|
Post by dixie56 on Jan 24, 2007 21:27:47 GMT -5
Oh excusssssssssssssssssse me! What, there are no smart Americans to fill the jobs? This man will go down in history as the destroyer of this nation (and I have a right to say that after, unfortunately, voting for him TWICE!) What a total FOOL I was! Kerry was no better choice either. We HAD no decent choices! www.hispanicbusiness.com/news/newsbyid.asp?id=53907&cat=Business+NewsBush Calls for More H-1B Visas January 24, 2007 By Patricia Guadalupe During a speech Wednesday afternoon to DuPont employees in Delaware, President Bush said he is urging Congress to expand the number of H-1B visas, so-called "technical professional" visas, which are set aside for foreign professionals with college degrees. The yearly quota for the highly sought visas fills very quickly. "I want you to know I understand that we need to make sure that when a smart person from overseas wants to come and work in DuPont, it's in our interests to allow him or her to do so. We've got to expand what's called H-1B visas," the president said. "It makes no sense to say to a young scientist from India, you can't come to America to help this company develop technologies that help us deal with our problems." The H-1B visas are currently capped at 65,000 and efforts to increase its availability have been unsuccessful. Last year, a legislative effort to increase the number to 115,000 failed. Advocates say the program helps keep U.S. companies from moving operations abroad, while opponents argue that it displaces American workers with foreigners who would work for less pay. Legislation to make more H-1B visas available has yet to be introduced in the 110th Congress.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 24, 2007 21:48:44 GMT -5
The other option is that the companies will STILL give these jobs to them in India and America loses the spending revenue of those people, since they are in another country.
The destruction of this nation didn't start with Bush and won't end with him, so don't beat yourself up too bad for voting for him.
|
|
|
Post by killer on Jan 24, 2007 22:05:00 GMT -5
Is there a shortage of Americans who can do these jobs?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 24, 2007 22:15:41 GMT -5
Is there a shortage of Americans who can do these jobs? That or they can pay foreign workers a lower salary for the same or greater output. Why else would business do it? There is the slight reason of "Diversity" that could outweigh the above reasons as well, to the governmentally regulated allotment.
|
|
|
Post by killer on Jan 24, 2007 22:24:22 GMT -5
I understand the business reasoning.
Away goes the middle class of Americans.
|
|
|
Post by dixie56 on Jan 25, 2007 6:58:27 GMT -5
Phinehas I know this has been coming for a long time, very slowly so that we would not notice. However, bush is putting the last nails in the coffin.
|
|
lovinusa
Cog in Training
God Bless the USA
Posts: 78
|
Post by lovinusa on Jan 25, 2007 10:51:30 GMT -5
this all started in the late 70's with Ronald Reagan “North American accord” see- www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Ronald_Reagan_Free_Trade.htmReagan himself was a dreamer, capable of imagining a world without trade barriers. In announcing his presidential candidacy in Nov. 1979, he had proposed a “North American accord” in which commerce & people would move freely across the borders of Canada & Mexico. This idea, largely overlooked or dismissed as a campaign gimmick in the US, rankled nationalist sensibilities in the neighboring nations. But Reagan was serious in his proposal. Though he traveled only once outside the North American continent during his first 57 years, he was neither insular nor isolationist. California has windows to the world in Asia, and Reagan thought of the US as a Pacific power as well as an Atlantic one. He also had a Californian’s consciousness of Mexico and an actor’s appreciation of Canadians, who are well-represented in the film community. The dream of a North American accord would drive the successful pursuit of a US-Canadian free trade agreement and a future-oriented “framework” trade agreement with Mexico You who want to blame Bush for all the woes in in the worlds try looking at the history of trade and immigration in this country. this did not start with him and will not end with him. Whether we like it or not a "world economy" is coming just take a look at the WTO web site. www.gatt.org/This has been going on since WW2 its nothing new. With todays age of technology it will only get worse or better depending on how you look at it. We can scream and holler, jump up and down, blame Bush, etc, but if you really think think the next guy in office will change anything your sadly mistaken. All we can do try to get our congressmen and senators to pass legislation to limit it but that will only be temporary at best. International trade and technical knowledge is the "wave of the future" and unfortunately if we in the US want to stop the wave we need to step up and educate ourselves so the "wave" won't drown us.
|
|
|
Post by killer on Jan 25, 2007 10:56:29 GMT -5
Maybe Bush is not the one to blame for initiating bad policy. But that is no excuse for him to continue it. It is unacceptable to say, "I'm doing it because so and so did it." Real leaders lead and do not follow.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 6, 2007 15:19:08 GMT -5
I thought the objection was to illegal immigration.
