N*F*B: Bush just destroyed Kerry

[Craig 94 TA GT]

If you stop outsourcing, products will cost 10 times what they do if they are made in China or Mexico, then we'll see what kind of job your gonna need to pay for it all. The answer to the problem is to find a job that cant be replaced by a a guy working for .50 and hour in China......not stop outsourcing. If you were a businessman, youd be on the other side of this issue.

Wrong. Nobody is trying to completely stop outsourcing. They are trying to "DEMOTE" it by giving incentives to corporations to hire locally. Even Kerry said that nobody can STOP outsourcing. I have worked everywhere as a contractor...at AMD, Microsoft, Nvidia, etc. And when AMD uses outsourcing for their IT department to pay them less, AND their employees are fed up because they can't get any type of personal support, that draws the line. MANY ARE OUTSOURCING TO MAKE A LARGER PROFIT. I have seen it first hand, working at these places. Why don't the businessmen just get all kinds of cheap labor to do everything? Forget about any ethical lines, and simply hire abroad.

BTW, I'm talking about a SKILLED job, one I have the skills for...engineering, programming, development. If I cannot find a job DUE to outsourcing (just an example in this case), then I should just throw away a BS and Master's degree and work as a garbage man. They can't replace that job In my first post, I was referring to what Bush said...get a better education. That's not the solution to everything.

Since I work for a company that contracts IT people to major hi-tech companies, you would not believe the number of people layed off due to outsourcing. I talk with them everyday. I feel terrible for them because they have a family to raise, kids to feed...and now the money is going directly to other countries. You can look at it from the businessman's perspective and "see more green" or the hard working engineer's perspective - just trying to feed their family now.

[TODD 2000 V6 CAMARO]

I see rich people all the time that can affors things I cannot, so I think im gonna vote communist in the next election.

Bush is right on the money.....allow the gov't to control health care and we'll get crap. We are already heading toward socialism, why not add another to the list: government controlled health care.

Gov't controlled healthcare would ruin healthcare in the states. Living here in canada for the last 3 years has taught me that. People litterally die up here for healthcare. They know up here that if you want good healthcare then you go south. I have said since I got here and saw the state of things (i.e. going to the hospital for my immigration physical and being handed a dixie cup instead of a sealable specimen cup for my urine sample , a lack of a CT Scanner within 3 hours drive of the city, an old and dilapidated hospital, etc.) that if I get injured or really sick, ship my butt back to Texas.
But, not only is the gov't in control of healthcare here, they also control the media. The main television stations, CTV and Global, are gov't funded and controlled and the programming is abysmal. Most of the shows look like they were shot by HS kids with camcorders. They also control all auto, home, etc insurance, meaning a lack of choice and selection: you get two different types to choose from. Yippee. Basically what I am saying is that the good 'ol american way of keeping the gov't out of the private sector is the best way to go. Change that, and things will go down the toilet really quick.

[DeWynter]

Gov't controlled healthcare would ruin healthcare in the states. Living here in canada for the last 3 years has taught me that. People litterally die up here for healthcare. They know up here that if you want good healthcare then you go south. I have said since I got here and saw the state of things (i.e. going to the hospital for my immigration physical and being handed a dixie cup instead of a sealable specimen cup for my urine sample , a lack of a CT Scanner within 3 hours drive of the city, an old and dilapidated hospital, etc.) that if I get injured or really sick, ship my butt back to Texas.
But, not only is the gov't in control of healthcare here, they also control the media. The main television stations, CTV and Global, are gov't funded and controlled and the programming is abysmal. Most of the shows look like they were shot by HS kids with camcorders. They also control all auto, home, etc insurance, meaning a lack of choice and selection: you get two different types to choose from. Yippee. Basically what I am saying is that the good 'ol american way of keeping the gov't out of the private sector is the best way to go. Change that, and things will go down the toilet really quick.

I'm not sure which province your in but It sounds like s*#t. You need a good taste of the west before you go saying the whole country sucks. Here in aberta we have any auto insurance under the sun, hospitals are good and the people are nice. I will give you the TV thing, but for me its not a problem as I have satalite. And no one in alberta dies for healthcare. People bitch alot about HC but Its pretty good. The reason HC sucks in most provinces (especialy the eastern ones) is because every person who sneazes goes to the hospital now days, bunch of babies. A hospital is not for hypocondriacs (spelling?) but for the sick. People who take their kids to the doc everytime they have a slow day or act somewhat off from normal are the ones making HC crappy in Canada. Sorry to rant but damn people who drain money for no reason really Piss me off.

