« "Put your yarmulke on and celebrate." | Main | Maine »

The Democrats' terror problem

Back during the 2004 presidential campaign, there were at least a few attempts by the Democratic candidates to convince the voting populace that they too took Islamic terrorism seriously. John Edwards' "You cannot run, you cannot hide. We will destroy you." comes to mind. Sadly, it proved to be a one-off, election season soundbite rather than the start of a new trend, and that kind of talk has been as scarce as hen's teeth ever since Election Day, and I don't understand why.

If I were a Democrat (ha ha) I would be screaming bloody murder about how this administration was not doing enough to fight al Qaeda. I would do so with specific proposals for positive, pro-active steps. Simply saying "We shouldn't have invaded Iraq" or bitching about wiretaps and bank records isn't going to cut it. The Democrats have to get out there with the message that they're eager to take this fight to al Qaeda in a more effective way than Bush has done. It's not enough to simply point out that Bush screwed up.

They have to offer us a viable alternative in order to be taken seriously. Rightly or wrongly, the Democratic Party has an image problem when it comes to the War on Terror. They can blame that problem on Bush or FoxNews or Karl Rove all they want to, but at the end of the day they're doing approximately jack shit to try to dislodge that image.

Andrew Sullivan says it here and here better than I ever could.

But, for all Cheney's and Rumsfeld's flaws, they are at least proposing something serious, however ineptly carried out. I have yet to hear anti-war voices on the left propose a positive strategy for defeating Islamist terror at its roots, or call for democratization of the Arab Muslim world. Indeed, I heard little but scorn or silence when Bush announced this vision in London. Do the Democrats stand for democracy in Iraq? Or in Iran? Do they favor Beinart-style containment of Islamism? Nuclear deterrence against Tehran? Certainly, the Kossites seem utterly uninterested in any of these subjects. That's their prerogative; and it's equally my prerogative not to take them seriously until they do.


I've been a ferocious critic of Bush, but primarily because I believe this war is extremely important, and that he has been grotesquely inept and immoral in his conduct of it. The threat, as we were reminded this morning, is as grave as ever. Bush's incompetence has compounded it. When DailyKossers simply decide to ignore, say, the Israel-Hezbollah conflict in favor of domestic Democratic in-fighting, they are telling us something. They're telling us they still have no clue about the struggle we are in.... The Kossites are telling us that if they control the Democratic party, the Dems will not take the threat seriously enough.... Maybe those who understand the threat on the left can now take on their comrades who put the "war on terror" in quote-marks.

I understand that criticizing the president is easy, while proposing serious, viable alternatives is hard. But it's too important for the Democrats not to do. Like most Americans, as well as an increasing number of conservatives, I'm hungry for credible alternatives. I wish there was an opposition party that could actually provide some.


So he's no longer a hysterical drama queen?

In all seriousness, it would be nice (if improbable) if someone real would step into the political arena and speak some truth rather than sound bites. But *shrug* that doesn't seem likely.

Rudy might be stepping up, K.

Not my favorite person (a Big Government Conservative), but he's 100% right and serious about the WoT and his credential are unmatched in that arena.

Every thwarted attack from now to 2008 serves to help boost Rudy's image.

Thwarted attacks mean that Bush's illegal secret spying programs are what the country needs!

Successful terrorist attacks prove that weakling Democrats are wrong about the need for war in any country that threatened Bush's daddy.

No terrorist attacks prove that Big Tough Chimpboy scared all the ragheads away!

This is Republican logic.

Hey! You've almost got that right!!!

Thwarted terrorist attacks do prove the need things like the Patriot Act and NSA wiretap program.

Four federal courts (including the FISA court) have long upheld the NSA right to track (tap) calls/emails FROM suspect foreign portals INTO America.

The flip side of that - tracking calls/emails originating WITHIN America TO suspect foreign portals hadn't been challenged (until the NSA was found to be doing that last year).

Since there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on such international transmissions (China, France, Russia, England, Japan, etc have no such restrictions), those arguing against this being legal are, in effect saying, "I know that the rest of the world can listen in on such calls, but I still don't want Uncle Sam listening in."

