SAN JOSE, California (CNN) -- Former Chrysler Chairman Lee Iacocca,
who backed President Bush four years ago, switched sides and endorsed
Democratic Sen. John Kerry for president Thursday.

"I'm here today because our country needs a change in leadership,"
Iacocca said during an appearance with Kerry. "We need a leader who is
really dedicated to creating millions of high-paying jobs all across
the country."

Iacocca said he is changing sides because he was attracted to Kerry's
economic plan, including his job creation proposals. He also said the
presumptive Democratic nominee both understands change and will
"level" with the American people about how to adapt to that change.

Kerry called Iacocca "a man of common sense -- a CEO of common sense
-- and I am proud to have his counsel and his support."


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...iacocca.kerry/

Boy, will I be glad when this guy gets his bridge rebuilt.
--RC

Florida Patriot wrote:
More OT garbage.

Ya wanna plug this into your NG's, please.

alt.politics

Thanx.

Florida Patriot wrote:
SAN JOSE, California (CNN) -- Former Chrysler Chairman Lee Iacocca,
who backed President Bush four years ago, switched sides and endorsed
Democratic Sen. John Kerry for president Thursday.

Sure, makes sense. Iacocca bankrupted Chrysler then got a government bailout
from a Democrat administration (Carter, 1979).

JerryMouse wrote:

Florida Patriot wrote:


SAN JOSE, California (CNN) -- Former Chrysler Chairman Lee Iacocca,
who backed President Bush four years ago, switched sides and endorsed
Democratic Sen. John Kerry for president Thursday.



Sure, makes sense. Iacocca bankrupted Chrysler then got a government bailout
from a Democrat administration (Carter, 1979).

And who owns Chrysler now?
Ans: Germany!
Talk about your outsourcing!
In the meantime, Ford bought Mazda, Volvo, Jaguar, Land River, and Aston
Martin.
Yeah, I'm going to listen to Iacocca... NOT!

JerryMouse wrote:

Florida Patriot wrote:
SAN JOSE, California (CNN) -- Former Chrysler Chairman Lee Iacocca,
who backed President Bush four years ago, switched sides and endorsed
Democratic Sen. John Kerry for president Thursday.

Sure, makes sense. Iacocca bankrupted Chrysler then got a government bailout
from a Democrat administration (Carter, 1979).

The certainty of your assertions is exceeded only by your IGNORANCE OF
THE FACTS. Consequently, and obviously, you support George "Dumbya". LOL

http://www.netstate.com/states/peop/people/pa_lai.htm

Excerpt:

"When he first joined Ford Motor Company, Lee Iacocca entered as a
trainee in Ford's engineering division, but he switched from an
engineering path to sales. He worked his way up the sales ladder, and by
1956 he was a sales manager. In 1960 he became a vice president and
general manager for Ford. In 1970, Iacocca took over as president of the
company. Iacocca oversaw many of Ford's successes, including the
introduction of the immensely popular Ford Mustang. However, his
management style did not always endear him to others, and after
conflicts with Henry Ford II, Iacocca left the company in 1978. By the
end of that year, Lee Iacocca was named president of Chrysler Corp.
Chrysler was in trouble, and many analysts predicted that Chrysler would
fall into bankruptcy. Iacocca wanted to keep Chrysler in the auto
industry and he intended to do whatever he could to get the company
rolling again. In 1979 he became chairman of Chrysler. In a brash,
controversial move, Iacocca succeeded in getting the federal government
to back a $1.2 billion dollar loan guarantee and tax concessions for the
company. Iacocca dug in, and obtained new sources of credit while at the
same time trimming operations. He closed some plants, and negotiated
with the labor unions to trim back wages and employment. He turned
Chrysler's focus toward more fuel-efficient cars, and he appealed to
Americans via television advertising to back Chrysler and buy its
K-cars. He even appeared in TV ads himself, becoming something of a
national celebrity.

"Within five years, Lee Iacocca had turned Chrysler around. The country
accepted Chrysler's K-cars, and Chrysler was able to repay its loans. .
.. . "

Erma1ina wrote:

[...]

"He closed some plants, and negotiated
with the labor unions to trim back wages and employment"

Is this the Democrat platform? Close plants, lay off workers, reduce wages?

willshak wrote:

Erma1ina wrote:

[...]

"He closed some plants, and negotiated
with the labor unions to trim back wages and employment"

Is this the Democrat platform? Close plants, lay off workers, reduce wages?

Hmmm. ANOTHER "Dumbya-deep-thinker." LOL.

http://www.netstate.com/states/peop/people/pa_lai.htm

Another Excerpt [The point: Lee Iacocca knows how to lead and knows a
leader when he sees one. He sees one in John Kerry, not in George
"Dumbya".]:

". . . Iacocca left the [Ford] company in 1978. By the end of that year,
Lee Iacocca was named president of Chrysler Corp. Chrysler was in
trouble, and many analysts predicted that Chrysler would fall into
bankruptcy. Iacocca wanted to keep Chrysler in the auto industry and he
intended to do whatever he could to get the company rolling again. In
1979 he became chairman of Chrysler. In a brash, controversial move,
Iacocca succeeded in getting the federal government to back a $1.2
billion dollar loan guarantee and tax concessions for the company.
Iacocca dug in, and obtained new sources of credit while at the same
time trimming operations. He closed some plants, and NEGOTIATED WITH THE
LABOR UNIONS to trim back wages and employment. He turned Chrysler's
focus toward more fuel-efficient cars, and he APPEALED TO AMERICANS via
television advertising TO BACK CHRYSLER AND BUY ITS K-CARS. He even
appeared in TV ads himself, becoming something of a national celebrity.

"WITHIN FIVE YEARS, LEE IACOCCA HAD TURNED CHRYSLER AROUND. The country
accepted Chrysler's K-cars, and Chrysler was able to repay its loans. In
1984, Chrysler introduced the minivan, and its success ENSURED
CHRYSLER'S POSITION AS A VIABLE AMERICAN AUTOMAKER." [EMPHASIS ADDED TO
AID DUMBYA-DEEP-THINKERS.]

Erma1ina wrote:

willshak wrote:


Erma1ina wrote:

[...]

"He closed some plants, and negotiated
with the labor unions to trim back wages and employment"

Is this the Democrat platform? Close plants, lay off workers, reduce wages?



Hmmm. ANOTHER "Dumbya-deep-thinker." LOL.

Hey, you posted it! Perhaps you didn't deep-think that part yourself. LOL

Erma1ina wrote:

JerryMouse wrote:

Florida Patriot wrote:
SAN JOSE, California (CNN) -- Former Chrysler Chairman Lee Iacocca,
who backed President Bush four years ago, switched sides and endorsed
Democratic Sen. John Kerry for president Thursday.

Sure, makes sense. Iacocca bankrupted Chrysler then got a government bailout
from a Democrat administration (Carter, 1979).

The certainty of your assertions is exceeded only by your IGNORANCE OF
THE FACTS. Consequently, and obviously, you support George "Dumbya". LOL

http://www.netstate.com/states/peop/people/pa_lai.htm


If you care about the facts -- which I doubt, considering the nature of this
thread and the content of your message -- I would strongly suggest you read David
Halberstam's "The Reckoning" for a more accurate picture of Iacocca's tenure at
Ford and his effects on the company. Readers with more discernment than you have
displayed might also read Iacocca's autobiography. If you have any ability at all
at reading between the lines, Iacocca's work is extremely enlightening. What you
have quoted is a standard PR puff biography.

(Halberstam, be it noted, is a card-carrying member of the 'liberal establishment'
and the author of "The Best And Brightest", about the Vietnam war. The book was
also written a number of years ago.)

--RC

willshak wrote:
Erma1ina wrote:

[...]

"He closed some plants, and negotiated
with the labor unions to trim back wages and employment"

Is this the Democrat platform? Close plants, lay off workers, reduce wages?