Are we now opposing legal immigration as well?
|
|
|
Post by solinvictus on May 6, 2007 22:09:26 GMT -5
The problem is twofold: first, the government's gutted our educational assistance programs to the point that a secondary technical or university education is priced out of range to working and middle class Americans. The entire "work your way through school" ethos is a relic when one considers that tuition, books, and fees at schools have increased in double-digit percentages when compared to earnings. Second, political pressures have killed our system of public education with such lunacy as social-based promotion, weak curricula, lowered standards, and an emphasis on standardized testing rather than true learning.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 6, 2007 22:24:20 GMT -5
sol-
Good take, as usual.
I floated the idea that we ought to conscript all young folks to serve some sort of national service for some period of time. It could be military service but it does not have to be- it could be working overseas for Americorps or domestically with Habitat For Humanity (or similar programs).
In return, the 'veteran' receives one year of college education at the school of their choice at the government's expense (all fees, tuition, books, etc.) plus a weekly stipend to cover expenses outside of school for each year of national service they complete.
I've never quite understood why college costs are increasing at multiples of the rate of inflation (same for gas prices and healthcare costs for that matter). I don't think today's college education is ten times better than the one my dad got in 1950, even though that is approximately how much it costs now in comparison to what he paid.
Finally, I think competition in schools is the way to go to improve schools for everyone. Let the tax money spent per pupil follow the pupil as he and his parents decide what school they want the child to attend. Failing schools will either shut their doors or improve- exactly as it should be.
|
|
|
Post by solinvictus on May 6, 2007 22:34:11 GMT -5
sol- Good take, as usual. I floated the idea that we ought to conscript all young folks to serve some sort of national service for some period of time. It could be military service but it does not have to be- it could be working overseas for Americorps or domestically with Habitat For Humanity (or similar programs). In return, the 'veteran' receives one year of college education at the school of their choice at the government's expense (all fees, tuition, books, etc.) plus a weekly stipend to cover expenses outside of school for each year of national service they complete. I've never quite understood why college costs are increasing at multiples of the rate of inflation (same for gas prices and healthcare costs for that matter). I don't think today's college education is ten times better than the one my dad got in 1950, even though that is approximately how much it costs now in comparison to what he paid. Finally, I think competition in schools is the way to go to improve schools for everyone. Let the tax money spent per pupil follow the pupil as he and his parents decide what school they want the child to attend. Failing schools will either shut their doors or improve- exactly as it should be. I agree; allow parents to have ultimate discretion in their school choices and vote with their $$ when needed. John Stossel did a great report surveying the failures of American schools and, as a point of comparison, he used Belgium's system of vouchers. Belgian parents demand the BEST they can afford and by and large get it. Our educational system has become a political pawn and is now largely incapable of training children in a vocation, let alone in basic citizenship. Look at Birmingham, for example: the pinheaded superintendent's more worried about teachers and staff losing jobs than he is about the hemorrhage of students leaving the system. I can also see the need for a renewed "Alphabet Soup" program like the ones from the New Deal to train and assist in education initiatives.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 6, 2007 23:10:23 GMT -5
Last year I remember how my daughter's principal told us of the school's plan to educate and the graduation exam. When he got through, I got the strong impression that their approach to education would be to "teach the test" -- the graduation exam that is. I wonder how many schools are taking that approach knowing that they will be largely graded on the school's percentage of students who pass the exam?
I've often accused other countries who have higher exam scores of doing this. Also, it is fairly well known that some countries "cull" their students at an early age so that more intelligent students get an education and the others go out and work the fields. I don't have time to research this but I seem to remember that several Asian countries were doing this.
Personally, regardless of who's doing it, it sucks. Kids should be learning so they can continue to be innovators. At this rate all we are doing is training them to do well at taking certain tests. The real world doesn't work that way.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 7, 2007 17:21:07 GMT -5
I've got an (purely intellectual) Man Crush on John Stossel and I'm not ashamed to admit it.
I just can't believe that the Powers That Be on 20/20 allow him on the air. It would seem that he steps on far, FAR too many toes.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 7, 2007 17:30:29 GMT -5
kevin-
Legitimate concern.