Utter nonsense!

Unlike all those other nations, the U.S. (OK England too, it has an even more radicalized Muslim population than we do) has a real NEED to monitor such calls.

A successful attack would be bad for BOTH Parties, as both Parties have failed to adequately fund many of the safeguards enumerated by the 9/11 Commission, but each Party would most likely spin it, in order to blame the other.

A very sensible strategy on both their parts. For ALL politicians, politics comes before ANYTHING and EVERYTHING else and that's to be expected, since it's said to be pretty sweet to have "your ass in the butter tub," also known as the "public trough."

The fact that no terrorist events have been successfully initiated on American soil in five years, shows that things like the Patriot Act, the NSA wiretaps and the targeted post-9/11 round-up of appx 4000 Muslim and Arabic males within the U.S. (with some imprisoned and thousands of others deported - mostly on immigration charges) have all worked.

I haven't had a single one of my rights violated over that five year period.

I supported that targeted "illegal alien" round-up, of Arab/Muslim males...and I'm certain that's perfectly Constitutional. You can target specific groups for targeted enforcement of certain statutes and besides, it doesn't violate a single U.S. citizen's "rights."

Get it?!

Illegal aliens AREN'T citizens, so they have no such rights.

I hate to burst your bubble, guys, but to the extent that American intelligence helped with this apprehension (and as it turns out, the Bush Administration jumped the gun on the arrests; the British wanted to gather more evidence to make the case more bulletproof), it was all done WITHIN THE EXISTING FISA LAW:

"In the days before the alleged airliner bombing plot was exposed, more than 200 FBI agents followed up leads inside the United States looking for potential connections to British and Pakistani suspects. The investigation was so large, officials said, that it brought a significant surge in warrants for searches and surveillance from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret panel that oversees most clandestine surveillance.

One official estimated that scores of secret U.S. warrants were dedicated solely to the London plot. The government usually averages a few dozen a week for all counterintelligence investigations, according to federal statistics."

Which means that FISA works -- and you DON'T have to monitor every movement of every American citizen in order to apprehend potential terrorists.

And there isn't a Democrat or liberal in the world who doesn't approve of the FISA court system. We just don't approve of any president thinking he's above the law -- especially one like this one, who has shown NO reticence to cynically use a legitimate threat for political gain -- even at the expense of investigations.

Jill, since it's been long established that the NSA can monitor/wiretap INCOMING calls/emails FROM suspect foreign portals and the challenge to their right to track/wiretap OUTGOING international calls/emails TO those kinds of portals has not been settled...I KNOW that the latter is still going on (4 federal courts including the FISA court have upheld that no warrant is required for monitoring INCOMING international calls/emails from suspect foreign portals, as it falls under the purview of gathering foreign intelligence)...and I believe they are still monitoring OUTGOING international calls/emails FROM America TO those same suspect portals.

Again, and this is just the way it is - There is absolutely no expectation of privacy when making or receiving an international call/email. That's because virtually every other nation on earth monitors the Satcom sattelites that transmit such correspondences.

The argument that we shouldn't because we should be held to a higher standard, can only be answered - NOT when it comes to terrorism.

The British would never have been able to break this plot if they hadn't had the lower standard of "suspicion," rather than "probable cause" for their search warrants.

In England, if person X is a member of a mosque that has preached hate and expressed sympathy for those we consider terrorists, then if person Y merely associates with X, that's enough to get a search warrant in England.

I agree with NY's Police Commissioner Ray Kelly on his view that, "Terror investigations in the U.S. should operate under that same loosened standard."

Given the threat, I don't think Commissioner Kelly is asking for too much in that regard.

This administration has done a real good job so far as they've gone - the targeted illegal alien round-up post-9/11, the break up of dozens of terror cells here in the States (Lackawanna, NY, Michigan, Seattle, Portland OR, Liberty City, FL. etc) and the recent arrest and deportation of the 11 Egyptian exchange students who didn't show up to their assigned College in Montana, along with the arrest of a ring of naturalized Arabic-American "citizens" pinched for buying and stockpiling about a thousand pre-paid cell phones.

