This is outrageous! Bailed out banks are going to spend 1 Billion outsourcing jobs to India.

[progressivebydesign]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091123/bs_nm/us_india_outsourcing_usbanks

Great to know that the idiots that came up with the Wall Street and Bank Bailouts didn't put any protections in for American workers, once again. So basically, they got OUR money, and are sending 1 billion dollars worth of work to India.. a Country in which poor people are treated like subhumans, and workers have no rights or dignity. Glad that we can build their fucking middle class for them, with OUR money.

And then.. the corporate assholes WONDER why we can't afford their products, the govt can't figure WHY the unemployment rates keep climbing, it's because we have done JACK SHIT to stop the flood of jobs overseas to people who will work for $2.00 an hour with no benefits. The jobs are being lost in America, not necessarily because of poor business, but because of GREED.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

1. call your congressman

[Kalun D]

2. Who Owns the Obama Admin?

What do you expect from an administration that is owned by the bankers lock stock and barrel?

Goldman Sachs was the 2nd largest contributor to the Obama administration. $995,000 dollars. Is it any wonder they've done NOTHING to re-regulate the banks, in fact they've appointed all the same old cronies that caused all this banking mess in the first place.

Gietner and Summers should have been put in prison, instead they've been put at the levers of power, thanks to the bankers buying the Obama administration.

You want to talk about offshore? Ask how much of the $700 BILLION "bailout" has gone to offshore banks. And it's not a bailout. It's an out and out ripoff. A scam by a bunch of crooks, THE LARGEST FRAUD IN HISTORY. And Obama helped push it through congress.

[bertman]

3. Absolutely right, Kalun D. I remember when the American People screamed loud and clear

that they DID NOT want a bailout, but Candidate Obama rushed back to D.C. to help broker the legislative "breakthrough" where the DEMOCRATS passed the bailout. With 90% of the calls to Congressional Reps and Senators going against the Bailout, the Democrats had to do some serious arm-twisting to get the troops in line. It only took what, three days?? Then we got to see Hank Paulson and his Democratic accomplices stand and smile and congratulate themselves on having saved the nation.

What happened to that good ole arm-twisting political maneuvering when it came to stuff like mortgage relief and healthcare reform?? Oh, right, it turned into BI-partisanship.

Rec.

[change_notfinetuning]

55. You are right. Obama leaned on the Progressive and Black Caucuses and

turned the bailout vote around. No one was more responsible for that passing than Barack Obama. Too bad he forgot how to twist arms for the benefit of the American people.

Maybe that was the beginning of the "pass anything, say we did something" philosophy that seems to have engulfed this administration. Business as usual is the new "change you can believe in."

[bvar22]

57. !

I will never, EVER forget THIS photo of the betrayal:


NOW we have Your Children’s Money too !!!
And there is not a fucking thing you can do about it!
Now THIS is “Bi-Partisanship” !
Better get used to it!!
Hahahahahahahahaha!


Obama also pledged that he would NOT vote for the bailout UNLESS there were strong protections for taxpayers.

OOPS!
Guess he forgot about the "protections for taxpayers" part.

[inna]

83. I agree, but... the worst part is that $700 billion was only a fraction of the entire amount

given/allocated to the banksters (which ranges from $4 Trillion (that is, TRILLION!!!) to 11 to 23 Trillion, according to different sources).

Even worse yet, it's the Obama/Geithner team that seems to be doing even more damage than the Bush/Paulson team.

At this point, I'm almost convinced that people would be up in arms and out in the streets IF it were a McCain/Palin administration behind the same policies that are taking place right now.

[glinda]

4. just think how really shitty it would be if the Repubs still had the reigns.

[SPedigrees]

5. Still reigned or had the reins. Pick one. nt

[inna]

13. thanks. good point. i could've easily made the same mistake. nt

[glinda]

18. thanks

[katandmoon]

8. They do!

[Kalun D]

Who does Obama Work For?

Actually I think it is worse when someone pretends to be on your side and is really not, than someone who is right up front against you.


Obama won the nomination and the election. He's a proven winner. He hasn't tried very hard if at all to get meaningful health care. If he was trying like during the election we would already have it.

[blindpig]

38. Same as any prez....

[SammyWinstonJack]

64. You're right' it is worse.

[phasma ex machina]

76. He works for immoderate invisible individuals. nt

[Donnachaidh]

42. do you honestly think the repubs are NOT in on the dealmaking going on how?

