Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:
In chi.general Bob F wrote:

: "Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
: ink.net...
: Bob F wrote:
: "Rudy Canoza" wrote in message news:IXr5h.5873
: The fact is, that the advantage of low prices by importing everything
: is compensated by the loss of jobs by the people that would take
: advantage
: of those prices.
: No. Unemployment is at near-historic lows. People
: have jobs.
:
: If you consider $6/hour a job.
:
: If you work some minimum number of hours at it - I
: forget if it's 20 or 25 - then it is considered
: full-time employment by the BLS.
:
: You do not have a "right" to a high wage job.

: No, you don't. But that's what is replacing all the good
: jobs that are being sent overseas, with the enthusiastic
: support of the current administration. And just because
: they say unenployment is low, doesn't mean that americans
: are well off. When you lose a good paying job, and take
: a minimum wage job, you can thank policies that give tax
: breaks to corporations that relocate overseas.

Well, I'm not sure there are tax breaks, although I'm against offshoring (or
any economic ties) to India and Pakistan for different reasons...

President Clinton established that embargo (required by law) after they tested
atomic bombs. Right now we are pouring $'s into both India and Pakistan which
gives them more revenue to continue developing illegal weapons...

Neither India nor Pakistan is a signatory to the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In what sense do you
call their possession of nuclear weapons "illegal"?
Dangerous and destabilizing, maybe; not illegal.

Clinton's embargo was of nuclear material, not all
trade. Outsourcing call centers and IT work to India
is in no way a violation of any law.



The embargo against those two countries should have never been lifted, after
all, I believe the leader of one of their programs admitted selling nuclear
weapons technology to North Korea, Iran and Libya...

That was the Pakistani Abdul Khan. India has not sold
nuclear weapons technology.