JMK is pretending not to understand that we are talking about Bush spying on anyone, anywhere, with no oversight, which he has claimed as his presidential right during "wartime" (any time a Republican is in office).

Stop playing dumb ... I mean, you already are, so why play?

The NSA has NEVER been accused of "domestic eavesdropping."

So where's a naive fellow like you getting that idea from?

I know that you're not clever enough to claim that monitoring domestic-based international calls amounts to "domestic eavesdropping," so who put that sort of subversive little thought in your head?

THAT has never been a charge in the MSM. Here's a case in point from USA Today, no less;

Bush to Continue Domestic Spying

By David Jackson and John Diamond, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — President Bush made an unapologetic defense Monday of a controversial program to spy on some Americans' international phone calls without court warrants, vowing to continue it as long as the nation faces "an enemy that wants to kill American citizens..."

Nowhere in the above report is there any allusion to the monitoring of domestic-to-domestic phone calls/emails without a warrant.

So, where are you getting the inane phrase "domestic spying" from???

Now, acknowledge you're WRONG in asserting that there has been any charges that the NSA "spied on domestic-to-domestic calls/emails."

STOP glancing at headlines and READ the entire story.

Calls/emails INTO the U.S. from "suspect foreign portals" have always been able to be monitored without a warrant under the purview of "gathering foreign intelligence."

Calls/emails FROM the U.S. TO "suspect foreign portals" haven't, until recently been challenged....and they ARE NOT "domestic calls," merely because they originate in the U.S., as any U.S.-Foreign communication can be considered "foreign intelligence," according to the ruling by four federal courts, including the FISA court that upheld that communications FROM "suspect foreign portals" INTO the U.S. require no warrant to be monitored.

Media Matters falsely claims, “FISA also allows the president and the attorney general to conduct surveillance without a court order for the purpose of gathering "foreign intelligence information" for "a period" no more than 15 days "following a declaration of war by the Congress." ”

I can assure you that there is no fifteen day limit and there is no “declaration of war” provision on the tracking of INTERNATIONAL calls.

But that wasn't your point at all.

You must now either PROVE that the NSA has been charged with "wiretapping domestic-to-domestic calls/emails without FISA warrants," or acknowledge that you're wrong.

Since there is no proof of the former, I must demand the latter.

You merely have to acknowledge you misread...or misunderstood the reports. It happens, so just be big about it and fess up.

Stop lying JMK, they were going through ALL OF THE CALL LOGS from ATT.

Try reading the ACTUAL article BH...it can be informative, even though it takes a little longer.

"WASHINGTON — President Bush made an unapologetic defense Monday of a controversial program to spy on some Americans' international phone calls without court warrants, vowing to continue it as long as the nation faces "an enemy that wants to kill American citizens..."

EXCEPT your opinion.

not to antagonize, JMK, but how do you feel about the news about the warrantless wiretaps being illegal. It may be a "boost" to the left,but I do not see it changing anything in the voting atmosphere for 2006.
Also, I noticed how the NSA wiretapping btwn foreign & domestic was wrong but the datamining from telephone comp was alright.
Am I mistaken?

No antagonism at all, Rachel.

The thing I took and still take issue with BH is his assertion that the NSA "spied on domestic (domestic-to-domestic) calls and emails."

This lawsuit was brought by the ACLU "on bahalf of journalists who claim their international contacts were being compromised."


Because the NSA program did target international calls, both those made from foreign sources INTO the U.S. and those to foreign sources FROM the U.S.

I think you have the decision pretty much right, Rachel, although four federal courts including FISA have already ruled that monitoring calls FROM overseas INTO the U.S. can be done without a warrant, this decision would certainly require warrants for monitoring calls originating in the U.S.

I'm not certain it contradicts or overrides the earlier rulings on calls originating overseas.