Usually better than going out of biz ) 'Course, you could use the GWB
method - raise wages and build a new plant. Don't worry about paying
for it.

Erma1ina wrote in message ...
willshak wrote:

Erma1ina wrote:

[...]

"He closed some plants, and negotiated
with the labor unions to trim back wages and employment"

Is this the Democrat platform? Close plants, lay off workers, reduce wages?

Hmmm. ANOTHER "Dumbya-deep-thinker." LOL.

http://www.netstate.com/states/peop/people/pa_lai.htm

Another Excerpt [The point: Lee Iacocca knows how to lead and knows a
leader when he sees one. He sees one in John Kerry, not in George
"Dumbya".]:

I don't know WHY I got myself drug into this sorry debate but if you
think Kerry is some sort of Knight in Shining Armor, you are wrong.
If you think big business is in bed only with W., you're wrong. If
you think the outsourcing debacle will end with Kerry, you are wrong.

I apologize in advance to the groupi because I answered these silly
twits and, worse, because I attached the following as back up for what
I wrote:


------------------------------
JOB DESTRUCTION NEWSLETTER
by Rob Sanchez
October 10, 2004 - No. 1105
------------------------------

If the Presidential debates are any indication, we might as well
forget
about anything substantial being done on the outsourcing issue. Our
choice for president is between Bush who thinks that outsourcing is
good for America, and Kerry who thinks that opposing outsourcing would
be pandering.

You can read the entire transcript of the debate at this webpage:
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004c.html

There was practically no time devoted in the second debate to
outsourcing and they didn't even say the word "immigration".


BUSH: He's talking about his plan to keep jobs here.
You know he calls it an outsourcing to keep -- stop
outsourcing. Robert Rubin looked at his plan and
said it won't work. The best way to keep jobs here
in America is, one, have an energy plan.

GIBSON: Senator, I want to extend for a minute, you
talk about tax cuts to stop outsourcing. But when you
have IBM documents that I saw recently where you can
hire a programmer for $12 in China, $56 an hour here,
tax credits won't cut it.

KERRY: You can't stop all outsourcing, Charlie. I've
never promised that. I'm not going to, because that
would be pandering. You can't.


Which John Kerry should you believe - the John Kerry who wants to
limit
outsourcing or the John Kerry who thinks that stopping outsourcing is
pandering? As the old saying goes, actions speak louder than words.
Kerry's actions speak very large - in the late 1990's Kerry led a U.S.
trade mission (junket) to the People's Republic of China with the sole
purpose of outsourcing jobs from Boston Capital & Technology (BCT).
Kerry was wined and dined in Beijing as a tribute to his betrayal of
the workers in his state of Massachusetts. Go to this webpage to see a
picture of Kerry's China junket:
http://gogov.com/kerrychina.htm

This website has the same picture with some excellent commentary:
http://www.flashbunny.org/commentary...utsourced.html

Kerry's tax plan to limit outsourcing is a Weapon of Mass Deception
that will do nothing to stem the massive job losses in our nation. At
least Kerry's plan merited a rebuttal in the LA times - Bush's
lame-brained answer isn't worthy of discussion.

------------------------------------

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...bs8oct08.story

Kerry's Plan to Rein In Outsourcing Has Holes
By David Streitfeld
Times Staff Writer

October 8, 2004

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John F. Kerry cites the
shuttered steel plant in Massillon, Ohio, as a symbol of what's wrong
with the economy under President Bush.

Under current tax laws, Kerry has complained, the owners of factories
like Massillon Stainless get "special breaks" for outsourcing work.
Not
only were the jobs at the steel plant sent overseas, but so was the
equipment.

Kerry may well bring up outsourcing at tonight's second presidential
debate, especially if the national employment report for September,
set
to be released today, is weak.

Yet changing the tax code to keep companies from shipping work abroad
-- a centerpiece of Kerry's proposal to create 10 million jobs in the
U.S. -- may not do much to solve the problem.

Some economists note that getting a tax break is only one reason that
companies outsource, and rarely the most important. Others maintain
that the outsourcing of office work -- the big growth area of the
future -- will be hard to control.

And even with factories, there are cases that apparently wouldn't be
affected by the kind of change in the tax law that Kerry is talking
about. Among them: the Massillon steel plant.

That's where, as Kerry mentioned in his July speech accepting the
Democratic nomination, veteran worker Dave McCune "saw his job sent
overseas and the equipment in his factory literally unbolted, crated
up
and shipped thousands of miles away along with that job."

Yet here's what Kerry didn't say: When that happened in late 2002,
Massillon was owned by Jindal Stainless Ltd., the largest stainless
steel producer in India. And an Indian company closing an American
plant, cutting 100 jobs and sending its gear to China, would
presumably
fall outside the scope of the proposals Kerry is advocating.

"Traditional low-wage manufacturing jobs -- the backbone of so many
communities for so long -- are fleeing," said Douglas Shackelford, a
professor of taxation at the University of North Carolina. "Maybe we
can slow it down a tad" by altering the tax code or taking other
steps,
"but we're just talking about whether a factory closes in one year or
two."

Massillon, about 50 miles south of Cleveland, has outsourcing examples
to spare.

World Kitchen closed its Massillon plant in July, laying off 200
workers. The privately held Reston, Va., company said it would start
buying its Baker's Secret cookware from Asian suppliers instead of
manufacturing it.

"We weren't chasing a tax break," said Doug Arnold, World Kitchen's
vice president of human resources.

But many companies do pursue tax breaks. Most corporate tax advisors
would suggest that a firm in World Kitchen's position set up a
subsidiary in a low-tax haven that would purchase the cookware and
then
sell it to the American company. Under Kerry's plan, such a maneuver
would no longer be as attractive.

Kerry seized on the outsourcing issue during the winter primaries,
repeatedly referring to companies and executives who transferred jobs
overseas as "Benedict Arnolds."

This happened against a backdrop of weak job creation, highly unusual
so long after the end of a recession. The economy needs to create at
least 150,000 jobs a month just to keep pace with population
increases.
In August, employment rose by 144,000, which looked good only in
comparison with the 73,000 gain reported for July.

Faced with such sluggish job growth, Bush has a good chance of
becoming
the first president since Herbert Hoover to suffer a net decline in
jobs during his term. Economists' average expectations of 150,000 net
new jobs in September would not make enough of a dent to change that
undesirable distinction.

When Kerry announced his economic program at the end of March, he said
it would create 10 million jobs in four years. Critics said the memo
backing up this claim, by Harvard economics professor and Kerry
advisor
Lawrence Katz, never detailed how the policies would directly produce
the jobs.

The memo is no longer on Kerry's website, and the candidate now talks
more vaguely about "millions" of jobs in speeches.

Jason Furman, a Kerry economic advisor, said the campaign wasn't
backing off its claim of 10 million jobs. He added that the Katz memo
was dropped from the website by mistake.

Predicting job growth is easy politics but hard without a crystal
ball.
The global economy is an immensely complicated affair, and
unanticipated events -- terrorism, a sudden slowdown in new economic
heavyweight China, continued oil price rises -- could knock it for a
loop. A president also needs to have the economic recession-recovery
cycle in his favor.

Some industries, like steel, will be hard-pressed to ever return to
anything approaching their glory days. Massillon Stainless, for one,
supplied its shiny metal to a long list of American icons, including
the Empire State Building, World Trade Center towers and Chrysler
building. But under a succession of owners, employment declined from
1,200 people in 1976 to 750 in 1984 to 500 in 1999.

"You have to be realistic," said Alan Auerbach, a UC Berkeley
economics
professor who has advised the Kerry campaign.

"There are limits to what Bush could have done to create jobs, even if
he had adopted the best policies," Auerbach said. "It's fair to say
that. It's also fair to say he didn't try."

