Cynical Nation

I hate them and hope they lose all of their money.

Barry, you're a divider, not a uniter, and now you're playing the class card.

Heh.

Barry, rich socialists (including American Liberals & Euro-Socialists) are common, precisely because courage is uncommon and self-interest and selfishnes is very common.

Often those who earn great fortunes are VERY Conservative while climbing the mountain, but once there's no where to go but down, the incentive to rise out of poverty is long gone and the spectre of their hunger-challenged offspring having to compete to hold onto the family fortune in a tank full of sharks (folks as ambitious and hungry as they themselves once were) look to the State.

It takes real courage to maintain faith in yourself and your softer offspring under such circumstances.

Both Socialism and to a les severe extent Corporatism often seem like their salvation. They lock in the current status quo by either regulating new start-ups and new businesses out of the market, or making it impossible for new companies and new ideas to enter the market (Corporatism) OR simply maintaining the current providers/enterprises as monopolies as State sanctioned Companies.

Armand Hammer (of Occidental Petroleum, AL Gore Sr's old friend) was granted a veritable monopoly status in the former USSR, thus an American and the founder of the CPUSA became a favored member of the Soviet elite.

Socialism, at least in practice, ONLY makes sense for the very rich. It's the workers and Middle Class that are usually the primary victims of that hideous and vile ideology.

Look around, not one Socialist society ever targeted the very rich. The Rothchilds still ran the German Bank while Hitler was in power and Hammer and other super-rich businessmen thrived under Stalin and they made a few politicians (leaches who inevitably turn their backs on the people for a few duckets...almost all pols are like that) extremely wealthy. That's why the average citizens who did all the labor and bore all the burdens in the former USSR lived in squalid "efficiency apartments," while the wealthy pols lived in Villas/Dachas and the super-rich lived their traditional "jet-setting" lifestyles, while everyone else suffered terribly.

That is the legacy of Socialism...and that is the legacy of economic cowardice on the part of the rich.

I much prefer hypocritical rich conservatives who used priveledge and inherited wealth to springboard into the spotlight and then whinge on like they are self-made men.

Dunce Dubya comes to mind.

It's not merely a matter of choice Bailey, as in, "I prefer a more communal/socialist approach and he prefers a more individualistic/Conservative approach."

One ideology works (the latter) and one ideology is not only dysfunctional in practice, but malevolent in its outlook (the former).

Wealthy Liberals are more common, quite frankly, because selfishness and cowardice are more common. It's really just as simple as that.

What do you call a wealthy "Euro-Socialist/American-Liberal?

A greedy, self-centered slob who'd do anything, including lie, steal, cheat and use government as a weapon, in order to protect his own position and stature even at the expense of human progress and thwarting other people's potential via government action.

What do you call a Middle or Working class Euro-Socialist/American-Liberal?

A dupe.

These dupes generally fall into two categories, those who doubt their own abilities and those who feel "entitled" to be taken care of by government.

Friedrick Neitzsche had a term for such folks - "Useless eaters."

Well, let's see. As of 2000 I owned two businesses, built during the Clinton Administration. I was slightly rich. However, when the Bush/Gore election came, I felt that Gore was a dangerous nut, so I voted for Bush.

Thanks to that cocksucker (Dubya) and his anti-small business / pro-big business bullshit, I now own zero companies. In fact, my Math and Science heavy Computer Science degree and my decades of experience creating commercial software now gets me about the same as a dumbass teacher makes.

Big Business restrained itself from acts of treason while Clinton was in office, but "Anything Goes" George gave them the green light and they shipped an ENTIRE INDUSTRY built by AMERICAN PROGRAMMERS to Bangladore, India.

Do you have any idea how many kids I told to go into Computer Science? Sure, it is a tough degree, but hey, techonology, Math and Science, all the bullshit lies the government espouses to make people believe that it is THEIR fault they have a shitty job, because after all, they didn't do Math and Science!

No. The reason I have a shitty job is the policies of my own corrupt government, pimping for anything Big Business wants with the full backing of Neocon dumbasses who seem to honestly believe that cutting American wages 75% will be good for the economy, because Walmart will be able to CHARGE LESS! Yes, the customer is king ... um, well, a kinda broke king ... maybe the customer is a pauper.

Even more insulting is now Indians gibber at me all day in their pigeon English, trying to RECRUIT ME to work for THEM -- at a third of what I used to make.

I left the industry. My kids are not going to follow me into Computer Science, or any other Science. Law and/or Business -- that's all America is any more.

They will produce nothing. They will learn how to gain control over resources and skirt around the law. America is not longer about what you produce, or what you know, it is about what you control, and who you know.

Bailey, you personally may have only felt the effects of an expanded GATT & an instituted NAFTA after 2000, but that does not change its etiology.

