An Open letter to President Bush (End run vs. Outsourcing)

Me | Me

[Havoc]

Dear Mr. President,

You don't know me, nor do I expect you to. But I'm one of those voices out here in the ether that actually did vote for you. I'm not one of those seminar caller types nor a Democrat pretending at being a republican to subvert the party faithful in dishonest fashion because their ideas aren't popular enough to win them anything. No, I'm a life-long republican who cherishes the memory of Ronald Reagan and who thought highly of you right up to the time you sunk a knife in my back economically.

Sir I understand it's a hard job being president. I also understand that in IT my job causes me to have to think on my feet and respond to an everchanging environment just to keep it. And while I was busting my behind for a company I happened to love doing a job I happened to love, you decided it's a good thing to do an endrun around equal protection and hand my job to a Mexican worker at 1/3 of the rate I'm being paid. Sir, Retail employees get paid more than that Full time and they're earning below the poverty level. The Job I hold for the moment requires a lot of hard work and problem solving skills, it requires good customer care skills, and it requires a long knowledge of Computers and software I didn't get from a degree but from practical experience.

I worked long and hard for years looking for the break that would get me in the door with my current employer. And I currently have a carreer with them. Or had, rather. I've worked for EDS for nearly 4 years. I will lose my job just short of that anniversary or just after it depending on how the breakdown happens.

I have a handicap that keeps me from driving a car. Not an official handicap, because it's so rare a problem that 1/2 of 1% of Americans have the condition so it doesn't rate being called what it is. I'm a blip on the screen. But, it means I have to live close to my employer and sometimes rely on others to help me get things done. I've lost everything and put my life back together 3 times in 15 years sir. And having just accomplished it again after 4 years with my employer, your policy has killed any protection I might have otherwise enjoyed from having my job destroyed by foriegn competition. And it puts me right back on the brink again. Sir, if I don't stand a chance of winning, it isn't competition - it's fish in a barrel. Where is my equal protection under the law?

The "competition" didn't get hired because of race or creed; but, because of national origin. They got hired because their cost of living is low enough that they can be paid sub-poverty wages to do my job. They are taking my job because they aren't constrained by the laws we have in this country to protect us and preserve our liberties. Lower cost of living, and no laws to constrain them. See, we used to have what was called ANTI-DUMPING laws on the books before Nafta to prevent the subversion of our economy by those who would attempt to compete on an unfair basis and put American firms out of business. We aren't a global economy, the globe is not the United States of America. They don't respect our rights, our Constitution, our laws or ourselves. The average citizen of the world might; but, we aren't dealing with them, we're dealing with the leaders who have their boots on the neck of the citizen of the world.

It seems today that I have to be a Mexican to get a fair shake in America. There are some 8 million of them here illegally as a tax on our system and working here taking jobs that Americans can do; but, which apparently, nobody wants to offer a fair wage for as long as they can get slave labor off the books. That isn't enough though. We need to employ More workers from Mexico, India, China.. As long as we're doing it, sire, why not be obvious and lets put Sally Struthers on the TV to advertise IT Jobs for the people under repressive regimes in africa who can live on 52 cents a day, "the price of a cup of coffee." I don't care what color their skin is, No citizen of the United states could live on that and shouldn't be asked to compete with it. It's too blatently obvious that it's unfair. And that seems to be why it's "good for us all".

Your policy sir. It's you on the tube telling me it's good for me to lose my job to a Mexican worker outside of our system and in a manner with which I cannot compete. There isn't a job comparable to it here that I can take to make up the difference cause those are being outsourced too. Outsourced. How about endran. Because sir, that is what is happening - it's an end run around our system - around our rights, our laws, our constitutional provisions and protections. Your policy has relieved me of my job without due process. It tied my hands before I had a chance to respond. And so many businesses are being forced to do the same thing, that I don't stand a chance any more than those earning 3 times what I do in the same field who have lost their jobs already and have had to take 11k a year Retail jobs just to eat while their houses go up for sale.

I don't have a degree. I don't get retraining. I just get to lose my job at the whim of your policies and will likely lose more than that in the end. You see, I bought a new home too - a year ago. This job made it possible for me to do that. And as with my Job, I had to get a huge break to be able to pull it off. I've been behind you and a cheerleader of yours since I first heard you speak. I understand that the tanking economy isn't your fault. I understand it isn't your fault we were attacked. I understand and agree with pretty much everything you've done to date, sir. This however is in my mind beyond sickening. It is a betrayal of myself, my coworkers and every other hard working IT worker, Auto worker, etc that has lost their job due to this. It is a betrayal by their government and their employer. And it's a distrust you've earned by subverting them and me. For me, it's not just my Government, it's my own party.

