One more reason to vote this son of a bitch out of office..

Bush means sending jobs overseas will be good for his friends and the ones that funded his election campaign. Bush only cares about himself and all his friends. The rich multinationals will be the only ones to benefit from this.

He shouldn't even be allowed to say that.

one small thing. bush too much think about how much cash he earn from iraq oil at his family oil companys, se he just 'forgot' ask iraq people - does they want be free from dictator or not.

;)

btw, how much US soldiers die in iraq for this ASSHOLE oil? reminder me please, i forgot ;)

Is that so? Of course, common reason says this is bullshit...

Bush sucks..

im so glad im not an american. bush is a fucking retard

Hey, I am an American. But I have a theory: Bush is part of an Alien race's "shock troops" sent down to soften us up before the Invasion. After he's done with America we'll just be another 3rd world nation (with some really nice TVs) and all ready to be taken over from Reptilian Aliens from Outer Space.

A scan of this thread shows that more than 85% of the people who replied do not know how to read a one page news report. Bush did not say that, his economic adviser said it (N. Gregory Mankiw). Most of your replies are based on you believing that "Bush" said it. Fucking idiots. Why criticize other people when you have no fucking clue yourself?

I might also add that he didn't explicitly say "sending jobs overseas is good", but explaining the context of the report here would be comparable to explaining to a four year old the principles of supply and demand.

maybe thats why he's sending the space program to mars, because hes found out martians work cheaper than indians :1orglaugh

50 overseas jobs

hah even Conan O'Brian is bailing out on you guys:1orglaugh
he put on a great show in Toronto lastnight:thumbsup

What qualifications do you think the us president should have then - in order to apply for the job?

EXACTLY. Bush basically represents the rich, virtually everything he does policywise benefits them the most. In business the rich and well to do are ownership/management. So who benefits most when people are desperate for a job and wages are low? They WANT a poor job market, no unions, no minimum wage, etc -- it keeps the help from getting uppity. They really do look at this as a good thing, not for the reasons they claim but for themselves.

What do you think Bush?s guest worker program is for?



To import cheap labor to fill the positions that can?t be outsourced.

That is not an idiotic point.

America has always been shipping jobs overseas...its called economic evolution. Each time there were new classes of jobs that paid higher...being created in the USA.

If you vote for Bush you should be shot.

I love it when people complain about jobs being shipped overseas but yet they love paying the low prices for products and services those overseas jobs enable. :1orglaugh

So, would you be willing to pay an additional $200 for your computer to get CS from the states? How about an additional 30% for clothes to be made in the US? It's possible - pay more and buy a computer from your local small computer store. Buy your clothes from a tailor. If you don't buy the products being produced by overseas labor, then there's no need for overseas labor. Simple cause and effect.

Another clue: if a company is forced to pay high priced US workers instead of lower waged overseas workers, they very well may go out of business and then NO US workers will be there.

I remember when my kid was looking at colleges and the average salary for a CS degree the first year out of college was $80K. The IT profession priced themselves out of these jobs. It's like the $12-15 an hour grocery clerks in CA. Price yourself out of the market and your job will go to someone else.

We've been oursourcing jobs for years and other countries also outsource their work here, i.e. many of the foreign auto makers. But instead of getting jobs elsewhere, the overpaid factory workers and IT folks are getting all riled up and instead of looking for jobs which can't be outsourced, they have decided they need the government to pass laws to protect them. :(

Shut up Peaches, you damn Commie Pinko!!

The color of my lipstick has nothing to do with this...or were you referring to my nunu??!! :eek2

The US has long been shipping jobs overseas, call it whatever you like. Your second point however is grossly inaccurate.

When manufacturing companies first started closing down plants here, the brave new world of white collar jobs for more money, was the promise made to ease the pain then.

To a very limited extent that promise was fulfilled, but primarily because of natural growth in some industries. Educational standards were not improved: the US still has one of the most expensive, least effective education systems of all the G7 countries. I'm always suspicious of conveniently round numbers, but the US Chamber of Commerce estimated a couple of years ago that it was costing US business $1 billion a year because it could not find qualified staff for many high-tech and other technical positions. Companies either hired from abroad or held back on projects they might otherwise pursue.

In any case, the number of new white collar jobs was always fewer than the reduction in blue collar jobs. Most former manufacturing workers (and school-leavers who in other times would have entered manufacturing) went into low paid service industry or retail positions, or they became unemployed.

So what exactly is supposed to happen next? There is no new wave of highly paid jobs on the horizon and even if there were, what guarantee these would stay at home? And it isn't only the hi-tech jobs that were supposed to be our salvation, going abroad. Printing is done overseas. Companies maintain their accounts departments in other countries. Even architectural and legal research services are sourced outside the US. The trend is surely going to continue. With fewer people on good salaries, we need less of the people in low-paid roles to serve them. Tax revenue declines. That should already sound familiar...

nunu of course

Proof you've never seen it - I'm old so it's GREEN! :1orglaugh

schwiiiing!!

A quick scan of this thread shows that you obviously did a quick scan and didn't really read it... since this was already brought up and addressed.

Obviously you don't know how to read a one page thread. (well, it was one page at the time)

Hilarious!