They STILL control what's going on -- take a good look at this joke called healthcare *reform*. We've gotten virtually NO visible leadership from Obama, but lots and LOTS of crap from the pukes.

The only *change* was the color of the class sweaters. :sarcasm:

[davidwparker]

63. Sorry, but I really don't notice anything different other than our

president can now put together a coherent sentence.

[inna]

7. +1

http://ampedstatus.com/the-critical-unraveling-of-us-society

[Subdivisions]

9. I read that last night. Nice overview of where we are. Worth a read... n/t

[HowHasItComeToThis]

56. I T T

[davidwparker]

62. +1

When it gets closer to 2012, if there is no primary challenger for Obama, we need to cast protest votes for an agreed t candidate. Say Howard Dean.

Then, when the numbers are tallied, we can tell by the selected candidate, how many Dems were protesting not getting all the change we can believe in. Or, who had the AUDACITY to want more.

I say if there is no primary challenger because I don't think Obama would win the democratic primary if he is challenged. I for one would not cast another vote for him seeing his performance in the first 25%.

[dflprincess]

81. You have to wonder what Obama's slogan will be in 2012

"Hope and change - really, this time I mean it, things will be different, just give me another chance."

I didn't expect massive change by this point - but I did expect to see a big change in the direction things were going and that sure isn't happening.

[davidwparker]

98. that was my thing too. a reversal of things like GITMO, repeals to the

unconstitutional things, etc. I had hoped by this time the democratic majority would be used and that we didn't start new efforts either on our knees or bent over. With a majority, that wouldn't be necessary IF your administration really wanted change.

[Octafish]

65. Ownership Trumps Management

Know your BFEE: Goldmine Sacked or The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One

Know your BFEE: Phil Gramm, the Meyer Lansky of the War Party, Set-Up the Biggest Bank Heist Ever.

And where they perfected the science of legally robbing banks:

Know your BFEE: They Looted Your Nation’s S&Ls for Power and Profit

Management, of course, trumps Labor (in "Their" "minds").

[lyonspotter]

72. This is why an audit of the Fed...

...is immediately necessary. We all should be thankful for the work Grayson, and yes...Ron Paul...have put in on the effort to make it happen!

[sendero]

91. +1000

.... eventually the American people are going to wake up and realize they've been lumbered, and there is going to be hell to pay.

[Peter1x9]

6. I find myself saying this a lot lately:

best government that money can buy. $$$

[guitar man]

49. delete

wrong place :blush:

[tabatha]

10. There should be rioting in the streets.

[tblue]

20. Who? Americans? Don't make me laugh.

We've got 1000 channels on the tv, and Walmart is still open, the lights are still on and what would my neighbors think?

We're not like the Iranians and the Ukrainians or the people of the Amazon. We don't riot. We vote. We write letters. And we hope.

[tabatha]

22. Actually, I think there is a lot of anger, because

some people are not able to get 1000 channels on tv, and food to eat while watching it.
And lights are no longer on in foreclosed homes.

[tblue]

24. But nobody listens to those people.

They are invisible. When you're poor, foreclosed on, you are nobody and nobody cares -- except the liberals, so it's up to us.


From Matt Taibbi's blog:
/snip

I heard a story recently from a Democratic Party operative who tells me that certain members of one of the president’s cabinet departments only got wind of how hard it is out there for ordinary people to pay their bills when they invited in a major corporation to give them a presentation about their financial outlook for the holiday season — and through that report found out that this company’s prospective customers were spending less because large numbers of them had been laid off, or had huge medical bills, or had maxed out their credit, and so on.
/snip

http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/10/22/elizabeth-warren-for-president/

[tabatha]

25. I cannot believe that.

Obama heard stories throughout his campaign, and he reads a letter a day from the public.

[misanthrope]

87. Who picks the letter?**nm

**

[NNN0LHI]

36. Yea they can drive their imported cars to the riot

[Subdivisions]

11. When are we going to stop pretending that we have any control over anything

that goes on in our name and at our expense. Nothing ever changes. NOTHING!

[tblue]

21. This is some of what the teabaggers are saying. Except they blame Obama.

But I think most Americans can agree that we are being royally ripped off. But what do we do with that information?

[Romulox]

12. The majority of the $3B C4C money went to Toyota, Honda, Hyundai.

How this is any different/worse? :shrug:

[KamaAina]

46. All three of those companies manufacture cars in the U.S.

That's one way.

[Romulox]

48. They manufacture *some* cars in the US, but then again, the banks employ people in the US too..

Again, where is the distinction?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

73. Why don't you just come right out and say it?

It went to foreigners, and you don't think foreigners should be allowed to have any of our money because they are foreigners.