Now I've heard all the arguments for outsourcing and all the copout phrases about what we do about companies that have outsourced to the US. Tell me, sir, how many of them outsourced to do an endrun around their system of government, their constitution, their laws and their workers. How many of them outsourced to us to produce goods for their home market. That isn't an argument that flies with me in the face of doing an endrun around us. They've built plants in our land and are working within our market, within it's rules, within our laws, within the constraints of our constitution and are paying a competative wage. Our companies are doing the opposite. And any way you cut it, it is economic and constitutional tyranny. I'm not a single issue voter sir, until that single issue is my life and livelihood.. until members of my own party call me a robber and a thief for expecting to keep my job when I've worked my behind off to do so.

I did it right. I've busted my backside under an ever increasing workload, kept my promise to my employer and my client. Never missed a metric, never dropped the ball for either of them and have always exceeded expectation as a member of one of the best teams on this planet in my humble opinion. My job is gone not because we didn't produce and not because either couldn't afford it; but, because Mexicans work cheaper and don't have our protections, laws, rights or constitution. I have a strong work ethic and a loyalty to my company that even now makes me shudder to say a bad word about them. I have no illusions; but, I was raised that if you do your best it pays off. I know now that if you do your best, you get kicked in the teeth just as hard, and if you get ahead a little bit, the government will be there to kick you back down. I appreciate how hard your job is. Mine is pretty dang hard too. But how about you and everyone in government work for $600 a month from now on like the Mexican workers replacing us. How about you all work for the income you're forcing me into. If it's good for us, it should be good for you too. You, and all the ivory tower types in our party that hiss at me for being upset over losing my job and wanting to defend myself. How would that be, sir? I'd just as soon see little Tommy Daschle and Ted Kennedy go fly a kite as hear them spout one more offensive evil lie about you. But I'd just as soon, too, see you join them holding the string if you're gonna ruin me and tell me it's good for me. How about if we just outsource your jobs too - oh, wait, that would be unconstitutional too, wouldn't it.

[Petronski]

Guess you're just as big a lying POS as Havoc.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

[XBob]

695 - "It's your argument, you make it (if you can)."

I did - read the frappin thread, lazy.

[XBob]

696 - "Rabid capitalism in Stalin's Russia?!"

No, it's what lead to Stalin's Russia, uncontrolled serfdom/capitalism, which destroyed the economy, which lead to Stalin's USSR and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

DUH !!!

[XBob]

697 - "Anarchy AND dictatorship"

Right dummy. Sequentially.

[XBob]

698 - "Then you need to learn to read. I NEVER said there should be no restrictions period."

So, since you say you never said that, what do you think you said?

[discostu]

But that isn't what led to Stalin's Russia. The Czarist government ran a command economy, serfdom but not capitalism. And the economy was in pretty good shape, at least as good as any serf-state which has a vested interest in keeping a certain section of the people poor. And it didn't lead to Stalin's Russia, it lead to Lenin's Russia, Lenin's death and his lack of strong associates led to Stalin's Russia, and Stalin's rampant paranoia is what made Stalin's Russia so evil.

You've got the same problem trying to justify Mao. Capitalism isn't what Mao fought against, colonialism was what he overthrew.

And you're hosed on the Hitler issue since it was really the punishments inflicted on Germany after WWI that crippled their economy, combine that with a totally bizarre form of democracy they implimented which led to 4 national elections in 1 year and dozens of political parties that left the German people ready for war and fascism.

You try to blame everything on capitalism, but your sad attempts just show you know nothing about history, or what capitalism actually is.

[Petronski]

Here are your quotes from #499 (emphasis added):

A bad economy and runaway inflation created Hitler. (I have a postage stamp for 3 billion marks), and caused him to purge millions of Jews, and caused WWII.

A bad economy caused Stalin to purge millions of Kulaks.

Mao Tse Tung killed millions in China because of the bad economy.

Read your own words. "A bad economy caused Stalin to purge millions of Kulaks."

That is an indefensible historical LIE.

[discostu]

The guy that thinks I want anarchy AND dictatorship is calling me a dummy?! That's funny.

Amazing how incapable you guys are of dealing with people without using insults. "dummy" "free traitor". If you had any confidence in your position you could be polite, but since you know you're wrong you go straight to insults hoping to win with volume what you cannot possibly win with logic.