GATT was expanded in 1991 under the auspices of a Tip O'Neill Congress and NAFTA was passed in January of 1994.

Big business DID NOT operate ethically under Clinton, as you suggest. During that administration an artificail Tech Bubble was built on a few slippery rules chages at the SEC that, among other things, made going public with an IPO a lot easier. Enron, Adelphia, Worldcom and other Arthur Anderson clients started their scandalous activities in the late 1990s.

The current administration, largely thanks to a GOP Congress, passed Oxley-Sorbannes, which corrected a lot of the abuses that was at the heart of those scandals.

Business must cater to the wants of its customers, just as workers must cater to the wants of IT'S clients, which are business and industry.

If you're angry that so many American jobs have been shipped off shore, than you're really angry about an expanded GATT and NAFTA and those weren't passed under this administration.

Both Democrats and Republicans, NOT "neocons" (whatever they are...usually it's used as another term for "Jewish cabal"), are on board with the Free Trade bandwagon now-a-days.

The last American politician to truly stand against Free Trade and in favor of Fair Trade was Pat Buchanan and he was backed by Indian economist Ravi Batra to no avail.

PJB was the last best hope for Fair Trade.

The same complaints are made about the Free Market - "An open market allows for way too much economic dislocation. There is no job security for the worker and no financial security, even for the successful businessman of the moment, because there are no regulations, no barriers to any new technology knocking established ones...and all those jobs that those established technologies created."

Proponents of more open markets argue that the new opportunities that come with those new technologies will more than offset that dislocation. In other words, "Workers will find new jobs, in new fields and life will go on."

What about the time lag, that leaves some workers and some businesses in the lurch?

Hey! They too will eventually be swept up in the wave of the new opportunities, according to proponents.

Free traders make pretty much the same arguments for free trade, though as I've said, the adverse impact inflicted upon First World workers is much heavier and not always offfset by the rising tide of escalating global incomes.

That's why I have always been a PJB supporter myself, but I'm not going to deny reality - Free trade rules the day now.

And I'm not going to accuse a government that democratically instituted this move to Free Trade (as I said NAFTA & GATT were both enacted by Democratic Congresses) of any nefarious motives.

I can see none.

I like Buchanan as a candidate. Unfortunately, the news only shouted NAZI NAZI NAZI and news anchors practically rolled their eyes as they lied about his positions.

How can you not see any nefarious motives? Our democratic elections mean nothing when lobbyists carrying suitcases full of cash form a line outside of every congressional office.

You don't think that Big Business pressured congress into raising the H1-B visa cap over and over and over, until it hit 500,000 for computer programmers? Did you know that most government offices use my American tax dollars to buy cheap offshore programming in Bangladore, India?

Please.

How can you not see any nefarious motives? (BH)

I see a terminal short-sightedness, both on government's and business's part. (JMK)

Our democratic elections mean nothing when lobbyists carrying suitcases full of cash form a line outside of every congressional office. (BH)

That's been an unfortunate reality for a very long time now. In fact, it is a major and probably intractable weakness inherant in all democracies - cash counts more than votes. (JMK)

You don't think that Big Business pressured congress into raising the H1-B visa cap over and over and over, until it hit 500,000 for computer programmers? Did you know that most government offices use my American tax dollars to buy cheap offshore programming in Bangladore, India?

Please. (BH)

I'm sure many businesses sought to raise the H1-B visa limits, but government was on board, in large measure, to cut its own costs.

The H1-B visas are limited in time of stay and according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics never quite reached 200,000.

"The current law limits to 65,000 the number of aliens who may be issued a visa or otherwise provided H-1B status in FY2004. (The numerical limitation was temporarily raised to 195,000 in FY2001, FY2002 and FY2003.)

Under current law, an alien can be in H-1B status for a maximum period of six years at a time. After that time an alien must remain outside the United States for one year before another H-1B petition can be approved."

http://uscis.gov/graphics/howdoi/h1b.htm

While I agree with Buchanan that the dislocating effects on many Americans of this switch to Free Trade will be severe, at least during that lag period between which new opportunities catch up to the economic dislocation of existing opportunities erased, I think that Libertarians are largely right that in the long run, the newer opportunities will be more prosperity creating than the old ones.

Sorry, but until the work was sent to Bangladore, the H1-B visa cap was met in JANUARY every year -- and that was only H1-B visas, and only legal workers. The truth is that millions of foreigners came over to destroy the IT field and take away the jobs of the most educated Americans in a Math & Science technology field, you know, what are kids are supposed to be preparing for.

As usual, a Neocon has no answer when you say "What new opportunities?"

"Um, they are coming!"