Was already brought up? So? What's your point? Do you not see 85%?? What do you think 15% represents? Stupid ass.

Edit: Let me help you: 85% of the people replied did not clearly read the article and from what they read, they concluded Bush said it. The "remaining" (100%-85%=15%) responders read the article and KNEW Bush did not say it. If you need more help figuring out numbers and percentages, just contact me.

Poor blind fish... You will defend him to death... over the remains of your beloved country...

Very sad!

The last computer I purchased six months ago was assembled in the US, and I can tell you I didn?t pay a $200 premium for it. That being said there is a basic economic concept that most people are missing it is called ?the free rider?. That is these companies exporting jobs are free riders in that they are passing along their market cost of doing business to someone else. The companies that have the US as a primary market, and export their jobs overseas are still dependant upon other companies here in the US to pay their employees a good wage so they can afforded to buy their products. In other words they are getting a free ride. As the number free riders increase the cost borne by the companies that keep production here in the US goes up and more and more of them join the free riders. What eventually happens is that there aren?t enough companies here it the US that pay a good wage, and the economy goes down the toilet.

US workers aren?t over paid especially when you compare their wages to wages in other first world countries. The fallacy of your comparison is that you are expecting US wages to be inline with wages paid in the third world. If you try and compete with the third world on the basis of low cost, the only thing you will be successful in is turning the US into a third world country. The auto industry is an excellent example of how the problem can be fixed. Back in the 1980s legislation was passed that said if you wanted to sell cars here on US soil a high tariff would be added to the price of your autos unless a certain percentage of those autos were manufactured here in North America. As a result of that protective legislation we have all kinds of auto manufacturing jobs here in the United States that we wouldn?t otherwise have. There is nothing wrong with charging a fee to access our market. The US market is the greatest market in the world. Everyone wants to sell their products or services in it. It is simply time to make them step up to the plate, and make them pay for something that has value instead of giving it away for free.

President Pinocchio is grabbing air time right now and trotting out another "diversion" in an attempt to get some credibility after the State of the Union flop and his "casual weekend chat" on TV.

The "new" diversion is about WMD proliferation - (yea - he practiced that word and is almost getting it right) - and how he is the "solution" to the world's problems.

I wish to fuck he did have *some* ability and managed to get his own backyard back to some sanity.

And the "words" roll on... all words, just like the last three years of words which have resulted in... well, not much, but death and destruction, broken promises, economic hardship for many and further contamination of the planet.

Wake up USA and this time try and elect a President who has *some* ability and does not need to be appointed by a court.

LOL... That is why the US are working on a "small" nuclear cluster bomb....

Stop the proliferation...of idiots: sterilize the bushes!

"Wake up USA and this time try and elect a President who has *some* ability and does not need to be appointed by a court."




Bush won on election night, and in the re-counts. If Gore was president, THEN we would have a president apointed by courts, helped along by an extremely biased dicison by the florida supreme court which at the time was made up entriely of 7 democrat judges.


But hey, why use facts. Made up things sound so much better.

(didn't want to quote the whole thing or debate point by point, but wanted you to know I was responding to you. :thumbsup )

MANY US workers are over paid. Most of them in union jobs. Seriously, $12-15 an hour for a grocery cashier where the cash register does all the "thinking"? And what about the HS degreed factory worker who makes $20 an hour for putting Tab A into Slot B? Add in their benefits and they're making even more than that!

The economy is always correcting. When things are great and businesses are making mucho dinero, so do the employees. But if I own a company and I'm paying my employees $15 an hour during the good times and in order to make it through the bad times I need to cut their pay to $10 an hour and they go on strike, what do you think I'm going to do? Find cheaper employees. And if the US government tells me I have to pay them $15 a hour I'm leaving. Look at the businesses leaving CA in droves for a perfect example of this.

Can the US add tariffs to foreign countries who sell here? Sure. Which is why a Toyota truck cost more than a Ford. Yet one of the reasons the Ford is so cheap is because Mexicans are making the parts for low wages. More and more companies can't offer lower prices AND high salaries and still employees in the US.

When/if the economy starts kicking butt again and people are willing to spend more for a TV made in the US than one made in China, then you'll see US workers paid more. :thumbsup

Does it fucking matter if Bush said it or not? Bush = the Bush administration. It doesn't matter who said it, it's all the same. Lord knows Bush doesn't even agree with half the things he says. A president is at best a puppet for his administration.

Does this apply to the right wing "anti gay marriage" amendment they are pushing now?

I think if it werent for activist judges, there would be no need.


But Im mostly thinking of prohibition, giving the right to vote to negros and women, lowering the voting age to 18, creation of income tax.

All mistakes that our founding fathers clearly didnt want, or they would have put itin the original.

Heh... exactly.

When the economic guy comes out and says that they're cutting taxes, it's "Hooray for Bush!"

but when the economic guy comes out and says something even they think is a dumbass decision, it's "The economic guy said it, not Bush. It's not Bushs fault."

You mean like that pesky "Freedom of Speech" amendment? Or maybe the "Unreasonable Search and Seizure" amendment? Or the "Right to a trial by Jury" one? Just curious since none of these were in the original constitution.

i consider the first ten ammendments as part of the original