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.

[XBob]

709 - "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,"

Ah, here you advocate breaking the laws to make a profit.

Great 'responsibility'.

Not changing the laws, but breaking the laws.

[discostu]

Misstatement on your part. Outright lies actually. STOP LYING!

[XBob]

709 - "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, "

Then, as corporations have no loyalty to anyone, or any country, they have no right to be here, or to suck off us, and have our support and defense, and must shoulder these costs themselves.

And they also have no 'right' to sell their products here, so, the corporations should be forced out, and overseas, so we can have entities here which support our country and provide a benefit to our society.

[discostu]

So basically you're saying we should destroy every corporation in the country and put everything under the government. That's called communism and it doesn't work.

Funnny for a guy that blames every bad thing in the world on a bad economy to come up with a "solution" opf disintigrating our economy.

[discostu]

I'm not advocating breaking laws to make a profit, I'm telling you why it happens. It's a matter of simple mathematics. If it's going to cost you 100 million dollars to comply with a law, and the fines for breaking the law are only 5 million a year, and their the type of law that changes almost every gubenotorial term (4 to 6 years) what is the economically intelligent thing to do? At most in fines you'll pay 30 million bucks, breaking the law saves you 70 million. In a situation like that complying with the law makes you a good person, but it also makes you a stupid CEO and a bunch of decisions like that will make you a former CEO.

Learn to understand the difference between advocating and explaining. I think it would be great for every business to obey every law, but having taken BUS101 I know that's not going to happen and the Texas environmental laws show one of the reasons it happens. Poorly written laws make good economic sense to violate, well written laws make good economic sense to OBEY. That's why I say restrictions need to be thought out, good restrictions are ones the businesses will WANT to obey.

[TomasUSMC]

Your right. H1b and L-1 visas have taken close to a million hi tech jobs ( the exceptions in the fine print make the limits on the number of visas issued a moot point). Our own Government, Repubs and dems, have brought in foreigners to take our best jobs. That is Treason. They claim that in a country of over 250 MILLION people they can't find qualified people, and apparently can't train them either.

If that weren't enough they sign Nafta and then support outsourcing. And then, open the borders to 10 million illegal invaders every Presidential election year - thus driving down the salary and increasing social cost and destroying our education and medical system.

But its a bipartisan effort to destroy the middle class.

[XBob]

this sounds like the story of good capitalists like you all:

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/k/u.htm

Kulaks in WWI: Throughout the early twentieth century kulaks bought communal land where they could, but it was difficult to do so; the communes refused to sell their land despite threats and pressure. During World War I, kulaks came into a new era.

Kulaks bribed local officials to prevent conscription into the army, and lied in wait for the field of opportunity to soon open up. While hundreds of thousands of peasants were sent to the slaughter on the front, kulaks grabbed up the communal land in a free-for-all.

By 1917, the success of kulaks cannot be seen more clearly than in the amount of land they owned: over nine-tenths of Russia's arable land.

The most valuable commodity throughout the war was grain, and the kulaks understood this with absolute clarity: food prices climbed higher than any other commodity during the war. In 1916, food prices accelerated three times higher than wages, despite bumper harvests in both 1915 and 1916. The price of grain in 1916, already at two and a half rubles per pud, was anticipated to raise up to twenty five rubles per pud. Hoping to raise prices, the kulaks hoarded their food surplus as their lands continually increased.

Throughout 1916, the average urban labourer ate between 200 and 300 grams of food a day. In 1917, the urban populations of Russia were allowed to buy only one pound of bread per adult, per day. Workers sometimes went days without food.

As a result of the Soviet Land Decree of October 26, 1917, when the peasants took back their land from the kulaks, food slowly came back into the cities again. Though the Kulaks were overwhelmed by the peasants at home and those returning from the front, many responded later in the year, during the coming Civil War.[...]

[discostu]

Here's where I mention in a post specifically to YOU about reasonable restrictions:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1114631/posts?page=561#561
Reasonable restrictions can be placed on them, but they must be REASONABLE and well thought out.

And here's where I first mention cost of compliance:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1114631/posts?page=497#497
Your problem is that you take things to far. Duty to the law is achieved through duty to profit, breaking the law is usually unprofitable. Of course sometimes following the law is unprofitable, look up "cost of compliance" in regards to environmental regulation, especially look it up in relationship to Bush's time as governor of Texas.

There's plenty of other places in this thread where I mention REASONABLE and WELL THOUGHT OUT restrictions as a GOOD THING. But since that doesn't fit inside your insult ridden box I'm sure you just ignored them completely.

[XBob]

720 - "Blaming capitalism for these things shows you're a communist, "

you are a blooming idiot: I wrote:

716 - "UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM IS BAD.

RESTRAINED CAPITALISM IS GOOD."

[discostu]

Thanks for providing a quote that shows clearly that Russia had a COMMAND ECONOMY, not capitalism:
In 1917, the urban populations of Russia were allowed to buy only one pound of bread per adult, per day.

"allowed to buy ony" very important phrase. The difference between unrestricted capitalism and command economy. In unrestricted capitalism there's no restriction, people get to buy what they can afford and there's no "allowing" involved.

[XBob]

722 - "Misstatement on your part. Outright lies actually. STOP LYING!"

Methinks the liar protesteth too much:

where do you advocate any restrictions?

"

[discostu]

Restrained capitalism is a happy shiney (lie) phrase for socialism, which is a happy shiney (lie) phrase for communism. Once you put the government in charge of the economy it's not capitalism anymore, and it's also doomed to miserable failure.

