these chicken spits will end their nonsense today.

  19. #19
    [quote][b]People need to re-adjust and get re-educated. Other industries are going to sprout up. How many IT people were around 20 years ago when there were manufacturing jobs to be had? (Yes, those jobs are also getting outsourced now, too.) [/b][/quote]

    5E, re-adjust and get re-educated for what? You answered your own question, in the sense that those jobs, also, are going as fast as manufacturing jobs?

    Adjust to IT, when those jobs are either disappearing or American companies are importing tons of H-1B Visa holders and other bad visa programs?

    Adjust to swinging a hammer, when the illegals have flooded that industry and turned &#036;25 to &#036;30 an hour jobs into McDonald&#39;s type wage jobs at &#036;8 an hour?

    What do people do? Can everybody work at Department Stores, until the big-wigs at these stores start filling the pockets of more corrupt politicians, to get more cheap labor?

    This is a race to bottom and if you really look ahead, can this trend, as it gains steam, really do any good for America?

    What kind of prospects does a 5 year old in America have as an adult, if we keep following the open borders, free trade clowns?

    Is there any job that can&#39;t be "outsourced" or be filled by some much cheaper wage worker (ala H-1B)?

    This is no excuse. Last night, saw Katherine Mann (queen of free trade and outsourcing) on CNN. Usually, this women is arrogant and militant about free trade and outsourcing. Among her friends, she can talk eloquently for hours about how our borders mean nothing.

    Last night, however, Mann was shaking like a little scared rabbit, when asked what would happen to America if outsourcing continued without check. She was scared and couldn&#39;t hide, but kept say "more training". When asked what a computer engineer displaced by outsourcing could train for, she was totally shaken and scared....she knows the answer is that person must just accept his fate and has almost no prospects to move up.

    Why don&#39;t fools like Mann just say it: They are very rich and they could care less if the U.S turns into a slum Brazil, replete with poverty, as long as stock prices are OK for them.....That&#39;s the way it heading, right?

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Riggins - you are assuming that there is a finite amount of jobs and industries in which American workers can be employed. That is simply not true and never has been. Even if others are taking a larger share of the pie, the absolute size of the pie is always growing. New industries pop up all the time. Old ones die out all the time. Jobs migrate. Things happen, the market (consumers and suppliers) along with technology, dictate when and where this takes place.

    Tightening immmigration makes sense for a variety of reasons, only one is decreasing the labor supply. American workers simply refuse or are not allowed to work for market prices. Trying to stop this through misguided macroeconomic policies is very analagous to the specious logic that gave us the present War on Drugs. The middle-class of Americans is getting bigger, not smaller. Educate people so that they can help participate in the expansion of our industries. If you are asking me to predict what new inductries will create jobs, 5, 10, 25 or 50 years down the line I can&#39;t tell you that. But I can tell you that they will be created and that the more Americans who are educated means the more Americans that will be able to participate in them.

    Globalization is going to happen. Manufacturing jobs are going to disappear, regardless of what the US government does or does not do. Technology does this.

    If we go back to protectionism and high government regulation, employment will be higher but the overall standard of living will rapidly decline and there is no proof that real wages will remain high. Our economy will not be as flexible and thus unable to handle the business cycle the way it can now. C&#39;mon - something like the TMT bubble bursting and 9-11 would have KILLED our economy 60 years ago, while we largely handled it very well, even though there was much pain. You cannot stifle progress.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us