[discostu]

What I said, multiple times, is that restrictions need to be carefully considered. Because profitable corporations are a vital ingredient of a healthy economy we have to make sure our restrictions still allow business to be successful. Offshoring shows us that if business can't be successful in America they'll leave, that's because business is about money, corporations exist for profit. In a perfect world maybe corporations would be into things like nationalism and loyalty, but like the Walgreens commercials say "we're a long way from perfect". Out here in reality corporations exist for the sole purpose of making a profit, that is their only duty. This doesn't mean they should be restricted, but the restrictions have to be smart.

You've got to think restrictions through, understand their impact on business, understand business' ability to go elsewhere, understand cost of compliance. Look at Ann Richard's environmental laws when she was governor of Texas compared to Bush's. Ann's laws were much more restrictive, but the cost of compliance was too high and it didn't make economic sense for businesses to follow the law, because of that Texas became the most poluted state in the union. Bush came in, lowered the laws to make it cheaper to obey, increased the fines so they'd be higher than cost of compliance, and it became profitable to obey the law and Texas was rewarded twice for having he most improved environmental quality. Any kind of restriction on business has the ability to be like Ann's or be like Bush's, there's also a third possibility of just driving business away. Only one of those three options is the right one. The other two is what I'm arguing against.

When I said corporations only duty is to profit I was simply explaining one of the oldest truisms of capitalist life. Thomas Jefferson understood that merchants have no loyalty to the ground they stand on and are only loyal to the ground they earn on. That's the simple truth, anybody expecting a corporation to be loyal to a country just because that's where their articles of incorporation are stored might as well expect rain to be dry. Corporations are loyal to profit, that is why they are made, that is why they exist, that is their sole purpose throughout their lifespan. Don't like it? Too bad. Don't blame me for it, I didn't make the rules I'm just quoting them.

And that is what I've been saying all along, but because you rely entirely on pre-packaged insults I still don't expect you to get it.

[XBob]

707 -
If you will read this again, and read back, to where it came from, it was addressed to a previous post, and I was emphasizing that bad economies killed far more people than terrorists.

And I said:

"bad economy and runaway inflation created Hitler."
"bad economy caused Stalin"
"Mao Tse Tung killed millions in China because of the bad economy."

Not capitalism. Bad capitalism can however, lead to bad economies, which will kill millions and cause wars killing millions more.

[XBob]

706 - boy, what history are they teaching you kids these days?

If you will follow
You wrote:
"But that isn't what led to Stalin's Russia. The Czarist government ran a command economy, serfdom but not capitalism. And the economy was in pretty good shape, at least as good as any serf-state which has a vested interest in keeping a certain section of the people poor. And it didn't lead to Stalin's Russia, it lead to Lenin's Russia, Lenin's death and his lack of strong associates led to Stalin's Russia, and Stalin's rampant paranoia is what made Stalin's Russia so evil. "

Repression and poverty of the masses under serfdom (bad economy for the serfs) lead to revolution, which lead to anarchy of civil war, and a short lived (2 years) republic, which lead to marxism/leninism, which died when lenin died shortly after which lead to stalinism, who murdered millions of 'capitalists', the kulaks because of massive starvation (bad economy).

If I remember correctly, The bad economy was caused by bad capitalists, kulaks (the only capitalists left in russia), who, in spite of a very bad and dangerous wheat mold, poisonsous, harvested their wheat and made it into bread, which ended up killing millions of people either from the bad wheat or from starvation. This provided the perfect opportunity for Stalin to take their land, and get rid of opposition at the same time.

[XBob]

706 - "You've got the same problem trying to justify Mao. Capitalism isn't what Mao fought against, colonialism was what he overthrew. "

My goodness, you don't know anything about history. China was not a colony of anybody, except for tiny trading places like Hong Kong. Mao fought against the capitalist, Chaing Kai Schek, who ruled china, as the remnants of the last dynasty disintigrated, and it was converted to chinese capitalism, which caused civil war, which Mao won, running Chaing off to Taiwan, where he kept up the 'fictional' chinese government of the Republic of China.

Again, bad economy caused anarchy and civil war, leading to dictatorship and socialism.

China, under Chaing, was our ally in WWII, not a colony.

You really are ignorant, arent you.

[Petronski]

LOL. Liar.

and I was emphasizing that bad economies killed far more people than terrorists.

Apologist bullshit. The tyrants who seized power in the wake of those events took it upon themselves to kill, capriciously, millions of innocent people.

