Popeye_Card wrote:I get your point, but I think it's misguided. Yes, there's jobs being created overseas, but they're moving there because they can pay people less there to do the same thing. That's just taking advantage of people, and further exploiting them.
Yes, businesses are outsourcing these jobs to foreign countries because they can pay the workers a lower wage for the same work. That's taking advantage of the global marketplace.
As far as "exploiting" those workers, one would have to know more than the simple fact that they make less than an American worker would make to do the same work. Things like cost of living and whatnot.
I'm not saying "go sweatshops!" or anything like that, but if foreign workers are making more than they would otherwise to do these jobs, and the businesses are paying less than it would cost to pay a domestic worker for the equivalent work, then both sides benefit.
Well we can't give all of the credit to Clinton. Remember that Newt's Republican congress was really gung-ho on the whole balanced budget thing.
But I know the point you're getting at. I'd like to see a graph of the last 30 years or so charting the federal budget, federal revenues, and number of federal employees. All adjusted for inflation, of course. Then on that chart, note which years have a Dem/Rep President, and which years have Dem/Rep controlled House and/or Senate. Somebody brought it up in this thread that spending is usually at it's worst when one party controls everything. I'd like to see the numbers on that.
I don't have that chart, but the size of government (and I'm not really sure how they're measuring this) climbed during Clinton's years and then escalated more during Bush's tenure. If I remember correctly, Clinton wasn't really as bad with expanding beauracracy as republicans made him out to be. Bush has been a big disappointment to me in that area, but in some ways it's understandable, considering the increase in the size of the military and the addition of the Homeland Security Department, two large changes that I agreed with.
That said, I put most of the blame for the fiscal irresponsibility mostly on Congress. Earmarks and federally funded local projects... I'm a Republican and I liked the idea of Clinton's line-item veto.
The big problem with congress is that while a lot of them will talk the talk about cutting down budgets, when it gets to be crunch time, they're asking for money for their pet programs too. Just like most Americans--we should cut down OUR spending so that I can increase MY spending.
I'm not really handing out blame. It's human nature to be selfish. I'm not immune to it.
Popeye_Card wrote:
I get your point, but I think it's misguided. Yes, there's jobs being created overseas, but they're moving there because they can pay people less there to do the same thing. That's just taking advantage of people, and further exploiting them.
Does it matter why they're being created or if it's "exploitation?" The end result is those people make more than they would from local business. In turn, those local business have to increase wages to attract workers. I don't see the downside. Cheaper products would be bad if quality suffered, but do you really think that's true? Most foreign made products work just fine, at least the ones i have experience with.
We ought to be more able than just about anywhere to find other uses for people that lose work to overseas competition. I'd be on board with federally funded training programs to that effect.
Fat Strat wrote:That said, I put most of the blame for the fiscal irresponsibility mostly on Congress. Earmarks and federally funded local projects... I'm a Republican and I liked the idea of Clinton's line-item veto.
I don't know if I can get behind a line-item veto. Theoretically it could help cut out a lot of the tacked-on riders to important legislation, thereby stopping a lot of the pork. But it could also be used to change a bill that what passed Congress to such a point that what the President signed into law would hardly be recognizable as the original bill. That puts a lot of power in the Executive, and goes against the checks and balances set up in the Constitution.
I think a better solution would be to apply the "germane amendment" restriction that the Senate operates under to the House as well. That should stop a lot of the riders from ever making it out of Congress to begin with.
Popeye_Card wrote:I get your point, but I think it's misguided. Yes, there's jobs being created overseas, but they're moving there because they can pay people less there to do the same thing. That's just taking advantage of people, and further exploiting them.
Yes, businesses are outsourcing these jobs to foreign countries because they can pay the workers a lower wage for the same work. That's taking advantage of the global marketplace.
As far as "exploiting" those workers, one would have to know more than the simple fact that they make less than an American worker would make to do the same work. Things like cost of living and whatnot.