[discostu]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1114631/posts?page=561#561
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1114631/posts?page=497#497

And others.

[XBob]

722-"Misstatement on your part. Outright lies actually. STOP LYING!"


seems to me it was you who said:

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 "

[discostu]

Yeah, those two statements are not mutualy exclusive. Corporate duty != restrictions. Corporations have no duty to the people that are not investors and shareholders, their corporate duty to people that are investors and shareholders is to provide them with a return on their investment via profit. But people DO have a duty to place reasonable and well thought out restrictions on corporations, this is a legitimate function of government and society, but they need to understand what corporations do and how they work so that they can think these restrictions through and understand what they will actually accomplish.

[XBob]

724 - "So basically you're saying we should destroy every corporation in the country and put everything under the government. That's called communism and it doesn't work."

Sorry, corporations are allowed to help congress "provide for the common welfare", not just the stockholder's welfare. If they don't do that, then they shouldn't exist. Plenty of corporations provide for the common welfare, and therefore are good.

Go drink some water - it will either allow you to live or to die. Too much, and you die, a controlled amount and you can live nicely.

Where do you allow for corporate/capitalist restrictions? you haven't pointed out anyplace where you have called for any restrictions, until I wrang a simple example of eased pollution restrictions and high fines for pollution out of you.

Where did you post before that, any restrictions at all - for about the 10th time.

[discostu]

Corporations provide for the common welfare by making profit. Profit allows them to expand their business (buy more goods), increase their facilities (buy construction), hire more people, pay their people more, and provide a return on investment for share holders and investors. They provide for the common welfare by being a vital section of our economy and bringing money and goods into the area.

Actually you've only asked 4 times (more LIES from you) and this is the third time I've answered:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1114631/posts?page=561#561
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1114631/posts?page=497#497

[XBob]

you are right - command economy - which the super capitalists want, where they are in control of the command.

Russia was under siege for years, and had rationing because of it:

Russian Revolution of 1905


Russian Revolution of 1905 a widespread uprising during most of 1905 against the monarchy of the Russian Empire. The revolution began in Saint...
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761588301/Russian_Revolution_of_1905.html


http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761569348/Russian_Revolutions_of_1917.html

Russian Revolutions of 1917, two revolutions that occurred in Russia in 1917. The first revolution, in February, overthrew the Russian monarchy. The second revolution, in October, created the world’s first Communist state.

The Russian revolutions of 1917 involved a series of uprisings by workers and peasants throughout the country and by soldiers, who were predominantly of peasant origin, in the Russian army. Many of the uprisings were organized and led by democratically elected councils called soviets. The soviets originated as strike committees and were basically a form of local self-government. The second revolution led to the rise of the modern Communist movement and to the transformation of the Russian Empire into what became known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). The goal of those who carried out the second revolution was the creation of social equality and economic democracy in Russia. However, the Communist regime that they established eventually turned into a bureaucratic dictatorship, which lasted until 1991.

The overthrow of the Russian monarch, Emperor Nicholas II, and the ruling Romanov dynasty took place after an uprising that lasted from February 23 to 27, 1917, according to the Julian calendar then used in Russia, or March 8 to 12 according to the Gregorian calendar. (On January 31, 1918, the Russian government adopted the Gregorian calendar; events occurring before that date will be given in this article according to the Julian calendar.) The events of late February 1917 are known as the February Revolution. After the overthrow of the emperor, a shaky coalition of conservative, liberal, and moderate socialist politicians declared itself the Provisional Government, on February 27, 1917. That government initially received the support of the soviets—the councils that insurgent workers and peasants set up and elected. However, the Provisional Government proved unable to resolve the problems that had led to the February Revolution. Chief among these was the problem of ending Russia’s involvement in World War I (1914-1918).

The second revolution was initiated by an armed insurrection on October 24 and 25, 1917. Known as the October Revolution or the Bolshevik Revolution, it was led by a group of revolutionary socialists called Bolsheviks. It swept aside the Provisional Government with the goal of giving “all power to the soviets.” The Bolsheviks hoped that their revolution would result in more fundamental changes in Russian society and also inspire the working people of other countries to carry out socialist revolutions.


Kulaks
Order from Lenin to communists in Penza, August 11, 1918, demanding that they publicly hang at least 100 kulaks and confiscate their grain, to set an example.
www.ibiblio.org/pjones/russian/Kulaks.html

[XBob]

728 - the 'restrictions you cite - #1

561 - this is a pile of crap - you can't have it both ways:

561 - "Reasonable restrictions can be placed on them, but they must be REASONABLE and well thought out. And when the restriction you want to put on a company is a silly one like "don't import labor" you aren't being reasonable. You're attempting to restrict their ability to make a profit so that people you think are more deserving of the company's labor dollar get it, who deserves Company X's labor dollar isn't your or my call to make, that is Company X's decision exclusively. They earned the money, they decide who earned a piece of the pie."

You don't approve of restrictions. You approve of restrictions that don't restrict, like setting the speed limit at 1000mph.

It is sheer bull.

As the charterer of this corporation, I will allow reasomable taxation - up to 150% of gross income. Just a minimal right to tax.

That's one reference shot down, as totally meaningless.

[XBob]

Another pile of meaningless crap.

497 - "Corporations don't have a duty to any constitution, they exist to make money, they don't vote, they don't fight in wars, they can't be elected for office. They pay taxes, that's about as deep as it gets.

They also don't have a duty to "the people", except for the members of the people that are investors in the company, their duty to them is to create profit so these people have a return on their investment. "

Here you state they have no responsibilities and should not be regulated.