But I believe you're also right about the "data-mining," not monitoring individual calls but looking for patterns of calls over a certain duration, etc.

What I've read to date says, “Based on sources within the intelligence community, the NY Times reported that the NSA had been monitoring international calls and international e-mails that originated in the U.S., without court-approved warrants. The story reported that the calls might number in the hundreds, possibly thousands, but that they did not involve domestic-only communications.

And as to the data-mining;

“In May, USA Today reported that the NSA was operating the world's largest database, keeping records (times, numbers called, durations, and so on) on all phone calls made through AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth -- domestic and international. This operation involved billions of calls, the paper reported, and, again, was done without warrants.

“The fallout was immediate: Verizon and BellSouth have denied that they entered into any contract with the government to turn over data, and Qwest Communications, which says it was approached for information but did not hand any over, has suddenly become the network of choice for those who think the Bush administration overstepped its bounds.

“For its part, AT&T is revising its privacy policy to explicitly declare that it owns customers' records and that it may use that information in combating "any threat," with or without legal orders. The policy had previously stated that the company would only turn over customer records as required by subpoenas or other legal orders.”
now that they can blame it on Left-wing, activist judges."

I hope I'm wrong about that, but that's been the name of that tune so far.

JMK, playing dumb, please stop.

You know what I said.

Nobody really knows what Bush is doing, and that is fine with you. Admit it, since it is a secret spy program with no oversight, YOU DON'T KNOW what The Chimp is up to, do you?

How could you know, it's secret.

That's OK with you, though. You TRUST Bush.

There is no oversight. His program is in FACT illegal, and he is in FACT a criminal.

You only know what Bush chooses to tell you at this time, right JMK?

There is no oversight.

Do I need to repeat that again?

There is no oversight. No check on his power. He could be spying domestically, but it's just none of our darn business.


International communications (calls & emails) fall under the purview of "collecting foreign intelligence."

Four federal courts INCLUDING the FISA court have ruled that calls/emails originating overseas coming INTO America can be monitored without a warrant.

That's one of the ways Aldrich Ames was brought down.

No one and no news organization has ever made the charge that the NSA has ever "monitored American domestic calls" (domestic-to-domestic calls/emails). You know why?

Because there is no evidence of that, and the person making the charge is the one who bears the burden of proof. So of course, there is no baiss for you to make inane statements like, "...Bush spying on anyone, anywhere, with no oversight."

I'm not blaming you for misunderstanding the issue. I guess it can be confusing to have news papers run headlines like, "Bush to Continue Domestic Spying," while the actual story has NOTHING to do with domestic calls, only "“Based on sources within the intelligence community, the NY Times reported that the NSA had been monitoring international calls and international e-mails that originated in the U.S., without court-approved warrants. The story reported that the calls might number in the hundreds, possibly thousands, but that they did not involve domestic-only communications."

But blame the newspapers and the media for leading you astray, not me for merely explaining the story correctly.

If Bush (or rather the admin) is wrong then they are wrong. But that's it. I hate BDS because they translate Bush's wrongs into Stalinist hype.

Barry's wrong...the Dem's don't have just an image problem. They have painted themselves in a corner like W. The Dems would have to be even more pro-war, but the Kos Kids will take 'em down first

If Bush (or rather the admin) is wrong then they are wrong. But that's it. I hate BDS because they translate Bush's wrongs into Stalinist hype.

The Dem's don't have just an image problem. They have painted themselves in a corner like W. The Dems would have to be even more pro-war, but the Kos Kids will take 'em down first

sorry for the double posts...I was editing to avoid "breathless hyperbole"

That's a pretty good analysis of things Rachel. The WoT seems to come down to two different perceptions on how best to deal with the WoT.

From 1993 (the first WTC bombing) through 2001, we ignored a relentless war being conducted against us by pan-Islamic, "Islamo-fascists."

During that period there were lots of negotiations between the U.S and the Islamic world.

After 9/11 those who saw that the ONLY possible solution to that kind of terrorism was a military one, held sway...due largely to those earlier diplomatic FAILURES.

