Who used to supported W. but no longer does?

[NAD]

Just curious, because I voted for his dumbass in 2000.

I actually liked the guy for a bit, but once we went after Iraq I slowly began to realize what a scoundrel he is, and now I'm convinced he is not human.

 

[J.]

I voted for him. But I take solace in the fact that he'd have won Texas anyway.

I do/did support the war in Afghanistan. I think this was the correct place to attack, we had the support of the world as well.

After all the facts came out about the Iraq war, I no longer supported Bush at all. The straw that broke the camel's back was when he said he supports giving American jobs to sand my pals.

 

[J.]

Nate, if I lose my job, can me and my fiance come work on your farm in Kansas?

 

[Tranquillian]

Nate, if I lose my job, can me and my fiance come work on your farm in Kansas?

Haha, your boss walked in on you posting the first reply?

 

[J.]

no, he kind of agrees with me about the outsourcing, but he has accepted it as the "way things are today"

 

[speed]

Well I sure the hell never voted for that bastard. I would have voted for McCain, before Bush pulled the same smear tactics on him.

As a grad student of econ and international development, outsourcing is a difficult issue J. If one is truly a free market capitalist ( which the US claims to be, but we really arent, we just force it on everyone else) then outsourcing is natural, and should be exploited for the comparative advantage in the cost and even similar quality of labor of such a place as India. However, the government can be proactive and protect jobs, by taking away and closing tax incentives for businesses who outsource, by creating interestng new development ideas to support business, even by the governmen becoming sort of a venture capitalist and granting equity to high risk startups. The problem is today, those in power, still support supply side policies, that only partially work. These policies need to be used in conjunction with demand side policies, as they have been, for true job creation etc to happen.

 

[lizard]

I didn't vote for him in 00 but I reluctantly hoped for the best. I have been disappointed beyond my wildest dreams.

and while we're at it, I apparently don't live far enough north. all the southern yokel states went for bush, recognizing him as their own.

 

[J.]

As a grad student of econ and international development, outsourcing is a difficult issue J. If one is truly a free market capitalist ( which the US claims to be, but we really arent, we just force it on everyone else) then outsourcing is natural, and should be exploited for the comparative advantage in the cost and even similar quality of labor of such a place as India. However, the government can be proactive and protect jobs, by taking away and closing tax incentives for businesses who outsource, by creating interestng new development ideas to support business, even by the governmen becoming sort of a venture capitalist and granting equity to high risk startups. The problem is today, those in power, still support supply side policies, that only partially work. These policies need to be used in conjunction with demand side policies, as they have been, for true job creation etc to happen.

I'll be honest here, man. I don't understand half of what you just said. I cheated my way through economics in college. Supply and demand curve is hugely boring.

When it comes to outsourcing, it just rubs me the wrong way. I work for a company that outsources, and in fact, there is an employee in Pune, India on my team.

I just think a company should show loyalty to its "home" employees instead of firing them and hiring a sand my pals that will work for peanuts and no healthcare. If they want to outsource, let them outsource the executive positions, and leave the grunts, like me, alone. I guess I'm just an idealist and choose honor and loyalty over the bottom line.

 

[speed]

Sorry, I tried not to be too much of a know it all, but let me try this again.
This is the best i can do to make it easy to understand.

Basically, in capitalism, a business will try to become as competitive and profitable as possible. Thus, if a business can gain an advantage in any area they should and must take it, to become more profitable and more competitive. Thus, in regards to labor, if a business, can spend a quarter or less on labor costs in India than in the USA, and in return get the same amount of productive workers, who are highly educated, speak englsh, have few if any labor laws, nor any health care, it is to the advantage of the business to capitalize on the labor supply. Thus because of lower labor costs, the product or service the business will produce, will cost the company less, and they will become more profitable and competitive ( by being able to undercut the prices of their competitors).

The Bushes, and free market capitalists, believe the aforementioned system is a good thing, as it allows american run and owned companies to become more competitive and profitable on the world market, even at the cost of middle class jobs ( because they are oligarchs for the rich you know).

Now in terms of international development and trade, since 1944 ( the bretton woods conferance) The United States, the World Bank, and the IMF< have been instituting what is called structural adjusmtent programs throughout the entire third world, in exchange for financial support and lending. This means, that these third world countries basically decentralize, shed social programs, and privatize. Of course this allows US and European companies ( and Japan in Asia) to come in and buy all these newly privatized companies, because we have the wealth. And since the governments are smaller, with fewer social services, and no longer any national industry, they are now client states of the World Bank and IMF and the USA. They have to accept what we say, or they will become quite bankrupt.

Now do you understand why the world hates us?