[TimeLord]

Move to B.C or Ontario,,,,Sask sounds really strange,,,,sounds like Quebec[where I am stuck]!!!!!

[Craig 94 TA GT]

Here is the deal with outsourcing. If the government says to stop "outsourcing" here is what happens. Businesses either have to pay more for the jobs that went outside the US which will raise the cost of those goods which lowers the buying power of the consumer. Now you say I can't afford for the prices for goods and services to go up, I have to have more money. So the business raises your pay to pay for them but hey he has to get that money from somewhere so he raises his prices which defeats the raise you just got. It leads to spiraling inflation. It's self defeating. Bush understands that. The problem is most of the people who vote do not and will vote for Kerry because he says he will stop outsourcing. People hear that and say good, I won't loose my job. But in the long run because of the price inflation they won't be any better off.

You completely missed the point. I'm no fan of Kerry, but did you listen to the debate? Kerry never said he will stop outsourcing. He will give incentives to companies to hire locally. He admitted that outsourcing cannot be stopped! And simple incentives will NOT stop outsourcing. I agree...for unskilled jobs and maybe a few skilled, but that's it. If you read my earlier post, I know first hand...those who are shipping engineering jobs abroad. Look at Cisco's 900 million dollar profits. Nvidia's 60 million, Microsoft's millions, etc. Those are profits, not earnings. Profits are up...the businessman who decided to increase the already-high profits ship the jobs overseas is now gonna get a bonus. Now he earns enough to feed 30 families, while the 30 layed off are looking for another job. That's the outsourcing I'm talking about. Not the labor that makes toasters or toys.

Lastly, the case in Silicon Valley is that most layed off already have a college degree, or higher degree. Bush's idea to go back to community college is irrelevant for those people. That's why I posted in the first place. It's not a solution for those here.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

You completely missed the point. I'm no fan of Kerry, but did you listen to the debate? Kerry never said he will stop outsourcing. He will give incentives to companies to hire locally. He admitted that outsourcing cannot be stopped! And simple incentives will NOT stop outsourcing. I agree...for unskilled jobs and maybe a few skilled, but that's it. If you read my earlier post, I know first hand...those who are shipping engineering jobs abroad. Look at Cisco's 900 million dollar profits. Nvidia's 60 million, Microsoft's millions, etc. Those are profits, not earnings. Profits are up...the businessman who decided to increase the already-high profits ship the jobs overseas is now gonna get a bonus. Now he earns enough to feed 30 families, while the 30 layed off are looking for another job. That's the outsourcing I'm talking about. Not the labor that makes toasters or toys.

Lastly, the case in Silicon Valley is that most layed off already have a college degree, or higher degree. Bush's idea to go back to community college is irrelevant for those people. That's why I posted in the first place. It's not a solution for those here.

"did you listen to the debate?" I take it you think I didn't because I am so far off what you think. Yes I watched and listened to it. I taped it and have it on a mpg that's about 1 gig. I've read the transcript. http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004d.html .

I got the point of what Kerry said. You missed my point. I said "If the government says to stop "outsourcing" here is what happens." I was not referring to what Kerry said in my statement. The liberals keep saying we have to stop outsourcing. I'm tired of hearing that. It's not the responsibility of the government to provide people with jobs. Read this http://boortz.com/nuze/200410/10142004.html#neal .

The government can change some rules that effect taxes to give benefits to companies who pay more to keep these jobs but who in the long wrong pays for that. The only way to influence a company to stop outsourcing is to give them a tax break. The tax break means the government either has to cut their spending by that amount (yea right) or get that money from somewhere else. Well where do they get money from. Taxpayers. Taxes will have to go up to pay for that shortfall. Anyway you slice it the people pay the price.

I hate it that not everyone is not working but who's fault is that? Is it the employer? No. Is it the governments? No. Who is left? In a free society and an open market like the US has which is what makes the US great, people have to take responsibility for themselves. I have changed careers to get out of a dead end job and to make more money.

