The first debate

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by EEich

By the way... My political idealogy is this... I'm a registered Democrat, but my ideal candidate this year was McLean. Sadly, I couldn't vote for him in the primary. I've been unemployed for over a year because my job went to India. I blame the current administration and would give my principles up to get that guy out of the White House. Are things clearer now?

Oh yeah, much clearer. Thanks.

Lost your job, huh? Let's see. Outsourcing jobs -- all Bush's fault, right?

Let me ask you this: Around the turn of the 20th century, the internal combustion engine was really starting to take off. Obviously, as the idea caught on and people started buying automobiles, one can imagine what that did to the horse and buggy industry. So, using your logic today, would it have been fair to blame the William McKinley Administration for the loss of jobs manufacturing buggies?

To expound on that, what exactly should the president do when private companies decide to relocate certain positions overseas, where labor costs are lower? Should he force them to stay here? Since he's the commander-in-chief, should he utilize the armed forces to guard the airports and harbors and physically stop corporations from transferring operations to foreign countries?

Tell me, what would foreign countries do in response? Since their workers no longer have a shot at an American company importing jobs to them, would it be fair to say that maybe they'll stop buying our products or refuse to set up shop in America in return?

Since this is a free country, EEich, anyone is free to start a business and proceed to the best of their talents and abilities to make that business profitable wouldn't you agree? So let's say you start a company producing widgets, and thanks to unions, labor laws, and minimum wage standards in this country, you see that you can produce these widgets in Malaysia for around $.30 an hour as opposed to the $8.00 an hour it would cost here. So as a practical business owner who's obviously in the business to make money and keep your company afloat, what would happen to your company if an Administration prevented you, through the force of law, from making the best decision in the interest of basic economics? You'd be out of business -- and what would our economy look like if this were the standard everyone had to abide by from the threat of the federal government?

Not only that, someone else in another country who doesn't have to deal with suicidal economic policies that you'd apparently like to see can go to Malaysia, produce those widgets, and sell them for far less than American companies can -- now, what does that do for the American company who couldn't take advantage of lower manufacturing costs like everyone else can? BINGO. That company goes out of business.

I don't know specifically what your job was that was shipped to India. But could it be said that maybe you should have had some forsight to see that what you were doing might be at risk, and therefore, it might be up to you to increase your job skills, and make yourself more marketable? How is that George Bush's fault?

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by smootsmack

McCain's great. I wish he had won in 2000

McCain wouldn't have been so bad if it weren't for that dreadful Campaign Finance Reform law he thought of. For some reason, the notion that the government can now prohibit an individual or group of individuals from pooling money together to buy an ad on TV strikes me as sort of unAmerican -- not to mention violates free speech.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by EEich

Voting principles is fine...
But voting for your ideal candidate is more likely to get the greater of two evils elected.

My analogy of betting on the Cardinals is not flawed... The Cardinals have no reasonable chance to win the Superbowl... betting on them is throwing your money/vote away. It's not a matter of jumping on a bandwagon.
To prove my point, I will bet you $5 on the election and give you ten million to one odds.

Voting with your heart is fine... voting with your head makes more sense to me.

First of all, you're comparing money -- something that's liquid with value, that I could lose if I'm not smart -- and a vote. I lose nothing if the election doesn't go my way. I have stood for my principles and cast my vote for the candidate that best represents my ideals. I have lost nothing if that candidate doesn't win.

But what if neither candidate fits my ideals? You're saying I should vote for someone who I don't agree with because they have a better chance of winning? What sense does that make? Is that how you would describe "voting with your head"?

[EEich]

You have alot of f-ing nerve to criticize my situation and forsight without a clue. I'm pretty talented at what I do. I busted my ass on a project with a hard working team for four years. When the project development ended, support went overseas. It was the first system in our company to be outsourced, and by the time we knew, it was too late... There are thousands of people like me.

If you're comfortable with the way things are going here in the good ole USA... by all means, vote for Bush. I hope you always have the luxury of holding to your principles. Personally, I'd rather feed my family.