Bush inherited an economy that was slipping into recession even before
the 2001 terrorist attacks. His job-creation policy involved cutting
taxes as much and as quickly as possible.

In early 2003, for example, the White House Council of Economic
Advisors said speeding up the tax cuts would boost nonfarm employment
to about 137 million by late 2004. The cuts were duly enacted, but
employment is only 131.5 million -- 4 million lower than the council
was predicting even without the quicker cuts.

Kerry's plan certainly sounds straightforward and reasonable,
economists say.

"If a company is trying to choose between building a factory in
Michigan or Malaysia, our tax code actually encourages it to locate in
Asia," the candidate wrote in an article for the Wall Street Journal.

That's because of a long-established policy known as deferrals. A
factory in Michigan gets taxed at the standard U.S. corporate tax
rate.
A U.S. factory in Malaysia gets taxed by Malaysia, but not by the U.S.
until the profit enters the U.S.

"Changing the tax code is not going to solve the outsourcing problem,
but it will reduce it by removing an incentive. I don't think there
can
be any doubt about that," said Samuel Thompson, a tax expert at UCLA
who has just published "Citizen's Guide to U.S. Economic Growth and
the
Bush-Kerry Economic Debate," a book that examines the candidates'
proposals in depth.

Kerry says that U.S. firms setting up enterprises overseas will be
taxed at U.S. rates only if they're serving the U.S. market. This
would
be easy to enforce if a California firm is making shoes in China to
sell in California.

But what if a U.S. company hires an Indian outsourcing firm to run its
computer technology department from Bangalore? That's an expense for
the U.S. company, not something it will book as a taxable profit.

"Kerry's right in showing that tax policy does have the effect of
encouraging the export of manufacturing jobs, but I'm not sure that
extrapolates to the services industry -- which is where most
outsourcing is happening," said Marc Hebert, executive vice president
of Sierra Atlantic, a Silicon Valley software firm that does
development work in India.

With a projected $12 billion in revenue raised by eliminating tax
deferrals, Kerry would give all companies a small tax break. Cutting
the federal corporate tax rate from 35% to 33.25%, he says, would
reward companies loyal to America.

Even business groups that don't like Kerry's proposal on deferrals,
such as the National Assn. of Manufacturers, like this one. "Reduced
taxes encourages job creation," said Dorothy Coleman, the
association's
tax policy vice president.

Others are less sure.

"Corporations have so many ways to save on taxes now," said Duke
University finance professor John Graham, whose research has shown
that
many companies pay less than 35%, if they pay anything at all. "I
don't
think that's the direction we need to go in terms of helping the
economy."

But it's a direction the nation is likely to be going in any case. On
Thursday night the House passed a $140-billion business tax overhaul
that effectively reduces the corporate tax rate on manufacturing to
32%. The Senate is expected to follow suit as early as today.

Regardless of whether changing multinational taxation has an effect on
employment, a number of economists think it's a fine idea from a
revenue point of view. It has been proposed before but hasn't passed
Congress amid resistance from corporate interests, which say it would
undermine competitiveness.

"This is an old idea, and to finally pass it would be wonderful," said
George Mundstock, a law professor at the University of Miami who
worked
in the Treasury Department's Office of Tax Legislative Counsel during
the Reagan administration. "It would raise a lot of money and not hurt
the country's competitiveness."

The overseas profits reported by multinationals have been soaring --
up
more than 50% since 2001 -- without a commensurate rise in
income-producing activities, according to an analysis in the journal
Tax Notes.

Moreover, companies appear to be funneling as much as $75 billion of
domestic profits to such low-tax havens as Bermuda in "an aggressive
use -- or abuse -- of the nation's tax laws," former Treasury
economist
Martin Sullivan wrote.

"The U.S. system of taxing international income is breaking down,"
Sullivan said, concluding that the U.S. Treasury was losing at least
$10 billion and perhaps as much as $20 billion a year.

Part of Kerry's plan involves getting that money back to the U.S.,
where it can be invested domestically. To achieve that goal, he would
declare a one-year tax holiday where the funds would be subject to a
10% tax rate. This, too, would be eclipsed by Congress' pending tax
overhaul bill, which declares a holiday rate of 5%.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
www.ZaZona.com
Support this Newsletter and ZaZona.com by donating:
www.zazona.com/Donations.htm

To Subscribe, Unsubscribe or to view the Archive go to:
http://www.zazona.com/shameh1b/JobDestructionNews.htm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Another set of lies from repukes

KERRY: You can't stop all outsourcing, Charlie. I've
never promised that. I'm not going to, because that
would be pandering. You can't.


Which John Kerry should you believe - the John Kerry who wants to
limit outsourcing or the John Kerry who thinks that stopping outsourcing
is
pandering?

Kerry was saying that from the day one. He was not for "BAN" on
outsourcing, his position was to level the plain field.

Look at his speaches during dem caucases about a year ago...
He was saying exactly same thing.

No as far as my vote goes the choices I see:
1) retard W, who openly opposes cutting loopholes that unfairly benefits
Indians & US CEOs, where his economic adviser "claims offshoring
r&d is good for economy"

2) Guy who is saying "I can not stop all forms of offshoring, but I'll try
to
level the field".

Choice is clear.

Bush & Cheney = Retard & Crook

Mike Jak wrote:
Another set of lies from repukes

KERRY: You can't stop all outsourcing, Charlie. I've
never promised that. I'm not going to, because that
would be pandering. You can't.


Which John Kerry should you believe - the John Kerry who wants to
limit outsourcing or the John Kerry who thinks that stopping
outsourcing is
pandering?

Kerry was saying that from the day one. He was not for "BAN" on
outsourcing, his position was to level the plain field.

Look at his speaches during dem caucases about a year ago...
He was saying exactly same thing.

No as far as my vote goes the choices I see:
1) retard W, who openly opposes cutting loopholes that unfairly
benefits Indians & US CEOs, where his economic adviser "claims
offshoring r&d is good for economy"

2) Guy who is saying "I can not stop all forms of offshoring, but
I'll try to
level the field".

Choice is clear.

Bush & Cheney = Retard & Crook

Outsourcing = Good. Good for you, good for me. Umm, ummm good.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is completely devoid of economic knowledge,
logic, and common sense. There are (usually) three major categories making
up productivity and an increase in the standard of living: capital, raw
materials, and labor.

No one is demanding that all aluminium be produced with domestically-mined
bauxite or that foreign investment be stopped. It is equally absurd to
require American-only labor.

First, off-shoring is a false problem. In the first quarter of this year,
the department of labor computed less than 5,000 jobs left the country.
Meanwhile the economy was creating 8,000 jobs PER DAY.

Secondly, FAR more jobs are "in-shored." Toyota has a plant in Tennessee
that makes cars solely for export to Japan! Legislation to stop
"off-shoring" invites retaliation.

Third, some off-shoring promotes the economy directly. Boeing, for example,
often allows manufacturing of sub-components in the country that buys its
jets but the majority of the manufacturing is done in the US. If not for
this provision, Boeing wouldn't sell anything at all to the affected
countries.

I do note, however, that you're using a Micros~1 (domestic) product to post
here rather than some French-sounding alternative. That's good.

"Geroge Barns" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 13:17:29 GMT, "Mike Jak"
wrote:

Kerry was saying that from the day one. He was not for "BAN" on
outsourcing, his position was to level the plain field.

Outsourcing is good it create jobs! Here's how, if more companies out
sourcing,
there will be more unemployed and therefore you will need to employ MORE
people
to process the unemployed, build more offices, you hire MORE people to
build the
building for the unemployed to line up for their benefit. Right?