[Craig 94 TA GT]

The reason why I asked if you watched the debate is because of the direct statement: "The problem is most of the people who vote do not and will vote for Kerry because he says he will stop outsourcing."

Yes, it's not the government's responsibility to provide people with jobs, given the word "PROVIDE". Help, incentives, etc. is my point. Sure, taxes will be affected, but guess what...it happens. I'll bet you would see this issue differently if you would be stuck working 10 hours a week, very low hourly salary, no benefits, with a higher level degree. There's a difference between earning a living and trying to live.

[TimeLord]

Just a question!!!

What is the difference between raising some taxes and running $300-$500 billion a year deficits !!!

In my veiw they are equally reprehensible and you hear very little about it!!

[TraceZ]

Just a question!!!

What is the difference between raising some taxes and running $300-$500 billion a year deficits !!!

In my veiw they are equally reprehensible and you hear very little about it!!

Raising taxes takes money directly from peoples hands, and kills the economy, costs jobs, etc.

Running deficits has no real negative impact on the economy. It's not great, but It really isnt that big a deal.

In a time of economic struggle (or war), we should run deficits to promote growth. During economic prosperity we can crank a surplus back up.
Economics 101, man.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

The reason why I asked if you watched the debate is because of the direct statement: "The problem is most of the people who vote do not and will vote for Kerry because he says he will stop outsourcing."

Yes, it's not the government's responsibility to provide people with jobs, given the word "PROVIDE". Help, incentives, etc. is my point. Sure, taxes will be affected, but guess what...it happens. I'll bet you would see this issue differently if you would be stuck working 10 hours a week, very low hourly salary, no benefits, with a higher level degree. There's a difference between earning a living and trying to live.

You are right, I did say that and Kerry has said that but he did not say it at the debate. When I talk to people about this issue, they say that Kerry is going to stop outsourcing. Some people think he can and will and they will vote for him because of that. The problem is he can't deliver on the expectations and he is not correcting their expectations. Kerry did do a better job in the 3rd debate about talking about outsourcing. For the first time, I actually heard him give a plan on what he wanted to do. Most economist don't think his plan can be implemented or work if it is. I think it will ultimately come back around to having to pay more taxes to supplement this plan.

Actually I was stuck in working a 12 hour a day plus 6 hours on Saturday job. I started at $4.25 an hour back in 1983. I had decent benefits but you don't have much of a life working that much.

it happens = taxes happen I think it's about time to have another Boston tea party. The thing about taxes is I shouldn't have to pay more taxes to support someone who has made a decision to get a job in field that there is no demand for that job. I don't mind helping people from time to time but I should not have to support them all of the time. So what should happen to that person who can't find a job in the career he has chosen like in silicon valley or anywhere? Should the government take money via taxes to give to this person to support him since he can't find a job? How long is that going to last. The only solution to end the stalemate is what Bush said is to retrain that person to get a job in a field where there is a demand for that job.

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

Raising taxes takes money directly from peoples hands, and kills the economy, costs jobs, etc.

Running deficits has no real negative impact on the economy. It's not great, but It really isnt that big a deal.

In a time of economic struggle (or war), we should run deficits to promote growth. During economic prosperity we can crank a surplus back up.
Economics 101, man.

If anything, running a modest deficit can improve the economy. Running a deficit negatively impacts the value of the US dollar in foreign countries... making it more expensive to buy foreign, imported goods which encourages production and consumption of domestic products. In addition, labor overseas becomes more expensive than it would be with a strong dollar, discouraging the dreaded "outsourcing".