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Oh yeah, much clearer. Thanks.

Lost your job, huh? Let's see. Outsourcing jobs -- all Bush's fault, right?

Let me ask you this: Around the turn of the 20th century, the internal combustion engine was really starting to take off. Obviously, as the idea caught on and people started buying automobiles, one can imagine what that did to the horse and buggy industry. So, using your logic today, would it have been fair to blame the William McKinley Administration for the loss of jobs manufacturing buggies?

To expound on that, what exactly should the president do when private companies decide to relocate certain positions overseas, where labor costs are lower? Should he force them to stay here? Since he's the commander-in-chief, should he utilize the armed forces to guard the airports and harbors and physically stop corporations from transferring operations to foreign countries?

Tell me, what would foreign countries do in response? Since their workers no longer have a shot at an American company importing jobs to them, would it be fair to say that maybe they'll stop buying our products or refuse to set up shop in America in return?

Since this is a free country, EEich, anyone is free to start a business and proceed to the best of their talents and abilities to make that business profitable wouldn't you agree? So let's say you start a company producing widgets, and thanks to unions, labor laws, and minimum wage standards in this country, you see that you can produce these widgets in Malaysia for around $.30 an hour as opposed to the $8.00 an hour it would cost here. So as a practical business owner who's obviously in the business to make money and keep your company afloat, what would happen to your company if an Administration prevented you, through the force of law, from making the best decision in the interest of basic economics? You'd be out of business -- and what would our economy look like if this were the standard everyone had to abide by from the threat of the federal government?

Not only that, someone else in another country who doesn't have to deal with suicidal economic policies that you'd apparently like to see can go to Malaysia, produce those widgets, and sell them for far less than American companies can -- now, what does that do for the American company who couldn't take advantage of lower manufacturing costs like everyone else can? BINGO. That company goes out of business.

I don't know specifically what your job was that was shipped to India. But could it be said that maybe you should have had some forsight to see that what you were doing might be at risk, and therefore, it might be up to you to increase your job skills, and make yourself more marketable? How is that George Bush's fault?

[EEich]

Congratulations... you must live on an island without family and friends.

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

I lose nothing if the election doesn't go my way.

[EEich]

I'm suggesting you vote for someone that has a realistic chance of making this country a better place than it is now.

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

You're saying I should vote for someone who I don't agree with because they have a better chance of winning?

[Gmanc711]

Mingya Politics get ugly. I defintley agree with EEich about the jobs being exported out of the United States. I wouldnt blame it all on the Bush administartion, hell I dont really even know who's fault it is, or when it started, I'm only 18. All I do know is that it has to stop, somehow. Its garbage that people who work their asses off for degree's and pay all that money, then finally get a job, just to have it taken away from them after three years of busting their ass. Often times they have to spend all that money again to learn somthing new. I know its easy to just say, the jobs have to stay here, and I really dont know how it is supposed to work, I'm still learning all that stuff. I just know the principles of it suck.

[EEich]

I don't know who started it... probably Clinton (NAFTA). I just know that Kerry has said he will do something about it and Bush hasn't.

Originally Posted by Gmanc711

Mingya Politics get ugly. I defintley agree with EEich about the jobs being exported out of the United States. I wouldnt blame it all on the Bush administartion, hell I dont really even know who's fault it is, or when it started, I'm only 18. All I do know is that it has to stop, somehow. Its garbage that people who work their asses off for degree's and pay all that money, then finally get a job, just to have it taken away from them after three years of busting their ass. Often times they have to spend all that money again to learn somthing new. I know its easy to just say, the jobs have to stay here, and I really dont know how it is supposed to work, I'm still learning all that stuff. I just know the principles of it suck.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Gmanc711

Mingya Politics get ugly. I defintley agree with EEich about the jobs being exported out of the United States. I wouldnt blame it all on the Bush administartion, hell I dont really even know who's fault it is, or when it started, I'm only 18. All I do know is that it has to stop, somehow. Its garbage that people who work their asses off for degree's and pay all that money, then finally get a job, just to have it taken away from them after three years of busting their ass. Often times they have to spend all that money again to learn somthing new. I know its easy to just say, the jobs have to stay here, and I really dont know how it is supposed to work, I'm still learning all that stuff. I just know the principles of it suck.