And you apologize for them by blaming their economies.

You have disected your posts, I quoted your entire sentences.

Tell me again how a bad economy caused Stalin to kill the Kulaks.

(Why I'm surprised you defend Stalin, I cannot imagine.)

[Petronski]

Get a load of this guy!

[discostu]

Actually what they taught us in the mid-80s was exactly the kind of anti-capitalist pro-commujnist crap you're spouting. Said crap bears no actual resemblance to what really happened, but wealth hating liberal NEA members don't consider the truth of how communism rose convenient.

No the bad economy in Russia was NOT caused by captialism. They didn't even have capitalism. Their bad economy was because they had a ruling class that owned almost everything and were inept. Part of the problem with a command economy is that when the person in command is a moron the economy is toast. Add to that the tremendous weight the Czarist lifestyle put on the economy (gold gilt palaces don't pay for themselves you know) and you have ruination ripe for rebellion (a rebellion which had been brewing since shortly before our Civil War and had been dealt with to varying intencities by half a dozen Czars, a couple of whom actually tried moving Russia away from serfdom and toward capitalism, other members of the ruling class didn't like that and helped the rebels for a while... the Russia revolution is really quite facinating and a worthy thing to study).

You don't remember correctly. Stalin killed people to protect himself. He was a blood thirsty dictator who wouldn't allow anyone he thought even had a chance of overthrowing him to live. One of the major groups of people he executed were surviving members of Lenin's revolution, they'd proven able to overthrow a dictator once and he wasn't going to give them a second chance. Now he might have labeled them kulaks, but that's just the kind of lie a blood thirsty dictator tells to make their pograms more palatable to the people.

[XBob]

706 - "And you're hosed on the Hitler issue since it was really the punishments inflicted on Germany after WWI that crippled their economy, combine that with a totally bizarre form of democracy they implimented which led to 4 national elections in 1 year and dozens of political parties that left the German people ready for war and fascism. "

Here you are sort of right, except that Germany had a long history of capitalism, (Remember Krupp and the Ruhr Valley steel and chemical industries, and the magnificent German fleet of WWI?) and unbridled capitalism, leading to WWI and when that was lost, and reparations were extracted, essentially again, anarchy insued, massive inflation, and starvation, and then Hitler, once again establishing tyranny, which killed millions more, which led to WWII, which killed millions more .

So - basically, unrestrained capitalism, leads to anarchy, and dictatorship.

All the above happened, while we had 'restrained' capitalism, thanks to Teddy Roosevelt, and his 'trust busters', giving us 'restrained capitalism, which gave us the powerhouse of a nation we had for many many years.

UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM IS BAD.

RESTRAINED CAPITALISM IS GOOD.

[XBob]

708 - "The guy that thinks I want anarchy AND dictatorship is calling me a dummy?! That's funny"

You want unrestrained capitalism, with no responsibility to anyone or anything except profits.

That leads to poverty of the masses, then revolt, then anarchy and then dictatorship.

[XBob]

709 - "What I said, multiple times, is that restrictions need to be carefully considered."

what you actually said was:

"698 "I NEVER said there should be no restrictions period. Never, not once, not even close to it."


504 - "The people ... What is a corporation's duty to them? Corporations have a duty to investors and share holder, and nobody else. Deal with it.
504 posted on 04/12/2004 4:05:49 PM CDT by discostu "

[XBob]

709 - "You've got to think restrictions through, understand their impact on business, understand business' ability to go elsewhere, understand cost of compliance. "

Now, show me just where you have said that previously, in all your posts on this thread?, or any thread for that matter, I haven't read them all.

[discostu]

I didn't say Germany didn't have capitalism. I didn't cause either WWI or WWII though. That's just dumb. WWI was caused by bad alliances combined with an urge to settle a lot of old grudges. WWII was caused by the end of WWI (left Germany destitute and made it functionally illegal for them to rebuild their economy). The Cold War was caused by the end of WWII (divided Europe and elevated the US and USSR to super power status). And the War on Terror was caused by the end of the Cold War (propped up a lot of nasty people, especially in the mid-east, creating a lot of bad blood, then just walked away from Afghanistan leaving it in total chaos)... hopefully we'll actually properly clean up the loose ends this time. Blaming capitalism for these things shows you're a communist, capitalism doesn't cause problem capitalism cures them, it is the only economic system that encourages the average person to innovate and invent, it is the only economic system that allows people to improve their lot in life and die wealthier than their parents, it is the only economic system that gives everybody a shot at the brass ring.