I'd reply that, even if they do "teach to the test"- which I have little doubt that, the worse the school system, the more likely they are to do just that- the kids are going to have to learn some basics and maybe even the occasional advanced concept in the pursuit of the passing of these tests.
It's not a pefect system, but the only real alternative, given the current climate, is to engage in "outcome-based education" and that's a recipe for educational disaster (and ultimately national disaster as well).
I'd venture to say that very few countries who outperform us academically have the diversity of national and cultural backgrounds we do.
If Japan suddenly took in immigrants from, say, Kazakhstan equal to some 8% of their school-age population, don't you imagine that their educational proficiency would decline dramatically?
I'm a huge admirer of the Japanese educational system and I wish we could implement it here....but I've come to the conclusion that it works best, if at all, in as homogeneous society as possible. I just don't think it'd work here, even if we solved the illegal immigration crisis.
Those kids who have the capacity to be innovators should be encouraged to maximize that potential.
But not all kids have that potential. Someone's got to launder the clothes, pump the gas and stock store shelves.
If someone has the capability to be a rocket scientist, by all means push them to 'be all they can be'. But encourage someone stocking shelves to be the best they can be at that too.
|
|
|
Post by solinvictus on May 7, 2007 21:38:47 GMT -5
The problem is that our "coddle the lazy idiot" education system by and large penalizes those who have potential. What about the graduation ceremonies with multiple valedictorians? The entire self-esteem movement has entrenched an entitlement mentality in our school systems; much like the rest of society. For the record, here's part of the Stossel report: abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1500338
|
|
|
Post by Twista on May 8, 2007 2:50:27 GMT -5
Calling for more H-1B's... Typical Bush timing... LOL Here is a good read about the upcoming termination of 50 to 150 thousand employees from IBM, which should flood the job market with a ton of highly trained technical people (though they will undoubtedly be the "useless oldtimers" of 35+ years old) and was broken by Robert X. Cringley ONE DAY before the call for more "needed workers"... www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070504_002027.html Basically, IBM is going to eliminate it's global services division in the US, and move the positions, job for job, to India... They are also going to just cancel any contract that is not profitable enough for them, with no advance notice to the businesses that have signed on for a long term commitment to use IBM's services... It's the american style bastardization of the Toyota LEAN principles, where a company grows and prospers by elimination of extra steps and workers, so becoming more efficient at production of it's products and systems, and then moves the extra workers to other progects to garner new business. Only the IBM way is to eliminate the "extra workers" by moving the positions out of the country, to save on wages/pensions and then not even attempting to use those excess assets to grow the company... (Looks great for the next few quarters balance sheets and pumps the stock price, but ruins the company long-term.) I'll bet the IBMers are REAL happy to hear about the need for extra H-1B visas coming right now... So if anyone is in IT as a career, you may want to hunker down in your present job and/or ask for any raises pretty soon, before the IBMers (and additional H-1B's) hit the streets later this year...
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 8, 2007 16:48:30 GMT -5
Easy solution, twista:
1) Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment
2) Vote on, pass and implement the Fair Tax.
3) Look for news stories fro India lamenting the outsourcing of Indian jobs to the United States.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 8, 2007 18:57:17 GMT -5
2) Vote on, pass and implement the Fair Tax. I'm on the fence about the Fair Tax. I guess its because I really haven't looked into it too much due to skepticism over whether it will ever become reality. Outside of talk radio, I never hear anyone address it. Plus, reduce the IRS? Trim down a government entity? Blasphemy! I can see it now though. If the Fair Tax does get passed I've be living like a pauper 'cause I know that I'll be saving all of that tax money by not spending! I'm already so tight now that only dogs hear me when I fart.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 8, 2007 23:20:17 GMT -5
kevin- It's one of the reasons I'm a Mike Huckabee fan. He brought it up by name during the debate the other night (as did maybe Duncan Hunter). For info, www.fairtax.org is the place to go. In a nutshell, it is the only alternative taxation method that is "revenue-neutral", meaning the it will provide at the very least the same amount of revenue to the Federal government that the current tax system does. And, as you pointed out, it gives the consumer- us- the ability to have at least some control over how much we pay in taxes, as it's tied to what we spend rather than what we make. If one of the Big Three Republican candidates adopted the Fair Tax and used every opportunity to 'splain it to the American people and how it would benefit them no matter what their income level is, promising to get rid of the IRS and the tax code if elected, I don't think any Democrat candidate could beat him.
|
|