Just out of curiousity, did you read my post on the matter? When you work for someone else, you're sort of at their mercy. That's the way it goes. If you started a business, and you realize that you could make more money by manufacturing a product somewhere else for less, wouldn't you do that?

It works the same way when you buy something. If you go to Circuit City and find Madden 2005 for $49.95, but Best Buy has the same thing for $39.95, what would you do? Do you suck it up and say, "well, these people at Circuit City bust their ass, I'll bite the loss because I'm a swell guy," and fork over the extra 10 bucks? Of course not!

Businesses work the same way. They maximize profits so that they can stay in business. That's the name of the game in simple, basic economics.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by EEich

You have alot of f-ing nerve to criticize my situation and forsight without a clue. I'm pretty talented at what I do. I busted my ass on a project with a hard working team for four years. When the project development ended, support went overseas. It was the first system in our company to be outsourced, and by the time we knew, it was too late... There are thousands of people like me.

If you're comfortable with the way things are going here in the good ole USA... by all means, vote for Bush. I hope you always have the luxury of holding to your principles. Personally, I'd rather feed my family.

No, I'm not comfortable with everything here. And I'm not voting for Bush. But how you can blame him because your company gained support overseas is beyond me. Do you blame William McKinley for the jobs all those people lost manufacturing parts for buggies? What did he have to do with that?

I think the root of our disagreement lies with what we believe the function of government is. One of the things I can assure it has no control over, nor is does it have any legal obligation to protect is job losses. Like I said in my example, what is Bush or the government in general supposed to do? If it forces companies to stay here, then other companies who can manufacture a product elsewhere for less will survive and companies that are handcuffed here will go out of business.

[EEich]

There are ways that the government can penalize, tax or give incentives to make it worth their while to keep jobs here. There is no legal obligation... just a moral one. America should stand for Americans... not American corporatons.

By the way... not all of us are inclined or qualified to start our own businesses. I don't know the stats, but you know that most businesses fail within the first year.

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

I think the root of our disagreement lies with what we believe the function of government is. One of the things I can assure it has no control over, nor is does it have any legal obligation to protect is job losses. Like I said in my example, what is Bush or the government in general supposed to do? If it forces companies to stay here, then other companies who can manufacture a product elsewhere for less will survive and companies that are handcuffed here will go out of business.

[Gmanc711]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Just out of curiousity, did you read my post on the matter? When you work for someone else, you're sort of at their mercy. That's the way it goes. If you started a business, and you realize that you could make more money by manufacturing a product somewhere else for less, wouldn't you do that?

It works the same way when you buy something. If you go to Circuit City and find Madden 2005 for $49.95, but Best Buy has the same thing for $39.95, what would you do? Do you suck it up and say, "well, these people at Circuit City bust their ass, I'll bite the loss because I'm a swell guy," and fork over the extra 10 bucks? Of course not!

Businesses work the same way. They maximize profits so that they can stay in business. That's the name of the game in simple, basic economics.

Yes, I did read your post. I perfectly understand everything thats going on, I understand why business owners would want to have cheaper labor. The fact is, no matter what business owners want, this is a problem. Now I'm sure if you got fired tommarow and they were giving your job away to some guy in Angolia, you might feel different on the matter. If you think the fact that Americans are losing their jobs to these people is not a problem, your kidding yourself. Its a huge problem. Like Eeich said, were electing a president for Americans, not American business.

[JoeRedskin]

At the risk of entering a firestorm - Protectionism has long been the bane of overall productivity. Sure, we could enact tariffs, excise taxes and add other expenses to superficially hike up prices and make it more costly to do business overseas or for overseas companies to do business here. However, to do so: 1) Violates a number of economic pacts and will result in sanctions against the US causing a general increase in cost for goods and services; 2) would result in retaliatory actions by various countries, which in turn results in higher costs for goods and services. The net result of any rise in goods and services is will be some incremental job losses.