[Romulox]

92. I don't think our government should bail out foreign corporations.

You've exposed me, Inspector!

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

95. GM and Chrysler already got their bailouts. n/t

[Romulox]

100. I see that the meaning of simple words elude you. nt

[madrchsod]

80. the chinese were smart--no foreign companies or products

their stimulus is actually working.

[Sebastian Doyle]

101. And here's the bigger irony, that's India's policy too

Wal Mart exists in India, but they can't operate as a retail outlet, because the laws don't allow it.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1898823,00.html

[Kalun D]

14. The Fed is the Serpents Head

The Fed has given ONE TRILLION TO US banks, the Fed has given HALF A TRILLION to overseas banks. When asked who these banks were by congress they said "don't know" "not going to tell you"

The Fed has never had an outside audit in it's entire history. It is a private bank masquerading as a government institution. It oversees all US banking in direct conflict with the constitution.

Jim Leher "what is the proper relationship, what is should be the proper relationship between the Fed and the president of the United States?"

Alan Greenspan "there is no other agency of government that can overule actions that we take, what the relationships are don't frankly matter."

[ZombieHorde]

15. Well that is a blow to morale. nt

[Newsjock]

16. And if we even threaten to do anything about it

... the banksters will just raise our APRs from 30% to 40% because they can. Any attempt at meaningful legislation will be responded to by overt hostility to the U.S. economy.

Quite frankly, I no longer have any idea how we can emerge from this mess.

[BadgerKid]

17. No reason to think the greed cycle won't repeat. n/t

[MarjorieG]

19. Seem to remember Dems wanting to put protections, as well as for foreclosures or credit card

interest and GOP said no. Still, the admin will always want less interference in the markets than the populism here, and nationalism of banks might really have been a step too far and unneeded now.

Let's differentiate what the Bush era did and we did and continue trying to do. Otherwise we stoke populist anger the GOP will gain from ever so dishonestly.

[tblue]

23. It's already becoming the meme that the Dems are the Big Corporation party.

That's what the polls are showing. Obama and Reid need to get on this right now. No excuse for this whatsoever.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

75. Polls? What polls?

Care to back that up?

[Sinti]

26. The system itself is completely broken

and fatally flawed. Adding gasoline to that fire you have a ridiculously misinformed/mal-informed population.

If the all of the necessary actions were taken by anyone at this moment to right the ship, you would have a full on civil war. Some of us would actually be fighting to maintain the weird hegemony of paper they've got going now.

That said, what has happened in the name of fixing the problem has had the result of making the bankers and money system look ridiculous. The stark contrast is so far from a reasonable person's reality, in my opinion, it would be cartoonish if only it didn't kill people.

[phasma ex machina]

74. +1 nt

[notesdev]

27. I've been saying this for months

At first I was ridiculed. Now it's commonly understood.

Democrats are going to get creamed in the 2010 elections. The people are tired of this shit, and we're NOT stupid. VA and NJ this year were not anomalies, they are representative of what we can expect unless we see wholesale change, for real, immediately. Nancy Pelosi will destroy us.

[leveymg]

30. I'll join you in voicing that, "Dems are going to get creamed in the 2010 elections . . VA and NJ

were not anomalies" I absolutely agree, and I'm in VA and saw it close up. The GOP turned out in large numbers, and the Democratic candidate was too far to the Right, and turned off the Dem Party activists by running to the Right, away from Obama on issues like HCR.

The Democratic leadership doesn't yet understand that the key to winning elections is to mobilized the base. Instead, they're back to triangulating, which may pick up part of the center and delivers good value to the Big Money contributors, but it's killing any enthusiasm left among the Netroots and middle-class activists who actually did the hard work of getting out the vote in 2008. The GOP has done one smart thing - they kept their hard-core base together by continuing to appeal to their hard-core message and being consistent in the way they vote.

I fear this is going to lead to disasters for the Democratic Party in 2010 and 2012, and that nobody will be able to turn this one around.