Where have you been? Unemployed people do not line up at any building to
get their benefits, it's all on-line and automated. We probably use less
people to process unemployment than in the past. Oh, and if you're thinking
of welfare, that processing is mostly outsourced,

Everyone benefit from outsourcing, including me. I get cheap woodworking
tools
imported from 3rd World Nations who pays pennies to their workers, while
our
workers are overpay. Outsourcing companies, CEO rack in millions and
shareholders get fats dividends. Best of all, unemployed do not need to
work and
stay home enjoying woodworking as their hobby.

Unemployed do not need to work???? and get to enjoy a hobby yet??? How do
you think they pay for their living expenses much less their "woodworking
hobby"?

"Geroge Barns" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 09:19:33 -0500, "me" nospamhere wrote:

I have NEVER apply or received unemployment since the first I start
working,
sorry for the mistake :-)

Where have you been? Unemployed people do not line up at any building
to
get their benefits, it's all on-line and automated. We probably use less
people to process unemployment than in the past. Oh, and if you're
thinking
of welfare, that processing is mostly outsourced,

Unemployed do not need to work???? and get to enjoy a hobby yet??? How
do
you think they pay for their living expenses much less their "woodworking
hobby"?

Why NOT?

Let me ask you a just one question, have you ever bought any third world's
woodworking tools? If your answer is NO! than I recant my post, otherwise
you
are just as guilty and anyone here.

Not into woodworking, so no I haven't bought the tools -- I'm just wondering
how you figure unemployed people are doing so well that they can pay their
living expenses and enjoy a hobby as well, not only with the money, but with
the time (if you've ever been unemployed and looking for work recently, you
know that it's practically a full-time job in itself). There are no
extensions anymore, so when your 26 weeks is up, you better have a job or
something else to live on (last report I saw shows that 43% of people on
unemployment last year did not have another job by the time their benefits
were up). Maybe you make a living from your woodworking, who knows. If so,
good for you.

Ol' Lee must be getting Alzheimer's...


"Florida Patriot" wrote in message
om...
SAN JOSE, California (CNN) -- Former Chrysler Chairman Lee Iacocca,
who backed President Bush four years ago, switched sides and endorsed
Democratic Sen. John Kerry for president Thursday.

"I'm here today because our country needs a change in leadership,"
Iacocca said during an appearance with Kerry. "We need a leader who is
really dedicated to creating millions of high-paying jobs all across
the country."

Iacocca said he is changing sides because he was attracted to Kerry's
economic plan, including his job creation proposals. He also said the
presumptive Democratic nominee both understands change and will
"level" with the American people about how to adapt to that change.

Kerry called Iacocca "a man of common sense -- a CEO of common sense
-- and I am proud to have his counsel and his support."


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...iacocca.kerry/

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 00:22:19 -0400, willshak wrote:
Erma1ina wrote:

[...]

"He closed some plants, and negotiated
with the labor unions to trim back wages and employment"

Is this the Democrat platform? Close plants, lay off workers, reduce wages?

Yup, works for Tyson Meats (you know, Hillary's benefactors). Google for
"tyson strike jefferson wisconsin" for details.

Dave Hinz

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 08:40:43 -0500, "JerryMouse"
wrote:

Mike Jak wrote:
Another set of lies from repukes

KERRY: You can't stop all outsourcing, Charlie. I've
never promised that. I'm not going to, because that
would be pandering. You can't.


Which John Kerry should you believe - the John Kerry who wants to
limit outsourcing or the John Kerry who thinks that stopping
outsourcing is
pandering?

Kerry was saying that from the day one. He was not for "BAN" on
outsourcing, his position was to level the plain field.

Look at his speaches during dem caucases about a year ago...
He was saying exactly same thing.

No as far as my vote goes the choices I see:
1) retard W, who openly opposes cutting loopholes that unfairly
benefits Indians & US CEOs, where his economic adviser "claims
offshoring r&d is good for economy"

2) Guy who is saying "I can not stop all forms of offshoring, but
I'll try to
level the field".

Choice is clear.

Bush & Cheney = Retard & Crook

Outsourcing = Good. Good for you, good for me. Umm, ummm good.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is completely devoid of economic knowledge,
logic, and common sense. There are (usually) three major categories making
up productivity and an increase in the standard of living: capital, raw
materials, and labor.

No one is demanding that all aluminium be produced with domestically-mined
bauxite or that foreign investment be stopped. It is equally absurd to
require American-only labor.

First, off-shoring is a false problem. In the first quarter of this year,
the department of labor computed less than 5,000 jobs left the country.
Meanwhile the economy was creating 8,000 jobs PER DAY.

8000 per day??? I see you failed your math courses..
Latest US stats indicate nets job creation is under 3200 PER DAY.

Don't forget to subtract out, the ~550 per day foriegn workers
being imported by benedict corps on H-1x and L-1x visas.

Net result, overall job growth is FAR LESS than the ~5000 per
dayJOBS we need just to keep pace with pop growth.

--=-

As for offshoring.. You've just restated "Fallacy of Composition"..
see

"Why Offshoring is Economically Unsustainable"
http://www.itpaa.org/articles/Offshoring_Analysis.pdf


Secondly, FAR more jobs are "in-shored." Toyota has a plant in Tennessee
that makes cars solely for export to Japan! Legislation to stop
"off-shoring" invites retaliation.

Our massive trade deficit indicates that your statement is pure
BULL****!!!


Third, some off-shoring promotes the economy directly. Boeing, for example,
often allows manufacturing of sub-components in the country that buys its
jets but the majority of the manufacturing is done in the US. If not for
this provision, Boeing wouldn't sell anything at all to the affected
countries.


wrong-o... Boeing has traded for short term profits, sacrificing it's
long term future.

from the link quoted previously..

"Erecting barriers, they said, “could lead to retaliation from our
trading partners and even an all-out trade war.

This is ironic because the U.S. is already in an economic trade war
against other countries, such as China. The U.S. is under constant
attack and need not wait for “retaliation.”"


"If U.S. were even remotely “protectionist,” the U.S. would have a
trade surplus. U.S. policy is, in effect, “reverse protectionism” that
encourages companies and jobs to leave the country."

"The U.S. has essentially declared unilateral surrender, because some
economic interests maintain high profits even as most of the nation’s
population suffers and even as they sacrifice the long term future of
the nation."

Since I use Google to look at this newsgroup, some of the posts must
be missing because I seem to be entering in midstream.

First let me say I posted what I did to begin with in response to what
I thought was somebody saying that Kerry and Bush both support
outsourcing.

What in the world is Kerry going to do to stop it? Give a few tac
breaks? Does anybody think that any anoutn of tax breaks will make up
for workforces that are willing to work for $12/day?

The age-old argument will be that when the $12/day folk get up to
speed and their wages start to increase, they will have more buying
power and they will purchase more goods blah, blah, blah.

I have a questions: where in the world is the other side of the
argument?! What happens to the societies where the jobs came from?
What do those people do for a living?

What happens when a programmer (for example--could be an engineer, an
accountant, a help desk person, etc.) goes home to his/her family and
tell them his company has decided he/she needs to teach somebody who
lives 8,000 miles away their job so the person 8,000 miles away can
have a good paying job (for that country) and the
programmer/engineer/etc has nothing. Nada. Zilch.

Go get another job, you say. Ha! Where?! I know scores of people in
that situation and each and every onethathas been fortunate enough to
have found another job have all only been able to get jobs 65% or less
than what they were making.

Oh, yeah, taht's right. Being underemployed means nothing. I have no
problem with making an even playing field but I do not think that
means driving down thw standard of living of one country just so
others can raise theirs is the right way to go.

Additionally, all thei *great* stuff was supposed to happen with
NAFTA. Ross Perot was right: what WAS that sucking sound? Oodles of
jobs went south of the border. Some went north but not nearly as many
as went south. Now that Mexico was actually making headway, what
happened? They were making too much! Actually, they probably didn't
make all that much headway but it was discovered that people in other
parts of the world were willing to work for significantly less than
they were.

