BUY USA begins at home, Jean-Fraud Kerry.
H.J. Heinz Co. of Pittsburgh, operates 22 factories in the United States and 57 in foreign countries.
Source, James K. Glassman
Kerry 2004 headquarters
Posted on 03/07/2004 11:39:58 AM PST by jmstein7
Tell The Media: Bush Didn't Cause Job Loss/Kerry Will Make It WORSE!
If you're like me, then you're sick and tired of Kerry and his Democrat cohorts lying out of their pie-holes, blaming President Bush for a recession (and the consequential job losses) that CLINTON caused.
Write a letter to the editor exposing this fallacy.
1. Open the "Write for W" window by clicking HERE.
2. Enter your ZIP CODE and click "Get Info"
3. Select Every News Outlet Listed!!!
4. Enter your info
5. Write your letter!
You can use the sample below, or, of course, you may draft your own :)
Subject: Kerry Misleads on Job Loss, Will Only Make It WORSE
To Whom It May Concern:
John Kerry is misleading America. It is egregiously dishonest for Kerry to politicize the employment issue and blame President Bush for job loss that began under the Clinton administration and was exacerbated by 9/11 - an issue that John Kerry refuses to acknowledge or discuss.
The recession that John Kerry blames President Bush for began in the third quarter of 2000, on Bill Clinton's watch. According to the Joint Economic Committee, severe job loss began in July of 2000, also on Bill Clinton's watch. Bill Clinton did nothing to remedy the situation, and it is blatantly dishonest for John Kerry to blame president Bush - and for the media to happily repeat this fallacious charge.
The fact that John Kerry is willing to lie about this issue for political gain seriously undermines his credibility.
Further, nothing in John Kerry's two decades as a professional politician suggests that he would handle this issue better than President Bush. His remedy for everything seems to be higher taxes and stricter regulation of businesses. Clearly, this would result in reversing the slow, but steady, increase in employment that President Bush's job-creating economic policies have achieved - John Kerry would effectively punish successful businesses and make it difficult for small and new businesses to hire new workers.
John Kerry is lying, and the media must stop perpetuating this lie. An honest, objective media would question Kerry's assertions instead of repeating them, unchallenged.
Sincerely,
YOUR NAME/ETC
Send it!
Thank you!
Yes, programmers in India cost less. And a big part of the reason why is the cost of doing business in the U.S. I would guess that 50% of the savings you mention is costs unrelated to direct pay.
I don't think the point of the article is entirely invalidated by the loss of U.S. programming jobs. And the question remains, do we continue to drive business out with highly non-productive and needless costs or do we correct the situation.
I suspect this will never get a fair hearing anywhere but here on FR. The media will never ask Kerry if government regulations - regulations he voted for - are part of the problem.
BUY USA begins at home, Jean-Fraud Kerry.
H.J. Heinz Co. of Pittsburgh, operates 22 factories in the United States and 57 in foreign countries.
Source, James K. Glassman
Kerry 2004 headquarters
Good to know when talking with Dems this year about job outsourcing.
Guilty parties on all sides it seems . .
Here's one little bit about the Clinton Potemkin economy based on a tissue of lies I've posted a couple of times here on FR (sorry, I just have the article saved and not the URL):
Robert Novak: Clinton-cooked books?
August 9, 2002 Posted:
WASHINGTON—The Commerce Department's painful report last week that the national economy is worse than anticipated obscured the document's startling revelation. Hidden in the morass of statistics, there is proof that the Clinton administration grossly overestimated the strength of the economy leading up to the 2000 election. Did the federal government join Enron and WorldCom in cooking the books?
Through all of President Clinton's last two years in office, the announced level of before-tax profits was at least 10 percent too high -- a discrepancy rising close to 30 percent during the last presidential campaign. Most startling, the Commerce Department in 2000 showed the economy on an upswing through most of the election year while in fact it was declining.
Although a political motive for Democratic cooking of the government's books is there, nobody -- including Bush administration officials -- alleges specific wrongdoing. Nor is there any evidence. Estimation in 2000 was conducted by career public servants who are doing the same jobs today (working under a highly political Democrat in the Commerce Department). Nevertheless, such discrepancy in earnings statements by corporate executives today would warrant a congressional subpoena.
The Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis quarterly estimates before-tax profits of domestic non-financial corporations, releasing the information the last week of the month following the quarter. Revised figures last week showed profits were really lower by 10.7 percent, 12.2 percent, 15.2 percent and 18 percent for the four quarters of 1999. In 2000, this gap became a chasm. The revised quarterly profits for the election year are lower than the announced figures by 23.3 percent, 25.9 percent, 29.9 percent and 28.2 percent.
Most startling, original estimates showed a generally rising profit outlook for the two years preceding the election. Starting with $503.7 billion in the last quarter of 1998, the quarterly estimates rose steadily to $543.8 billion in the fourth quarter of 1999 and then took off in the first two quarters of 2000 to $574.9 billion and $606.6 billion, leveling off to $602.9 billion in the third quarter (before falling to $527.3 billion in the fourth quarter after the election).
Last week's revised returns reflect not only different numbers but a different trend (starting at a much lower level of $473 billion). Profits actually fell through much of 2000, dropping from $449.7 billion to $422.4 billion for the second half (before slipping to $372.8 billion).
How could there be this big of a discrepancy? How could the government have reported steadily rising profits when they actually peaked in 1998?
"The gap is a bit larger than usual, but not really out of line," Brent Moulton, associate director at the Bureau of Economic Analysis, told me. Moulton, who was in charge of both the old figures and the new revision, said the problem was the two-year delay in obtaining corporate tax returns (reflecting changes in telecommunications and business services).
Moulton's boss in 1999-2000 was one of the Clinton administration's most politically astute economists: Under Secretary of Commerce Rob Shapiro, a pioneer "New Democrat" and early friend and supporter of Bill Clinton. I asked him flatly: "Did you cook the books?"
Shapiro laughed it off, asserting that the Bureau of Economic Analysis is "the most non-political, non-partisan agency in the government."
That begs the question of whether the bureau's very political, very partisan management chief should have known the bureaucrats were on the wrong track. "No," said Shapiro, "2000 looked very good to us." He dismissed the early reports as "an econometric projection based on estimates."
The result: headlines in 2000 spewing false information of corporate profits growing at 25 percent, bolstering the stock market and holding up the state of the economy as the election approached. That is the underpinning for the Democratic myth that a growing and vibrant American economy has been sabotaged by President Bush's tax cut ("We lost the opportunity for long-term economic growth," says House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt).
If the government's books were not purposely cooked in the same way as corporate accounts, there still remains the question of how the government could be so wrong. The Bureau of Economic Analysis may well be free of partisan tilt, but its incompetence can cast a long political shadow.
--END--
Personally I believe the Clinton Crime Cabal cooked the books to bolster the Clinton "legacy" and improve algore's chances of election. And we've done a damn fine job of recovering from these lies, especially considering the events of September 11, 2001. I only wish the Bush administration made a big presentation and released this information when it was discovered, and screw this "new tone" garbage which the democRATs aren't gonna recognize except as a sign of weakness. -MR
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.