[dotymed]

47. The message in the streets

is that there is no longer a two-party system. No matter how
you vote, the corporations and the elite will win. Our party
has/is playing right into this message. Bipartisanship? Come
on...all that does is have us hug the guy who wants to crush
us, and he isn't about to change his vote, just make the
Democratic party weaken any legislation they put forth. It
makes them look weak. Maybe this is what they think centrism
is, but it is capitulation. By not holding strong to our
"left leaning" principals, and not giving Americans
a choice, we have become one party. The only difference is
civil-rights.  We give lip service to Gay rights,
abortion,labor, etc... but we don't push them. The repugs push
their (yech) views and make them into oppressive legislation.
That is not enough of a distinction to bring Democrats to the
polls. Maybe it should be, but it's not. Those issues do not
affect enough of the voting Democrats (or so they think), to
bring them to the polls. What would bring them out in droves
are the meat and potatoes issues. Real HC (medicare for all),
jobs (a huge jobs program like the WPA),Economic Reform
(regulate the hell out of the financial institutions, set a
reasonable profit margin and limit CEO salaries), Taxes (
raise the wealth tax to pre-Reagan levels) I guess I should
say :Progressive Reform is what really shows the difference
between D and R's. The people voted for "change" and
we are getting Repug-lite. That has made us reluctant to
believe in any substantive difference between the parties. Too
bad President Obama is not progressive, if he were, now would
be the opportune moment in American history to improve the
life of the common man. I think people really thought he would
do that when they elected him. So far, the message in the
street has been correct and the only ones charged up for (or
even feel like it will make a difference) are the
right-wingers who want to dominate the minorities and ride
this country down the tubes.

[leveymg]

51. And, I'll join you in that one, too. Well said!

The promise of reform without the reality of change inevitably hits the wall. UATWMFs!

[Prana69]

79. But you know the Party is going to conclude that....

... Republicans won NJ and VA, therefore, if we want to win, we need to be more like Republicans.

You know that's what they have already concluded, don't you?

Sure, we on the left analyse the defeats and say "no, no, you need to be more to the left, to appeal to the progressive vote", but they will spin it how they want. The Party is controlled by corporate interests. Those interests align more closely with the Republicans than the Democrats.

As a political strategy, the Democrats are moving to the right in order to capture and dominate the centre. When the Democrats move to the centre they push the Republicans even further to the right (see this happening?) Ultimately, the Republicans start to look like crazies (see this happening?) and the Democrats start to look like the moderate centre, particularly to those on the moderate right who might normally vote Republican, but can be persuaded to vote Democrat if the Republicans are too far to the right.

The Party assumes that those on the left will continue to vote Democrat even though their progressive policy preferences are not being satisfied, because they know that the left will never vote Republican. They also know that if they successfully capture the centre, they can afford to lose the votes of the traditional left.

Governments are made and unmade in the centre, not on the fringes.

But it is a delicate and dangerous balancing act. If it looks like the votes leaving on the left are going to outnumber the votes being gained in the centre, the Party will throw a bone to the left to bring them back to the fold just long enough to secure the next election.

It's been happening in the political cycles of most western democracies over the last 15 years. Parties that are traditionally of the left have been moving to the centre - Blair in the UK, Rudd in Australia, Clinton and Obama in the US.

Ideally, a new political party would come into force to the left to capture the traditional left vote. In Australia, the Greens are having some success but they are a long way from becoming a truly competitive third party. Neither the UK nor the US appears to have any strong third political force on the left.

So, are Dems going to get creamed in 2010? I don't believe so. They may lose the left vote but they'll gain the centre and the DLC will applaud the strategy and continue down that path.

Sharing the frustration.....
P69

[leveymg]

88. A recent statement by Tim Kaine makes me believe he understands the message and its meaning.

Kaine was quoted the other day as saying that the reason the Dems lost VA was because the activists were turned off. That echoes exactly what I observed here the day after we lost that election: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/leveymg/459

So, not all the inside-the-beltway political class is under the illusion that the road to victory and eternal dominance needs to be through the center-right. The more insightful elites know that's a losing strategy this time. American politics is achieving some clarity, as it did in 1948, when the old 2-party system was last on the verge of shattering into 4 parties: GOP, Dixiecrat (Strom Thurman), Anti-communist Dems (Truman and the ADA), Progressive Party (Henry Wallace). Maybe, that's what needs to happen again. I think the illusion that the Democratic Party, as it stands today, can again be a progressive party as it was under FDR and the New Dealers has been shattered.

[jennygirl]

28. Unfortunately, thanks to us India's Middle Class is larger than Europe's

This is what my Indian-American PCP says and he visits India at least three times a year. He says thanks to American corporations, India's growing middle class is getting fat and happy and are buying all kinds of American goodies that they couldn't afford in the past.

[leveymg]

31. Why is that a bad thing?

Do you want all of them to still be poor? It's not like they didn't work hard to raise their own standard of living. Same for the Chinese.