We created an entire computer industry and it was shipped off. Who in the hell is working to create another industry for corporations to pimp out? Nobody.

Where are these new opportunities? Walmart?

Who in their right mind would innovate in a country where your ideas will be stolen and relocated to the profit of huge multinational corporations and third world countries that you don't have a prayer of competing against?

Nobody.

There are no new opportunities, and there will be none.

American jobs are going to shit.

Thanks Republicans!

Again, a DEMOCRATIC controlled Congress passed NAFTA (while a Dem was in the White House) and another DEMOCRATRIC controlled Congress expanded GATT...if you really think outsourcing has been a disaster for America, than your last line must read, "Thanks Democrats!"

There is really very little true "unemployment," (people who can't find jobs) in the U.S., most of the unemployment we face is "STRUCTURAL UNEMPLOYMENT," (people who don't have the requisite skills to take on the jobs that are available).

As we speak, there is a severe shortage of accountants in America, a shortage of qualified medical professionals, as well as math and science teachers.

Anyone who is at all entreprenurial will always seize upon the next opportunity. A guy I went to school with who'd always been entreprenurial, constantly bounced from one "craze driven business" to another, from Slot Car tracks, to a fitness center, to making drill bits for off shore rigs. That last one was the longest lasting and most lucrative of his endeavors. Did I mention the shortage of machinists in America?

It's a fairly severe shortage and that makes them expensive as hell. So when NAFTA was passed, the energy companies that used to buy from him, soon began buying from cheaper firms from Mexico and other Central and South American contries.

He was pushed out of that business by market forces and he moved on and now has a financial services business, hawking investment strategies.

A real entrepenure always lands on his feet, because people like that don't wait for oppotunities to come to them, they find opportunities.

Right now times are good and it's a lot more real than that artificial, "faux Tech Bubble" that developed in the late 1990s out of a little slight of hand at the SEC!

The economy's been growing at over 3%/year for the last three years, new home sales are at near highs, personal income is up and unemployment is down...the Dow is approaching 11,000 and the NASDAQ is flirting with 2500.

If GATT & NAFTA and the outsourcing they spurred, have hurt you, then at least have the common sense to place the blame where it belongs - with the Democratic controlled Congress & WH that passed NAFTA in January of 1994 and the Democratic controlled Congress that expanded GATT in 1991.

I'd still disagree with your assessment, but I'd at least agree that you'd placed the blame for those things where it belonged - with the Dems.

What a bunch of goddamned lies. Every time Big Business has to pay the going rate, SUPPLY AND DEMAND, then it's time to import foreigners or ship the work off!

Corporations might have pushed for a high cap under Dems, but it was Dumbass Dubya and the Republicans who stood by smirking while the entire industry was shipped away. This didn't happen under Clinton.

NAFTA has not a fucking thing to do with the computer industry. Banglodore isn't in Mexico, dumbass.

I was unemployed for six months, and underemployed for another year, meaning less than half of my previous income. Now I'm up to 70% of my previous salary. No, not what my businesses earned, just the salary of the jobs I had five and ten years before. I still don't make 40% of what my businesses brought in.

I have friends who are doctors, and it's getting hard to find a white face in a hospital. Oh my, is there a doctor shortage? No, there is a CHEAP doctor shortage, just like there was a cheap programmer shortage.

You see, this is how capitalism works: supply and demand. What corporations are allowed to do is manipulate the supply of labor, and also manipulate the supplies of their products, such as oil and gas.

An accountant shortage? Really. Funny, but I don't see five pages of companies offering accounting positions. That is what it used to be for programmers before Bush. Now there is rarely more than a single column, and most of those are Indians bottom fishing.

NAFTA and GATT had not a fucking thing to do with outsourcing the IT industry to India.

Don't tell me about being an entrepenure. I doubt if you know the first thing about it. It is a lot of fucking work, and I suceeded twice, only to have asshole "anything goes" Bush come in with his dumbass followers shouting "willing workers and willing employers!"

Let me make it simple for you. The money I used to be paid is now going to India. The programmer in India doesn't buy ANYTHING from America. Nothing. That money is gone.

Wait, that isn't simple enough. Let's say there are three people: A, B, and C. A buys manure from C for his grain. B buys beef from C. C buys grain from A to feed to his cattle. B trucks the manure from C to A, and grain from A to C in his truck.

There it is, the economy. Now let's say C, who is an asshole corporate neocon fuckhead dittohead republican traitor piece of shit decides that he will have cheaper grain shipped in from India. They deliver it right to his door.

Businessman A goes bankrupt, because nobody buys his grain. Businessman B goes bankrupt, because C no longer needs grain delivered, and A cannot afford to buy meat. Eventually, even C goes bankrupt, because nobody can buy his meat, but he is a republican, so he makes the government give him corporate welfare from A and B so that he can continue to live on his ranch, in Crawford Texas.