I wouldn't exactly call our deficit "modest" though

[Craig 94 TA GT]

You're completely right about finding another field. It may be true in most parts of the country, but here is why Silicon Valley is so affected.
Most jobs are electrical engineering, IT or software related. Take my dad for instance. He used to work for NASA in Ohio, then moved out here and worked for Ford Aerospace (which turned into a different company). Recently, he was layed off. Considering he has so many years of experience, education, etc., he was a manufacturing/mechanical engineer. He could not find a job here at all. Nobody was willing to even look at him. He had to move to LA to get another job that pays 20% less. Considering if I switch to my other interest, "mechanical engineering" what makes me think I should spend another 4 years in college to hopefully get a job he couldn't even find. I believe if I persue a different area of no interest to me, I couldn't even make it. This is especially true here in the Bay Area, CA. Considering health insurance is costing me over $200/month, eye and dental extra, no 401K plans, no savings, etc...I cannot save a single penny. Also, considering there still is a demand for software/IT jobs, not too many are seen here anymore because they're going to India or China.
I am desperate, out of ideas, and in need. That's why I liked the statements he made during the debate. Bush's was irrelevant to me, which is why I didn't care for it. Maybe most won't agree with me, and say they're paying too much taxes. (But hey, Kerry did say he wouldn't raise taxes on < $200,000/year incomes, but that's irrelevant here and I don't support Kerry). But if the government would be willing to help my situation, I'll definitely take it. I'll admit, I won't say "don't raise taxes, I want to keep my crummy job."

[Jeff_in_Atl]

Just a question!!!

What is the difference between raising some taxes and running $300-$500 billion a year deficits !!!

In my veiw they are equally reprehensible and you hear very little about it!!

That is a good question. I agree that both are bad but Reagan proved that when he lowered taxes it stimulated the economy which put more people to work which brought more money into the government than it lost in what it lowered taxes by. In the economy we had in the 1990's, the economy was growing so fast (too fast) that raising taxes didn't have that much effect on the revenue brought into the government. The economy of the 1990's was an artificial one that busted in late 2000 because it could not be supported by the consumers. In today's economy, if taxes were to be raised, consumer spending would drop because they have less to spend. The stock market would start falling because no one will have the money to invest in it. Less consumer spending means layoffs in manufacturing. on and on and on.....

I think it is interesting to look back like 100+ years and see how little involvement the US government had in the businesses of this country. There only job was to provide the military for keeping us safe, the court system to enforce laws, and schools. Now because of the taxes the government has it's hand in every little aspect of society. It's ridiculous. I really believe that if we went to something like the fair tax plan it would take money out of politics and control of the politicians and the government can get back to doing what it the way it used to be and provide the people with the basics. The start of the transition to a socialism started back with the "new deal" back in the 30's.

[DJ Taso]

http://www.bushin30seconds.org/view/01_large.shtml

[Jeff_in_Atl]

You're completely right about finding another field. It may be true in most parts of the country, but here is why Silicon Valley is so affected.
Most jobs are electrical engineering, IT or software related. Take my dad for instance. He used to work for NASA in Ohio, then moved out here and worked for Ford Aerospace (which turned into a different company). Recently, he was layed off. Considering he has so many years of experience, education, etc., he was a manufacturing/mechanical engineer. He could not find a job here at all. Nobody was willing to even look at him. He had to move to LA to get another job that pays 20% less. Considering if I switch to my other interest, "mechanical engineering" what makes me think I should spend another 4 years in college to hopefully get a job he couldn't even find. I believe if I persue a different area of no interest to me, I couldn't even make it. This is especially true here in the Bay Area, CA. Considering health insurance is costing me over $200/month, eye and dental extra, no 401K plans, no savings, etc...I cannot save a single penny. Also, considering there still is a demand for software/IT jobs, not too many are seen here anymore because they're going to India or China.
I am desperate, out of ideas, and in need. That's why I liked the statements he made during the debate. Bush's was irrelevant to me, which is why I didn't care for it. Maybe most won't agree with me, and say they're paying too much taxes. (But hey, Kerry did say he wouldn't raise taxes on < $200,000/year incomes, but that's irrelevant here and I don't support Kerry). But if the government would be willing to help my situation, I'll definitely take it. I'll admit, I won't say "don't raise taxes, I want to keep my crummy job."

Hey we've got 2 reqs out for ME's, 1 for a software engineer and several more. http://hr.ems-t.com/search.asp The problem may be that they are not where you are. The previous governor of California tried to convert so much so towards socialism that a lot of the businesses packed up and left. You can't blame them. They couldn't make ends meet operating there.

Funny thing about the taxes. Kerry filed a married but separate tax return for 2003. The effective tax rate of his return and his wife's was about 12%. With all of their millions of dollars, how did they get away with paying such a low tax rate?