No, the problem is that the American people have refused to insist that adequate levels of investment continue here in the U.S. There are no controls on the movement of capital, just on people.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

70. It's a bad thing because non-Americans are not allowed to have money.

As Americans, we have a God-given right to own everything and have all the money. Other people having money is bad. Other people buying the same gadgets we buy is bad. If anybody else has money it means we've failed.

[mitchum]

103. I take it that is not a Made In America hair shirt that you so self-righteously wear?

[Sebastian Doyle]

102. What's bad about it, is that it's at the expense of the American people

If a company wants to create an Indian division, to make products or provide services for India and employ Indians to do so, that's fine. Exporting American jobs over there is not.

[pampango]

37. Your comment led me to check our exports to India have increased by $10 billion

a year in the last four years from just under $8 billion in 2005 to just under $18 billion in 2008.

The growing middle class there is probably one of the reasons that the EU is negotiating a trade agreement with India to get them to reduce their tariffs to the level of the EU and US.

[Romulox]

93. Right. But did the balance of trade improve or worsen during that time?

You don't know, and don't care, do ya?

:hi:

[pampango]

97. The balance got worse from 2005 to 2006, then has improved each year since then.

If you cared, I assume you would have looked it up. ;)

[Romulox]

99. Source? (Please no US Chamber of Commerce, Heritage Foundation links...)

:hi:

[pampango]

106. Census Bureau. I had a link for you, but then thought of the CofC and HF digs and

decided you are quite capable of doing your own research. I'm sure you don't engage in these trade discussions without access to any facts, so I'll be interested to see what your statistics on our trade with India show, particularly if they differ from mine. ;)

You asked whether our balance of trade got better or worse. Here's the information I used in my response.

2005: -$10.9 billion
2006: -$12.2 billion
2007: -$9.1 billion
2008: -$8.0 billion
2009: -$3.2 billion (through September)

[Romulox]

107. LOL at you acting put out when asked to substantiate your advocacy.

You advocate for "free trade" here both night and day, making wild and outrageous claims, then bristle when asked to substantiate them? :eyes:

[Romulox]

109. PS: Your data still shows that the balance of trade has WORSENED with India

since the year 2000.

So what you are talking about is simply taking back a *little* of the lost ground. The situation is still considerably worse than it was 10 years ago.

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5330.html#2009

[treestar]

60. If they are "buying Americans goodies" how is it "unfortunate?"

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

69. You're right. It's horribly unfortunate that India has a middle class.

They should all know their place and go back to being poor. I mean, who do they think they are? Americans?

[a la izquierda]

78. Your ridiculous insinuations to several people...

in this thread that Indians, and others, should "know their place and go back to being poor" is off-base and offensive. YOU are reading that into their comments. No one is saying this. What people are defending is the right of the American worker to make a living fucking wage. That, my friend, is a progressive value.

You haven't been able to make a coherent argument all thread, and no one has called you on it, except me. I'm tired of reading your inane and uncalled for remarks. Get over yourself.

If you can't handle progressive, support for American middle class workers, I think you might be lost.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

82. Foreigners are not stealing your standard of living.

And really, if maintaining the American standard of living means denying it to everyone else in the world, then I say fuck the American standard of living.

[a la izquierda]

89. No one is stealing my standard of living...

I'm about to become a professor of Latin American history. And no one is saying that in order to raise up the American worker, we must stand on the necks of others. I haven't read that in one single instance on this thread. Yes, there are most DEFINTELY cases of this on DU, particularly in the immigration threads. And you and I would certainly be in agreement in those instances, mark my words.
But, I do realise that corporations, left unchecked, have done nothing but screw American workers. Workers are the backbones of any society, be it the US, Chile, Mexico or India. When a part of society sides with the corporations, against their fellow worker, things will go down the tubes quickly.
But no one is suggesting that in this thread, and I'm sorry if I took such a harsh tone with you in my earlier response.

[zazen]

29. the Congr Black Caucus is holding up Financial Services legis until they get concessions on this

At least they're bringing more attention to the problem. I can only imagine what the U-6 rate is among African American men at this point, if it's approaching 1 in 5 for the general population.

[democracy1st]

32. This is admin is owned by Wall St

[blindpig]

39. As are they all...

differences are mostly a matter of style and empty rhetoric.