As to NAFTA, for the VAST majority of americans, NAFTA has created reduced costs and lower inflationary increases and increased national productivity.

The bottom line is that, with a world wide economic recession going on, the US has lost, on a per/capita basis, significantly less jobs than most other western nations - including France, Sweden, Britain and (especially) Germany.

The loss of a job is a traumatic experience. If it were me, I am not sure how I would handle it and I would certainly be looking for someone to blame as I, too, am a hardworking individual who routinely puts in more time than required. But as Beemseven said, I am at risk because I am not the owner of my business. EEich, you say most startups fail w/in a year - true or not, those people took a risk and lost. By being an "employee", you also take a risk - just a different kind; one which, in a very substantive way, relinquished control of your future to the whims of someone else.

It is unfortunate and, from what you say, undeserved. It is, however, not "unfair" as it is the risk for which you bargained by being an "employee". It is my sincere hope that you have recovered from the unfortunate event. It is also, however, my sincere belief that by allowing true competition, fewer americans will have to go through this traumatic and life altering event.

[SUNRA]

Two weeks before the attack on the WTC, the conference on World Racism was held in Durban, South Africa. The leaders of the free world did not attend the entire conference. After Bush realized how silly he looked with not having a United States representative there he sends Colin Powell. Powell goes to the conference saunters in late and leaves before the conference is over. Bush's assessment was that the conference was a anti-USA and anti-semitic event. The voices of the Palestinian,African,Asian and Hispanic people were ignored by this government. The reason for so much of the anger and violence contuing in the middle East is because of America's continuing defense of Israel which has not allowed the Palestinian people to establish their own identity and independence since 1948. Instead of sitting these powers down to get to the bottom of their discrepancies and work towards getting Arabs a piece of their own land in Israel , instead Bush confers with Saudi Arabia and the Bin Laden family who's only interest is selling oil and this is why Osama Bin Laden will never be found. Simply put, it's a conflict of interest. He who pays the fiddler, calls the toons.
What the conference in South Africa revealed about the Bush administration was that it is arrogant and short sighted when it comes to terroistic violence in America. Al Queda had issued many threats against the USA. It would have been wise to have the CIA present throughout this conference. While there were many legitmate demands made by many groups, Al Queda, Hamas and others terrroist groups have to had been present. This was the second attack on the WTC and should have been secured. Internal scobbling between the FBI and the CIA and even the New York Police and Fire fighters reveals how disorganized and screwed up this country is internally and will not be able to root violence out of this country as long as Bush is in office. John Kerry for president.

[That Guy]

I've been unemployed for over a year because my job went to India. I blame the current administration

I wouldn't, dems haven't offered a fix, thats something you should be pissed at the management and stockholders of your ex-company for. globalization is going to happen sooner or later though, as much as it may suck just cause they're indian doesn't make them inferior...

by imposing laws to try and prevent outsourcing you also create problems... hiring americans usually means health insurance, SS, minimum wage etc... lots of overhead and paperwork compared to $0.30 an hour in china or a few dollars in india, meaning a higher chance that the business can't compete with other countries that are allowed to use cheaper labor and fail losing 100% of jobs. Australia tried that and a pair of jeans cost 80$+ there (entry level, not designer), and they've finally recovered from it, but it was a really raw deal for them...

that bin laden relationship stuff is BS that moore cooked up. that family has close to 33 children, but they own legitimate oil and construction businesses that don't have anything to do with osama.

Internal scobbling between the FBI and the CIA and even the New York Police and Fire fighters reveals how disorganized and screwed up this country is internally and will not be able to root violence out of this country as long as Bush is in office. John Kerry for president.

your making the mistake of thinking that because bush hasn't been able to fix, that somehow kerry can... i haven't seen any detailed proposals from him about how he would address the problem you mentioned above. In fact most of what i've heard is, I'd do it, but better than bush did without many specifics.