I'm not saying "go sweatshops!" or anything like that, but if foreign workers are making more than they would otherwise to do these jobs, and the businesses are paying less than it would cost to pay a domestic worker for the equivalent work, then both sides benefit.
/Devil's Advocate
On a related note, my husband works for a German based company that outsources much of its factory work to China. Given the weak dollar, they are considering moving some to the US as the China factories screw up quite a bit which, in the long run, costs them a lot of money and production time. I found this interesting....not sure it will happen since the dollar is now making a comeback and it would be an expensive move but they are seriously considering it.
Popeye_Card wrote:The big problem with congress is that while a lot of them will talk the talk about cutting down budgets, when it gets to be crunch time, they're asking for money for their pet programs too. Just like most Americans--we should cut down OUR spending so that I can increase MY spending.
I'm not really handing out blame. It's human nature to be selfish. I'm not immune to it.
Part of it is human nature, but part of it is the desire/need to be re-elected. Representatives need to bring things back to their constituency, or they won't be getting re-elected.
I'm not saying this is the best way to do that, but it's the way that is currently being used.
A big factor in the size of government increasing during Bush's run was due to the reaction to 9/11 and the creation of Homeland Security. It was cobbled together, pulling existing agencies together under a new umbrella of bureaucracy. I work with Federal contracts, and there was (and still is) a good deal of inefficiency when dealing with DHS procurements. Their contracts are as cobbled together as their agencies and their people. Different sections of solicitations/contracts are lifted whole cloth from various agencies, and generally there are inconsistencies between them. Increased government oversight as a result of laws dealing with corporate scandals (Worldcom, Enron, etc) like Sarbanes-Oxley have ratcheted up government/corporate audit requirements, likely costing the government more than the book-cooking did (not saying it wasn't necessary, just that, like airport security and TSA, there was overkill).
The world of government contracting is a mess these days. And a costly one at that.
BenNX74205 wrote:
I'm not saying "go sweatshops!" or anything like that, but if foreign workers are making more than they would otherwise to do these jobs, and the businesses are paying less than it would cost to pay a domestic worker for the equivalent work, then both sides benefit.
BenNX74205 wrote:
I'm not saying "go sweatshops!" or anything like that, but if foreign workers are making more than they would otherwise to do these jobs, and the businesses are paying less than it would cost to pay a domestic worker for the equivalent work, then both sides benefit.
/Devil's Advocate
That's short-term, selfish thinking in my mind.
I think saving all the jobs for Americans is selfish. I recognize the businesses aren't doing this out of altruism, but the end result is beneficial to the rest of the world. Particularly "second" and third world countries.
jim wrote:
I'll divulge a little personal info against my better judgement and tell you that based on that plan Obama will cost me more tax dollars than McCain.
It's ok, I can afford it. Really I can. Actually I can afford more than what is being proposed, and if it comes to that and makes sense I will pay it. See, taxes are ok. They aren't evil. If spent responsibly, I actually get quite a bit out of them and am glad to pay them.
Likewise.
I'm perfectly willing to pay more taxes under his plan.
Especially if that money is used to help my fellow citizens.
Admirable viewpoint, pop. And THIS is what Barrack is talking about
You guys are spot on - I think a lot of extremely wealthy have fessed up that higher taxes may make more sense, including the estate tax (or the inflammatory death tax as GOP likes to call it). I think Warren Buffet, Bill Gates Sr. ..maybe even Jimmy Buffet, but not sure.
Keep in mind - tax cuts in time of deficits are not "tax cuts". They are tax deferrals. Our kids, and their's will pay. Hey-maybe we should call this concept something inflammatory like the Tax on the Unborn Children.
I'm hopeful that a wise foreign policy will save the US some money. besides the loss of life and standing in the world, Iraq costs US a crapload of money. I'm not naive enough to think the choice of no-war wouldn't cost money either, but I strongly sense that military solutions cost more.
Last edited by Freed Roger on September 3 08, 9:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