The current anti-war Left now wants to ignore all that inconvenient (inconvenient because it undermines their arguments) history.

Those who still insist that "terrorism is really a criminal justice matter," are contradicted by James M. Fox, then head of the FBI's New York Office who, in the wake of the 1993 WTC bombing, said "Dealing with international terrorism is simply beyond the scope of America's criminal justice system."

There is, of course, a "third perception" advanced by the likes of Michael Moore and swallowed whole by the likes of BH, that "There IS no terrorist threat," but that view is entirely discredited.

You're right that BOTH Parties have a problem - the Republicans are backing a prolonged war that many are convinced, we are not "fighting to WIN," or fighting effectively, while engaging in an uneven foreign policy elsewhere, while the Democrats are trying to run on the mantra of, "We're against all that," without explaining how they themselves would fight the WoT.

The inane view that Party hacks give that, "We don't have to give specifics at this point," is utter nonsense, for without a realisitc plan, there is no realistic reason for people to vote for you.

I think the biggest problem with all the BDS stuff is that it marginalizes the purveyors.

They actually make it easier for the current administration to "look good." All the Bush administration has to do is ignore the attacks, sound warm and folksy and the extremist attackers, the ones calling this administration "the Fourth Reich" and all that, are the ones that wind up looking insane.

There is no threat of anything more than annoyance from these caveman terrorists. We grow our own terrorists right here at home, and they set off bombs, but no president ever claimed that this gave them the authority to suspend the constitution and do whatever they want to "keep us safe".

We must surely be the most cowardly nation on earth if we give up our liberties as quickly and gleefully as JMK. Like all the brainwashed dittoheads, JMK can clearly see that the Liberal Nanny State was taking away his freedoms, but he fails to see that Fuhrer Bush is not only taking them away, but is also claiming we never had any rights during war.

Cocksucker lying Chimpboy drags out the "wartime, wartime, wartime" about ever ten seconds to justify his criminal actions.

We aren't at war. There is no army, nothing organized against us at all, just some jackass terrorists like the IRA causing trouble. Reagan ignored them, as I recall. He didn't declare himself King, lie, and commit war crimes.

Come on, you aren't REALLY afraid of terrorists getting you, are you? I'm not. They might set off bombs here and there, just like our home grown terrorists. There isn't a damn thing anyone can do to stop it, and Bush has failed completely.

Life is uncertain, stop being babies. Chimpboy isn't trying to keep you safe, he is transferring the wealth of the middle class to the upper class, period.

That is the dumbest possible OPINION to hold, and it stands to reason that it's one invented by Michael Moore and parroted dutifully by his equally dumb fans.

And please don't claim you're not a Moore fan, as ONLY Moore fans believe that bit of inasanity.

What, then head of the FBI's New York Office, James M. Fox, said in the wake of the 1993 WTC bombing, is just as correct today [B]"Dealing with international terrorism is simply beyond the scope of America's criminal justice system."[/B]

The reason it's beyond the scope of the U.S. Criminal Justice system is because jihadist terrorism is sponsored, harbored and supported by about a half dozen rogue (mostly Arab/Muslim) nations.

That's why the "Bush Doctrine" is so vital, so necessary...and so RIGHT.

It seeks to Militarily engage those nations that harbor, sponsor and otherwise support international terrorism.

It's a strategy so brilliant that it was passed enthusiastically with braod bi-partisan support.

So Ned Lamont opposes the Bush Doctrine?

That's why he trails an Independent candidate in the current polls for state election.

We DO have to beef up the Patriot Act, and probably have to give law enforcement a little more latitude in terror investigations, but that should NOT concern most Americans, as it will have a negligible effect on most people's Civil Rights.

The economy's doing just GREAT - low inflation, low interest rates and low unemployment, along with a rocketing Dow...only spiking energy prices loom as inflationary bad news.

I've actually done a LOT better economically over the last six years....and I couldn't be happier!

It would make me feel bad, however, if I really believe that your "slice of the pie" was being slid over to folks like me.