I have to ask which is worse: having a decent-paying job and paying
too much for a shirt that is made in the USA or having no job and not
being able to afford a shirt made in some country you never heard of?

As far as insourcing, this new round of outsourcing isn't the same.
Yes, there are lots of Indians who are starting high-tech comapnies in
the US and hiring people who happen to live on US soil to work at
those place but far too many of them are imported from India.

I do not see the Indians buying many of our products. I don't see the
Chinese buying may of our products. I don't see the Eastern Europeans
buying many of our products. They all purchase products and services
that are rpoduced in their homelands.

I do not begrudge them--more power to them. They know what it's like
to stick together.

Outsourcing to a point is okay but taken to the extreme it has been
taken to is horrendous. I don't care what kind of statistics are
pushed in my face saying only 5,000 jobs left the country. Bull****.
I think I am going to have to find that document produced by the
General Accounting Office in Washington, DC to rebuke your point that
5,000 jobs left the country but 8,000 were created per day.

I don't see me being better off than I was 8 years ago at this point
and sinking further because of the price of oil which is making
everything skyrocket because you need gas to fuel the trucks to bring
products to the stores, etc.


Last point: If you think the President of the United States has any
power wahtsoever to either stop or speed up outsourcing (or anything,
for taht matter) is sadly mistaken. He is just the Executive Branch.
There are two other branches that carry just as much, if not MORE,
weight: the Legislative Branch (House and Senate) and the Judicial
Branch (Supreme Court, judges, etc.). If people want to make changes
one way or the other, they need to pay attention to all three
branches, not just one.










"JerryMouse" wrote in message ...
Mike Jak wrote:
Another set of lies from repukes

KERRY: You can't stop all outsourcing, Charlie. I've
never promised that. I'm not going to, because that
would be pandering. You can't.


Which John Kerry should you believe - the John Kerry who wants to
limit outsourcing or the John Kerry who thinks that stopping
outsourcing is
pandering?

Kerry was saying that from the day one. He was not for "BAN" on
outsourcing, his position was to level the plain field.

Look at his speaches during dem caucases about a year ago...
He was saying exactly same thing.

No as far as my vote goes the choices I see:
1) retard W, who openly opposes cutting loopholes that unfairly
benefits Indians & US CEOs, where his economic adviser "claims
offshoring r&d is good for economy"

2) Guy who is saying "I can not stop all forms of offshoring, but
I'll try to
level the field".

Choice is clear.

Bush & Cheney = Retard & Crook

Outsourcing = Good. Good for you, good for me. Umm, ummm good.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is completely devoid of economic knowledge,
logic, and common sense. There are (usually) three major categories making
up productivity and an increase in the standard of living: capital, raw
materials, and labor.

No one is demanding that all aluminium be produced with domestically-mined
bauxite or that foreign investment be stopped. It is equally absurd to
require American-only labor.

First, off-shoring is a false problem. In the first quarter of this year,
the department of labor computed less than 5,000 jobs left the country.
Meanwhile the economy was creating 8,000 jobs PER DAY.

Secondly, FAR more jobs are "in-shored." Toyota has a plant in Tennessee
that makes cars solely for export to Japan! Legislation to stop
"off-shoring" invites retaliation.

Third, some off-shoring promotes the economy directly. Boeing, for example,
often allows manufacturing of sub-components in the country that buys its
jets but the majority of the manufacturing is done in the US. If not for
this provision, Boeing wouldn't sell anything at all to the affected
countries.

I do note, however, that you're using a Micros~1 (domestic) product to post
here rather than some French-sounding alternative. That's good.

Rick Cook wrote:

Erma1ina wrote:

JerryMouse wrote:

Florida Patriot wrote:
SAN JOSE, California (CNN) -- Former Chrysler Chairman Lee Iacocca,
who backed President Bush four years ago, switched sides and endorsed
Democratic Sen. John Kerry for president Thursday.

Sure, makes sense. Iacocca bankrupted Chrysler then got a government bailout
from a Democrat administration (Carter, 1979).

The certainty of your assertions is exceeded only by your IGNORANCE OF
THE FACTS. Consequently, and obviously, you support George "Dumbya". LOL

http://www.netstate.com/states/peop/people/pa_lai.htm


If you care about the facts -- which I doubt, considering the nature of this
thread and the content of your message -- I would strongly suggest you read David
Halberstam's "The Reckoning" for a more accurate picture of Iacocca's tenure at
Ford and his effects on the company. Readers with more discernment than you have
displayed might also read Iacocca's autobiography. If you have any ability at all
at reading between the lines, Iacocca's work is extremely enlightening. What you
have quoted is a standard PR puff biography.

(Halberstam, be it noted, is a card-carrying member of the 'liberal establishment'
and the author of "The Best And Brightest", about the Vietnam war. The book was
also written a number of years ago.)

--RC

LEARN TO READ, IDIOT.

At issue was:

1. "JerryMouse"s ignorant claim that "Iacocca bankrupted Chrysler then
got a government bailout..." As any FACTUAL (rather than ideological)
biography of Iacocca would show: Iacocca did not join Chrysler until
late 1978. Obviously IdiotMouse didn't have the most basic knowledge of
Iacocca, yet felt free to offer his idiotic, ignorant opinion -- like
you.

2. Iacocca's endorsement of Kerry in 2004 vs his endorsement of Bush in
2004. As the man who DID turn Chrysler around in 5 years and, in doing
so, change the automobile buying habits of the U.S. consumer, his
LEADERSHIP skills are undeniable. No one is nominating him for
sainthood. As I said: Iacocca was a leader; he knows a leader when he
sees one; he sees one in John Kerry, not in George "Dumbya" .

By the way, as for business acumen and patriotic practices: YOU should
do a little research on

1. George "Dumbya"s role in Harken Energy.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3...eopold20020718

http://foi.missouri.edu/enronandetal/bushharken/

2. the Bush family (including "Dumbya")/Cheney and the Saudi's.

http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/9/steinberger-m.html

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:53:29 -0700, Ray Kinzler wrote:

First let me say I posted what I did to begin with in response to what I
thought was somebody saying that Kerry and Bush both support outsourcing.

What in the world is Kerry going to do to stop it? Give a few tac breaks?
Does anybody think that any anoutn of tax breaks will make up for
workforces that are willing to work for $12/day?

One thing he's going to do is import those cheap foreign drugs and save us
a ton of money - whoops, there went *those* high paying US jobs to foreign
countries! I wonder what's so different in this scenario than folks
saying "buy from your local woodworking tool guy even if it costs more
than those cheap imports"?

-Doug

--
"It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among
[my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between
political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person,
the hatred they bore to his political opinions." --Thomas Jefferson

"Erma1ina" wrote in message
...

LEARN TO READ, IDIOT.

At issue was:

1. "JerryMouse"s ignorant claim that "Iacocca bankrupted Chrysler then
got a government bailout..." As any FACTUAL (rather than ideological)
biography of Iacocca would show: Iacocca did not join Chrysler until
late 1978. Obviously IdiotMouse didn't have the most basic knowledge of
Iacocca, yet felt free to offer his idiotic, ignorant opinion -- like
you.

2. Iacocca's endorsement of Kerry in 2004 vs his endorsement of Bush in
2004. As the man who DID turn Chrysler around in 5 years and, in doing
so, change the automobile buying habits of the U.S. consumer, his
LEADERSHIP skills are undeniable. No one is nominating him for
sainthood. As I said: Iacocca was a leader; he knows a leader when he
sees one; he sees one in John Kerry, not in George "Dumbya" .

But he presumably saw one in Bush in 2000? And, based on your belief, he
was wrong then. What makes you think he isn't wrong this time with Herman
Munster? Apparently, he doesn't have much of a track record on picking
leaders.

todd

Todd Fatheree wrote:

"Erma1ina" wrote in message
...

LEARN TO READ, IDIOT.