[Octafish]

105. JFK stood up to Wall Street

Kennedy work toward economic justice that seems to have been forgotten by Corporate McPravda and Amerikan Akademika:

"In Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency, University of Pittsburgh Professor Donald Gibson shows that Kennedy’s progressive economic policies were bitterly opposed by the highest ranks of the American business and banking establishment," according to Daily KOS fellow NBBooks. Here are details on how President Kennedy worked to rein in these bagmen for privatized empire:

Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency Part 1

Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency Part 2

You may know how I like to point out Wall Street's role in the rise of modern feudalism.

Sorry to sound so, eh, pedantic, blindpig. But things weren't always like today.

[Enthusiast]

33. Can you say disenchanted?

And imagine, the efforts to expand corporate influence is going full force. As if it wasn't bad enough in the past.

[pipoman]

34. What we really need is a Pacific Rim Free Trade Agreement!

Then we can all get to that economy which was promised us, which we provide oil changes and haircuts to each other and live happily ever after!!

[Vinca]

35. And they wonder why the job numbers don't improve.

It's time for some protectionism.

[OnionPatch]

40. If I could rec this again, I would!

I can't understand why our high unemployment numbers are such a mystery to our politicians. It's clear as the nose on my face....American corporations can't be bothered to pay living wages to Americans anymore. Why should they when there is cheap labor available elsewhere?

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

61. You've hit on it here.

Part of the dismantling of the American Dream. Americans used to take pride when they said they wanted to ensure their children have more opportunities, a better standard of living, etc.. than their own. No more. Today, for the first time in US history, CorpAmerica is urging Americans to accept a lower standard of living than previous generations.

[Odin2005]

41. These fuckers need their necks wrung like sacrificed lab rats.

[OhioChick]

43. Without a doubt.

:mad:

[ihavenobias]

44. #55. n/t

[chill_wind]

45. K & R # 59.

[guitar man]

50. Viva la Deregulation!!

Long live Reaganomics!!!

:sarcasm:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

68. I'm not aware that this type of outsourcing has ever been regulated.

To what specific piece of deregulation are you referring?

[Greyhound]

52. What, you have a problem with having your future mortgaged to finance

China and India's "prosperity"?

[winyanstaz]

53. You nailed it. Greed is one of the biggest problems on the planet..

I say..ANY company that outsources the jobs...is NO LONGER an AMERICAN company...fuck them..let them belong to the country they have betrayed us too.....and we need the tariffs back too.

[GreenTea]

54. Why not? The banks are run by wealthy republicans - This will help insure Obama's recovery will

never occur.

And republicans can grab all those seats and the presidency again....think of it...the republican in control and their elitism corporate policies, tax cuts for the rich, exploiting our lands, world imperialism and destroying & privatizing all government programs for more profits for the corporations.

This is what the republican bankers would love to see achieved!

[placton]

58. if only the PRESIDENT

knew about this, I am sure he would do something to change it. As he has so many times. Maybe in 8 years, he will see every US job shipped overseas at the behest of his corporate masters, errr, friends.

[SammyWinstonJack]

66. He has three years, he'd better step it up.

:evilgrin: There's still those pesky 'entitlement' programs too be reformed. Three yrs left to complete the screwing over of us peons by our CORPORATE OVERLORDS and Obama is just the guy to finish it. Oh well, at least he speaks well and doesn't smirk .... much.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

71. You're right. We should make it illegal for American companies to hire non-Americans.

And when we're done with that maybe we can get around to ensuring that they never hire non-whites, homosexuals, and other assorted malcontents.

[Romulox]

94. If you like breathless (not to say histrionic) straw men arguments, this guy has gotcha covered! nt

[mitchum]

104. But you would think that a paid shill would be better at it

He's all energy and no finesse.
I guess that is what happens when one outsources shilling.

[treestar]

59. "may?"

that article says no such thing. It only hints it "may" happen. It doesn't even quote anyone.

[Romulox]

108. If "may" turns into "absolutely", you'll still support it, so why quibble?

You've never qualified your advocacy for outsourcing in the past. Why start now? :shrug:

[valerief]

67. And that's a surprise in what way? If they CAN fuck us over, they WILL fuck us over.

Jobs seem to be zero-sum in this world.

[invictus]

77. K&R

[RagAss]

84. A Hard Rain is Gonna Fall !

Motherfuckers !

[zoff]

85. We have been divided and conquered.

[misanthrope]

86. It's not outrageous, it's the American Way**nm

**

[bridgit]

90. 90 replies with +127 recs and not five DUer's saying they'd be willing to do it themselves

:thumbsup:

[bertman]

110. I'm obtuse, bridgit. What did you mean by that? Thanks.

[western mass]

96. thank you, Democrats

for making this all possible.