I wouldn't like that at all, so thank God that isn't happening.

Exactly what *is* happening is that only the rich are getting richer, and they are taking it from the middle class.

Income is way, way, way up for the already wealthy. It is down for everyone else.

Do you really think that hundreds of thousands of high paying middle class jobs can be outsourced with no consequences?

The cheap labor enriches the already rich, and hurts the middle class.

"Take This Job and Ship It: How Corporate Greed and Brain-Dead Politics Are Selling Out America"


I dare you to read it.

Uhhhhh...I've never said outsourcing ISN'T a problem, BH.

It's NOT as big a problem as it's hyped to be, but it's a problem.

What I've proven to you is that A Democrat Congress PASSED NAFTA (1/94) and expanded GATT (1991)...and a Democrat Congress created the H-1B Visa program in 1990 and it was under a Democratic President that the limits were raised TWICE!

That limit was LOWERED by the current administration with a Republican Congress.

THOSE are the facts concerning the exodus of "American jobs." Democrats created the H-1B Visa, raised its limits, they expanded GATT and they passed NAFTA (in 1/94 we had BOTH a Democrat House and a Democrat President).

Who's out there running against GATT?

Against NAFTA?

Against the H-1B Visa?

Pat Buchanan? Well, yeah, maybe Buchanan, but that's about it.

We're in a Free trade economy, one that most economists claim is going to be to our ultimate benefit.

Opposing Free Trade only puts those who do on the worng side of history, at this point.

Under Clinton, with the economy booming, shipping foreigners in was wrong, but it wasn't catastrophic because there were so many jobs.

Under Bush, the middle class is collapsing, the foreigners are still here, and the jobs are leaving at an accelerated pace. It is catastrophic, but not to his people, the extreme upper class.

America has been undone -- not by terrorists, but by Greed. No matter what you read, greed is NOT good. Greed is destructive. Corporations are based on greed, therefore, unfettered, they destroy society.

Maybe you are right. Maybe Clinton and a Democratic congress would have watched America be destroyed by corporations while they happily took their bribes. But that isn't how it happened.

Republicans have absolute power. No opposition. There is no way you can blame Clinton or the Democrats.

The Republicans are destroying America, fast.

Free Trade ISN'T destroying America.

In fact, my wife works at Price Waterhouse Coopers and there are a lot of accountants there...on H-1B Visas.

Yes, America DOES have an accountant shortage and firms like PWC and others import foreign accountants.

Salaries in accounting have NOT dropped, they've actually increased due to the "structural unemployment" - not enough American trained accountants.

The biggest factor in the decrease of Tech jobs was the "Tech Bubble bust that began in 2000."

That whole late '90s "Tech Bubble," that "Internet Economy" was bogus...and the jobs and opportunities it created were a mirage.

When the H-1B Visa limit was raised to 195,000/year, the Tech Bubble was about to burst...that is why that number of H-1B Visas was never reached during any of the years it was in effect.

The idea that the H-1B Visa was used to bring in "cheap foreign labor to displace Americans in the workforce" is INANE.

The demand for many tech jobs decreased in the wake of the Tech Bubble bust and H-1B Visas were created (by Democrats with braod bi-partisan support) to address the very real problem of "structural unemployment" in America.

We are NOT WORSE OFF today than we were in the past;

In fact, American consumers are significantly better-off now.

In 1980, the median personal income in America averaged only $16,800 (in 2003 dollars), versus $22,700 in 2003.

“A couple of years ago, the late economist and eternal optimist Julian Simon co-authored a book, It’s Getting Better All the Time, with Steve Moore, now of the Club for Growth.

Moore and Simon point out, for example, that in 1997, 99 percent of American households below the poverty level had electricity. In 1950, just 94 percent of all U.S. households had electricity. In 1997, 99 percent of poor Americans had flush toilets; in 1950, just 76 percent of all Americans did.