At issue was:

1. "JerryMouse"s ignorant claim that "Iacocca bankrupted Chrysler then
got a government bailout..." As any FACTUAL (rather than ideological)
biography of Iacocca would show: Iacocca did not join Chrysler until
late 1978. Obviously IdiotMouse didn't have the most basic knowledge of
Iacocca, yet felt free to offer his idiotic, ignorant opinion -- like
you.

2. Iacocca's endorsement of Kerry in 2004 vs his endorsement of Bush in
2004. As the man who DID turn Chrysler around in 5 years and, in doing
so, change the automobile buying habits of the U.S. consumer, his
LEADERSHIP skills are undeniable. No one is nominating him for
sainthood. As I said: Iacocca was a leader; he knows a leader when he
sees one; he sees one in John Kerry, not in George "Dumbya" .

But he presumably saw one in Bush in 2000? And, based on your belief, he
was wrong then. What makes you think he isn't wrong this time with Herman
Munster? Apparently, he doesn't have much of a track record on picking
leaders.

todd

Intelligent people incorporate new information, as it becomes available,
in forming judgments -- unlike Bush, and/or the puppeteers who control
him, who ignore or distort FACTS which are inconsistent with their
preconceived, ideologically-brittle opinions.

Obviously, during his time in office, George "Dumbya" has provided a lot
of "new information" for anyone, including Iacocca, with a properly
functioning intelligence. Iacocca adjusted his opinion accordingly.

Start thinking for yourself [again?], you might find it pleasant. LOL.

"Erma1ina" wrote in message
...

Intelligent people incorporate new information, as it becomes available,
in forming judgments -- unlike Bush, and/or the puppeteers who control
him, who ignore or distort FACTS which are inconsistent with their
preconceived, ideologically-brittle opinions.

Obviously, during his time in office, George "Dumbya" has provided a lot
of "new information" for anyone, including Iacocca, with a properly
functioning intelligence. Iacocca adjusted his opinion accordingly.

Well, he's right on the Kerry bandwagon there. Noboby forms new opinions
quicker than Kerry does. Kerry is so skilled at forming new opinions that
he often forms different ones daily on the same topic.

Start thinking for yourself [again?], you might find it pleasant. LOL.

Go **** yourself. LOL

todd

"JerryMouse" wrote in message
...
Florida Patriot wrote:
SAN JOSE, California (CNN) -- Former Chrysler Chairman Lee Iacocca,
who backed President Bush four years ago, switched sides and endorsed
Democratic Sen. John Kerry for president Thursday.

Sure, makes sense. Iacocca bankrupted Chrysler then got a government bailout
from a Democrat administration (Carter, 1979).

This is Turtle.

Henry Ford Jr. fired Iacocca years ago and wrote on his firing slip these words.
Unable to work as a Team member. Old Iacocca designed the Ford Mustang and was a
very good designer but was unable to work with a team and be a team member.
Iacocca was out for Iacocca and not Ford Motor Co.. Kerry and Iacocca do have
similar thinking in the business world.

TURTLE

TURTLE wrote:

"JerryMouse" wrote in message
...
Florida Patriot wrote:
SAN JOSE, California (CNN) -- Former Chrysler Chairman Lee Iacocca,
who backed President Bush four years ago, switched sides and endorsed
Democratic Sen. John Kerry for president Thursday.

Sure, makes sense. Iacocca bankrupted Chrysler then got a government bailout
from a Democrat administration (Carter, 1979).

This is Turtle.

Henry Ford Jr. fired Iacocca years ago and wrote on his firing slip these words.
Unable to work as a Team member. Old Iacocca designed the Ford Mustang and was a
very good designer but was unable to work with a team and be a team member.
Iacocca was out for Iacocca and not Ford Motor Co.. Kerry and Iacocca do have
similar thinking in the business world.

TURTLE

Pure B.S.

Iacocca spent 30+ years at Ford, going from entry-level engineer to
president of the company. You don't do that by being "unable to work
with a team and be a team member." The player in that little drama who
was unwilling to question his preconceptions and share power, i.e., be a
"team member," was Henry Ford II. Kinda reminds you of Bush and his
strutting band of little NeoCON chickenhawks, huh? LOL

BTW, the famous line from Ford II was "Sometimes you just don't like
somebody."

Get a clue. Here's some help:

http://www.detnews.com/2003/specialr...f06-186987.htm

(Ray Kinzler) wrote in
om:

Since I use Google to look at this newsgroup, some of the posts must
be missing because I seem to be entering in midstream.

First let me say I posted what I did to begin with in response to what
I thought was somebody saying that Kerry and Bush both support
outsourcing.

What in the world is Kerry going to do to stop it? Give a few tac
breaks?

Actually, I think, kill the tax breaks. There are a number of incentives
already in place, in addition to cheap labor that make offshore
alternatives attractive.

Does anybody think that any anoutn of tax breaks will make up
for workforces that are willing to work for $12/day?

The age-old argument will be that when the $12/day folk get up to
speed and their wages start to increase, they will have more buying
power and they will purchase more goods blah, blah, blah.

I have a questions: where in the world is the other side of the
argument?! What happens to the societies where the jobs came from?
What do those people do for a living?

They evolve. There is no rule that says that jobs must remain static. The
US was once an agricultural economy. It evolved into a manufacturing
economy. It has since evolved into a primary services and information based
economy. Those who have evolved with it have prospered. Those who have not
have faltered,

What happens when a programmer (for example--could be an engineer, an
accountant, a help desk person, etc.) goes home to his/her family and
tell them his company has decided he/she needs to teach somebody who
lives 8,000 miles away their job so the person 8,000 miles away can
have a good paying job (for that country) and the
programmer/engineer/etc has nothing. Nada. Zilch.

Once again they evolve. You can offshore the repetitive tasks of
programming. This is a good thing. Let me say it again in case you weren't
listening. This IS A GOOD THING. Just as we learned to use machines to
automate repetitive tasks during the industrial revolution, this frees
creative programmers to CREATE, not simply to do drone work.
You can not outsource creativity. You can not outsource innovation and you
cannot outsource innovative thought.



Go get another job, you say. Ha! Where?! I know scores of people in
that situation and each and every onethathas been fortunate enough to
have found another job have all only been able to get jobs 65% or less
than what they were making.

Oh, yeah, taht's right. Being underemployed means nothing. I have no
problem with making an even playing field but I do not think that
means driving down thw standard of living of one country just so
others can raise theirs is the right way to go.

Additionally, all thei *great* stuff was supposed to happen with
NAFTA. Ross Perot was right: what WAS that sucking sound? Oodles of
jobs went south of the border. Some went north but not nearly as many
as went south. Now that Mexico was actually making headway, what
happened? They were making too much! Actually, they probably didn't
make all that much headway but it was discovered that people in other
parts of the world were willing to work for significantly less than
they were.

I have to ask which is worse: having a decent-paying job and paying
too much for a shirt that is made in the USA or having no job and not
being able to afford a shirt made in some country you never heard of?

As far as insourcing, this new round of outsourcing isn't the same.
Yes, there are lots of Indians who are starting high-tech comapnies in
the US and hiring people who happen to live on US soil to work at
those place but far too many of them are imported from India.

I do not see the Indians buying many of our products. I don't see the
Chinese buying may of our products. I don't see the Eastern Europeans
buying many of our products. They all purchase products and services
that are rpoduced in their homelands.

I do not begrudge them--more power to them. They know what it's like
to stick together.

Outsourcing to a point is okay but taken to the extreme it has been
taken to is horrendous. I don't care what kind of statistics are
pushed in my face saying only 5,000 jobs left the country. Bull****.
I think I am going to have to find that document produced by the
General Accounting Office in Washington, DC to rebuke your point that
5,000 jobs left the country but 8,000 were created per day.

I don't see me being better off than I was 8 years ago at this point
and sinking further because of the price of oil which is making
everything skyrocket because you need gas to fuel the trucks to bring
products to the stores, etc.


Last point: If you think the President of the United States has any
power wahtsoever to either stop or speed up outsourcing (or anything,
for taht matter) is sadly mistaken. He is just the Executive Branch.
There are two other branches that carry just as much, if not MORE,
weight: the Legislative Branch (House and Senate) and the Judicial
Branch (Supreme Court, judges, etc.). If people want to make changes
one way or the other, they need to pay attention to all three
branches, not just one.


And the real issue of this election is the supreme court (which has
essentially nothing to do with trade policies by the way). The next
president will appoint at least one, and potentially as many as 4 justices.
Sadly other than one question in the last debate which was dodged by both
candiates this issue has not been mentioned during this campaign.









"JerryMouse" wrote in message
...
Mike Jak wrote:
Another set of lies from repukes

KERRY: You can't stop all outsourcing, Charlie. I've
never promised that. I'm not going to, because that
would be pandering. You can't.


Which John Kerry should you believe - the John Kerry who wants to
limit outsourcing or the John Kerry who thinks that stopping
outsourcing is
pandering?

Kerry was saying that from the day one. He was not for "BAN" on
outsourcing, his position was to level the plain field.

Look at his speaches during dem caucases about a year ago...
He was saying exactly same thing.

No as far as my vote goes the choices I see:
1) retard W, who openly opposes cutting loopholes that unfairly
benefits Indians & US CEOs, where his economic adviser "claims
offshoring r&d is good for economy"

2) Guy who is saying "I can not stop all forms of offshoring, but
I'll try to
level the field".

Choice is clear.

Bush & Cheney = Retard & Crook

Outsourcing = Good. Good for you, good for me. Umm, ummm good.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is completely devoid of economic
knowledge, logic, and common sense. There are (usually) three major
categories making up productivity and an increase in the standard of
living: capital, raw materials, and labor.

No one is demanding that all aluminium be produced with
domestically-mined bauxite or that foreign investment be stopped. It
is equally absurd to require American-only labor.

First, off-shoring is a false problem. In the first quarter of this
year, the department of labor computed less than 5,000 jobs left the
country. Meanwhile the economy was creating 8,000 jobs PER DAY.

Secondly, FAR more jobs are "in-shored." Toyota has a plant in
Tennessee that makes cars solely for export to Japan! Legislation to
stop "off-shoring" invites retaliation.

Third, some off-shoring promotes the economy directly. Boeing, for
example, often allows manufacturing of sub-components in the country
that buys its jets but the majority of the manufacturing is done in
the US. If not for this provision, Boeing wouldn't sell anything at
all to the affected countries.

I do note, however, that you're using a Micros~1 (domestic) product
to post here rather than some French-sounding alternative. That's
good.

Doug Winterburn wrote in
news
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:53:29 -0700, Ray Kinzler wrote:

First let me say I posted what I did to begin with in response to
what I thought was somebody saying that Kerry and Bush both support
outsourcing.

What in the world is Kerry going to do to stop it? Give a few tac
breaks?
Does anybody think that any anoutn of tax breaks will make up for
workforces that are willing to work for $12/day?

One thing he's going to do is import those cheap foreign drugs and
save us a ton of money - whoops, there went *those* high paying US
jobs to foreign countries! I wonder what's so different in this
scenario than folks saying "buy from your local woodworking tool guy
even if it costs more than those cheap imports"?

-Doug


Maybe the difference is that the cheap imports are made by american
companies who then charge american buyers more simply because they can?

Your local woodworking dealer presumably adds value by being there for
you locally where you can examine the tools, where he can give you
advice, where you can drop by and pick something up without waiting for
shipping...etc.
What value do the drug companies add to your purchase?

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:24:07 -0500, Secret Squirrel wrote:

Maybe the difference is that the cheap imports are made by american
companies who then charge american buyers more simply because they can?

Then let's fix that instead of playing "let's ship stuff around the world
to make it cheaper".

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:48:12 -0500, Geroge Barns wrote:

With Bush re-election we can be assure of ultra Con judges, everyone will be
worshipping the same GOD, isn't that what we all want?

So do you make a habit of changing your posting ID to evade killfiles, or
what's the deal?

Actually, never mind responding, I won't see it. Bye again, geroge.

In article , wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:18:45 -0500, Secret Squirrel wrote:

With Bush re-election we can be assure of ultra Con judges, everyone will be
worshipping the same GOD, isn't that what we all want?

How, exactly, does the outcome of an election influence the way you or anyone
else worships?

(Doug Miller) wrote in
m:

In article ,
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:18:45 -0500, Secret Squirrel
wrote:

With Bush re-election we can be assure of ultra Con judges, everyone
will be worshipping the same GOD, isn't that what we all want?

How, exactly, does the outcome of an election influence the way you or
anyone else worships?


It doesn't, and he's obviously a troll. However the argument could be made
that the Bush administration caters to the religous right and that allowing
him to select supreme court justices would further their goals. Personally
I find that to be a rather frightening prospect

Secret Squirrel wrote in message .97.131...
Once again they evolve. You can offshore the repetitive tasks of
programming. This is a good thing. Let me say it again in case you weren't
listening. This IS A GOOD THING. Just as we learned to use machines to
automate repetitive tasks during the industrial revolution, this frees
creative programmers to CREATE, not simply to do drone work.
You can not outsource creativity. You can not outsource innovation and you
cannot outsource innovative thought.


I disagree. Programming is NOT a cookie-cutter job like putting a nut
on a bolt. It is all about creativity and innovation and thought.

It sounds to me like these things you said can't be outwourced are
being outsourced. I see it in my own company. An entire ERP system
is being designed and implemented by Tata. Nary an American in the
new ERP system mix. All off-shore, in fact. And they will be piling
a bunch of prgrammers on the project who have all had two weeks of
mainframe programming training provided to them--all the while we laid
off a score of competent programmers, each having literally years of
experience.

What's wrong with this picture??

And I wish I could find the article I read somewhere--I think it was
CIO Magazine or some weekly/biweekly publication but a Chinese factory
decided they were going to see what would happen if they replaced a
conveyor belt with people moving products along long tables. Know
what they found? It was cheaper to use Chinese labor than to run a
conveyor belt. Sort of backwards from what Henry Ford did.

Listen, I have no problem with doing doing things off-shore but when
you have the American workforce being forced to train their
replacements solely because there people are willing to work for $12 a
week, it is just plain wrong.

I know score of laid off programmers and other IT types but you still
have the Indians badgering Congress to allow more H1B and L1 visas
into the country because there is still an IT worker shortage. What
hogwash.




Last point: If you think the President of the United States has any
power wahtsoever to either stop or speed up outsourcing (or anything,
for taht matter) is sadly mistaken. He is just the Executive Branch.
There are two other branches that carry just as much, if not MORE,
weight: the Legislative Branch (House and Senate) and the Judicial
Branch (Supreme Court, judges, etc.). If people want to make changes
one way or the other, they need to pay attention to all three
branches, not just one.


And the real issue of this election is the supreme court (which has
essentially nothing to do with trade policies by the way). The next
president will appoint at least one, and potentially as many as 4 justices.
Sadly other than one question in the last debate which was dodged by both
candiates this issue has not been mentioned during this campaign.




Yes, I agree. The Supreme Court justices are a very important outcome
of the election.

That sir, is one helluava good idea.

Brian Henderson wrote:
On 12 Oct 2004 15:25:46 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:


Then let's fix that instead of playing "let's ship stuff around the world
to make it cheaper".


Personally, I think there needs to be a manditory minimum wage for all
US-based companies or companies doing business in the US. They must
pay the same wage to all employees, regardless of where they are
employed, and it must be a comparable wage for the particular field.
That will stop outsourcing to India because companies will be required
to pay them the same rates as US workers or face stiff fines.