Moore and Simon compare economic freedom, per capita income and life expectancy. It’s striking. More government inevitably yields more poverty, which inevitably yields shorter lives. Citizens of the world’s least free economies average $1,669 U.S. per person in real income, and live on average to age 55. Citizens of the world’s freest economies average $18,108 U.S. per person, and live on average to the age of 76.

A few years ago, ABC’s John Stossel did an hour-long special called "Is America #1?,” Stossel noted that it isn’t just political freedom that yields prosperity. Economic freedom is just as, if not more, important. As an example, he looked at India, a democracy for sure, but consistently a festering example of the depths of human poverty.

Why? As an example, Stossel attempted to open a small business selling ABC gear in Hong Kong, India and New York City. In New York, he endured weeks of filling out applications for licenses, permits and tax numbers, but only weeks. In India, he was told it would take years (and it has for the few U.S. businesses who’ve opened there). In Hong Kong, Stossel was up and operating in a day. Such is why Hong Kong, with virtually no natural resources, has lept from poverty to prosperity in just a couple of decades.

Stossel also interviewed business executives who came to America and founded empires, largely because regulations in their home countries proved too burdensome. And we aren’t talking about communist countries or African dictatorships. We’re talking about France...and Sweden...and Germany.

Andy Bechtolsheim, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, told Stossel, "I wanted to build better computers, and there was no way to build a better computer in Germany."

By Radley Balko

Here's another reason why the "We're outsourcing our future away" argument rings hollow;

Myth of Outsourcing

By Jim Pinto
17 August 2005

Well, here’s another other side of the outsourcing story. All the complaints about outsourcing—exporting U.S. jobs — are a mistake, according to an April 2005 Wired article. U.S. companies import jobs worth $20 billion more than they export. Americans earn more money from foreign companies “outsourcing” their service jobs in America than they lose to jobs being sent overseas.

Wired provides numbers: In 2003, U.S. businesses took in $61.4 billion by “in-sourcing” (providing labor for foreign firms), while $43.5 billion worth of American jobs were lost to outsourcing.

Business efficiency comes through automation to increase productivity, as well as reducing the costs of goods and services through whatever means available. Like the old British Luddites (who went around destroying cloth mills), labor unions opposed automation because assembly line workers would be jobless. Now, politicians make the same argument against outsourcing. As I’ve pointed out before, more U.S. jobs have been lost to automation than outsourcing.

Wow JMK, I guess all of your lies beat reality hands down. The fact that I personally know DOZENS of highly educated, experienced programmer UNDERPAID, OUT OF WORK, or that have simply given up and switched to a lower paying career must be ... well hell, it's BAD LUCK! Knowing me is bad luck. Everyone is doing great, except people who know me.

That's a relief. Only my small circle has been economically demolished.

Well, you could always look at auto workers, airline industry worker, or any other working group in America and see the same thing: falling salaries, cut benefits, and lost perk while corporate excutives pay themselves 50 million dollar bonuses every year ... but why open your eyes?

You just keep your eyes screw shut and keep listening to Rush. Rush is right.

"The fact that I personally know DOZENS of highly educated, experienced programmer UNDERPAID, OUT OF WORK,' (BH)
FACTS on outsourcing; $61.4 billion in U.S. jobs created by “in-sourcing” (providing labor for foreign firms), compared to $43.5 billion in U.S. jobs lost to outsourcing.

Your personal story just doesn't ring true.

You're not even consistent with your personal fictions.

You go from "Bush outsourced my job," to "I'm making over $100,000/year," it's all too inconsistent.

I have to explain to you why world demand has driven up the market price of oil, how the Tech Bubble of the late 1990s was created by a series of rules changes at the SEC, how Democrats (Democratic Congresses) created the H-1B Visa, expanded GATT and passed NAFTA...all of them GOOD THINGS that will eventually create millions of new jobs here in the U.S., and all this is somehow surprising to you.

Like I said, you don't come off as a very well-read, or even a very engaged (into world events, etc) kind of guy, so unless you're one of those "no-common sense nerds," that never reads the papers or checks out the news....you're entire online persona just doesn't add up.

Post a comment