On 12 Oct 2004 15:25:46 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

Then let's fix that instead of playing "let's ship stuff around the world
to make it cheaper".

Personally, I think there needs to be a manditory minimum wage for all
US-based companies or companies doing business in the US. They must
pay the same wage to all employees, regardless of where they are
employed, and it must be a comparable wage for the particular field.
That will stop outsourcing to India because companies will be required
to pay them the same rates as US workers or face stiff fines.

"Erma1ina" wrote in message
...
TURTLE wrote:

"JerryMouse" wrote in message
...
Florida Patriot wrote:
SAN JOSE, California (CNN) -- Former Chrysler Chairman Lee Iacocca,
who backed President Bush four years ago, switched sides and endorsed
Democratic Sen. John Kerry for president Thursday.

Sure, makes sense. Iacocca bankrupted Chrysler then got a government
bailout
from a Democrat administration (Carter, 1979).

This is Turtle.

Henry Ford Jr. fired Iacocca years ago and wrote on his firing slip these
words.
Unable to work as a Team member. Old Iacocca designed the Ford Mustang and
was a
very good designer but was unable to work with a team and be a team member.
Iacocca was out for Iacocca and not Ford Motor Co.. Kerry and Iacocca do have
similar thinking in the business world.

TURTLE

Pure B.S.

Iacocca spent 30+ years at Ford, going from entry-level engineer to
president of the company. You don't do that by being "unable to work
with a team and be a team member." The player in that little drama who
was unwilling to question his preconceptions and share power, i.e., be a
"team member," was Henry Ford II. Kinda reminds you of Bush and his
strutting band of little NeoCON chickenhawks, huh? LOL

BTW, the famous line from Ford II was "Sometimes you just don't like
somebody."

Get a clue. Here's some help:

http://www.detnews.com/2003/specialr...f06-186987.htm

This is Turtle.

I don't need to read about a fellow own words to know about him.

First There was 3 Presidents at Ford at the time Iacocca and he was the
President of Marketing and Design and Heny Ford II as you say was the Chairman
of the Board. Chairman of the Board runs the show and the Presidents reflectes
the words of the Board.

Second Iacocca got side ways with henry about the changing of the design of the
Mustang and iacocca told Henry he was changing the design that year and Henry
show him the door. Henry and the board of Director told Iacocca to do as they
said or hit the door. If you can't work with us you got to go.

Third Iacocca did save Chrysler by taking the Federal Government into a
Multi-Billion dollar bail out of your and our tax dollars to save them. Without
the bail out they would have just went belly up. You can't go broke with the
Federal Government with deep pockets suppling you with cash.

Now don't get me wrong here. he was a good saleman and engineer but had a
problem with judgement of right and wrong as to who running the show. Some
people call that the Big Head. He might be paying back some of his buddy for the
Government bail out which made him shine good back then.

TURTLE

clipped

Third Iacocca did save Chrysler by taking the Federal Government into a
Multi-Billion dollar bail out of your and our tax dollars to save them. Without
the bail out they would have just went belly up. You can't go broke with the
Federal Government with deep pockets suppling you with cash.

Did the Feds put up cash, or just a loan guarantee? How much would the
Feds (we, the taxpayer) have paid in unemployment, welfare, lost taxes,
etc., if Chrysler had gone belly-up?


Now don't get me wrong here. he was a good saleman and engineer but had a
problem with judgement of right and wrong as to who running the show. Some

No lack of judgement. Henry hired him to run a show. Iacocca came up
with a product that made history. I say he had the right to protect it
- it was his "baby", creatively, at least. Execs part ways every day
when junior has grown into the shoes of senior and senior still occupies
the shoes. )

people call that the Big Head. He might be paying back some of his buddy for the
Government bail out which made him shine good back then.

TURTLE

Secret Squirrel wrote in message .97.131...

Once again they evolve. You can offshore the repetitive tasks of
programming. This is a good thing. Let me say it again in case you weren't
listening. This IS A GOOD THING. Just as we learned to use machines to
automate repetitive tasks during the industrial revolution, this frees
creative programmers to CREATE, not simply to do drone work.
You can not outsource creativity. You can not outsource innovation and you
cannot outsource innovative thought.


I by no means am a liberal but there are points to be made from ones
in that camp. For example, I am posting an article from the liberal
magazine "The American Prospect" about how famed economist Paul
Samuelson has done an about face on globalism and says it will cause
grave problems in the country that is pushing all its labor off-shore.
This is the quote I especially like:

"Samuelson's insight is that if a low-wage country like China suddenly
makes a major productivity leap in an industry formerly led by the
United States, the result can be a net negative for the American
people. Although American consumers may benefit via low-low prices at
Wal-Mart, their gains may be more than outweighed by large losses
sustained by laid-off American workers."

I am hesitant to quote the entire article because of copyright laws
but here is the url to read it yourself:

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?...articleId=8521

(Ray Kinzler) wrote in
om:

Secret Squirrel wrote in message
.97.131...
Once again they evolve. You can offshore the repetitive tasks of
programming. This is a good thing. Let me say it again in case you
weren't listening. This IS A GOOD THING. Just as we learned to use
machines to automate repetitive tasks during the industrial
revolution, this frees creative programmers to CREATE, not simply to
do drone work. You can not outsource creativity. You can not
outsource innovation and you cannot outsource innovative thought.


I disagree. Programming is NOT a cookie-cutter job like putting a nut
on a bolt. It is all about creativity and innovation and thought.

Which is exactly what I said. There are thousands of repetitive tasks
that dont especially need to be done people with a ton of training. They
can be assigned to others so others can create and innovate

It sounds to me like these things you said can't be outwourced are
being outsourced. I see it in my own company. An entire ERP system
is being designed and implemented by Tata. Nary an American in the
new ERP system mix. All off-shore, in fact. And they will be piling
a bunch of prgrammers on the project who have all had two weeks of
mainframe programming training provided to them--all the while we laid
off a score of competent programmers, each having literally years of
experience.

What's wrong with this picture??

Well other than the fact that the project will likely fail? There have
been lots of articles recently regarding off shoring development
projects, many of them regrading jobs that were brought back onshore.
They all share the same basic theme. If you have a project that is
defined in every possible regard, the Indian prgrammers can write the
code. However, if the project requires any innovation, creativity of
devaition from the printed specs, they cannot. Writing the oriiginal
project specifications to this degree is just as time consuming in many
cases as writing the actual program in the first place.

And I wish I could find the article I read somewhere--I think it was
CIO Magazine or some weekly/biweekly publication but a Chinese factory
decided they were going to see what would happen if they replaced a
conveyor belt with people moving products along long tables. Know
what they found? It was cheaper to use Chinese labor than to run a
conveyor belt. Sort of backwards from what Henry Ford did.

Listen, I have no problem with doing doing things off-shore but when
you have the American workforce being forced to train their
replacements solely because there people are willing to work for $12 a
week, it is just plain wrong.

I know score of laid off programmers and other IT types but you still
have the Indians badgering Congress to allow more H1B and L1 visas
into the country because there is still an IT worker shortage. What
hogwash.




Last point: If you think the President of the United States has any
power wahtsoever to either stop or speed up outsourcing (or
anything, for taht matter) is sadly mistaken. He is just the
Executive Branch. There are two other branches that carry just as
much, if not MORE, weight: the Legislative Branch (House and
Senate) and the Judicial Branch (Supreme Court, judges, etc.). If
people want to make changes one way or the other, they need to pay
attention to all three branches, not just one.


And the real issue of this election is the supreme court (which has
essentially nothing to do with trade policies by the way). The next
president will appoint at least one, and potentially as many as 4
justices. Sadly other than one question in the last debate which was
dodged by both candiates this issue has not been mentioned during
this campaign.




Yes, I agree. The Supreme Court justices are a very important outcome
of the election.