No, don't blame it on Democrats. We had a surplus and a strong economy before Dumbass Dubya took over. Now the nation is bankrupt and the only jobs being created are at Walmart.

Your ignorance on this topic belies your "IGM" ("I've Got Mine") attitude about life.

When America's manufactiuring base was shipped off shore first, few in the Tech Fields seemed to care much about all those "peasant jobs" being shipped overseas. In fact, they got a bonus - most of the goods and services they bought here, became much cheaper!

Now that some of the Tech Sector jobs, from radiology to Tech Support to programming jobs have been shipped offshore, the Techies are screaming! And YEAH those jobs were allowed to be shipped overseas by the same expansion of GATT and the introduction of NAFTA that allowed our manufacturing base to be shipped out earlier.

Free Trade is now, for better or worse, the order of the day and once America went down that raod it made a very basic decision - some work would simply no longer be economically feasible to be done here at home.

It's like the MJ farnmer who suddenly realizes that his 600 acres of flat land could make him very wealthy if he just sold it to a developer. That piece of land just became "to expensive to farm," and rightly so!

A lot of things come through about you through your posts but the entreprenurial spirit sure isn't one of them. Entrepereneurs FIND opportunities, they don't wait for them to be created by government decree and they don't either credit government with "giving them opportunity," nor cry when policies allow for changes in the marketplace.

That guy who lost his business machining drill bits for deep drilling, had also jumped on the "Asbestos craze" awhile back. He formed a company to remove Asbestos and hired scores of illegal (Oooops, I meant "undocumented") workers, providing them with no respiratory protection and low pay - now THAT'S an entrepreneur!

Anyone who thinks a President, ANY President can make an economy better, or "create a good economy," is incredibly ignorant.

LBJ's Great Society programs coupled with equally huge Military expenditures in Vietnam, resulted in some terrible economic consequences that hit home throughout the 1970s, culminating in Carter's "economic malaise," BUT LBJ didn't create that bad economy - his (tax & spend) policies merely had horrific future economic ramifications.

Few of LBJ's policies hit the economy immediately. In fact, for much of his time in office, the economy was bolstered by JFK's deep across the board tax rate cuts.

Same here, the economy will be benefitting from G W Bush's across the board tax rate cuts well into the next President's tenure. Sure, his first term cuts almost certainly kept a severe recession fueled by the Tech Bubble scandal of the late 1990s, exacerbated by the Arthur Anderson scandals of 2001 and deepened by 9/11 and its afrermath from becoming much more severe, BUT most of his economic policies haven't even been felt yet.

The H1-B visas you complained about, clearly never rose to the levels you claimed (500,000),a shown by the U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) own fact sheet; "The current law limits to 65,000 the number of aliens who may be issued a visa or otherwise provided H-1B status in FY2004. (The numerical limitation was temporarily raised to 195,000 in FY2001, FY2002 and FY2003.)"

http://uscis.gov/graphics/howdoi/h1b.htm

Think about it, if you're so far off on that one little factoid, perhaps the rest of your reasoning on this subject is equally flawed.

Heh, the usual "lie by being intentionally stupid" ploy of the true Neocon. These visas are for SIX YEARS, so at 125,000 NEW visas a year, the numbers are now actually a lot HIGHER than I stated.

Check it out here, liar:

http://www.zazona.com/ShameH1B/Demographics.htm

I've got mine? Is that what you think? I *had* mine until Bush came along. Now I'm just average, like you, no doubt.

How many businesses have you started up from nothing? Go ahead, don't be shy. How many people do you employ? Come on, big shot, tell me how a REAL entrepreneur does it.

Let me guess: you don't work in the IT field. I'll also guess that you don't work in manufacturing. So there you are, some kind of desk jockey listening to Rush, O'Reilly, and Hannity all day and thinking that your are on THEIR team, the winners!

Democrats overspend and wreck the economy, and Republics are fiscally responsible and fix the economy through tax breaks to the wealthy. That's too stupid to even address.

You are a child.

The very chart YOU posted a link to shows that the number of H1-B visas (500,000) issued betweem 1998 & 2001 (Clinton's last years, was the same as the number from 2000 - 2002.

It shows that the previous administration ran the number from under 100,000 to around 900,000! The current administration brought the cap back down to 65,000/year by 2004.

It seems you're misinterpreting the very data you seem to think bolsters your argument.

The facts are; (1) Free Trade, for better or worse, now rules the day, (2) Free Trade was ushered in with the expansion of GATT (1991) & the introduction of NAFTA (1/1994), both passed by Democratic controlled Congresses and NAFTA was passed with a Democrat in the WH to boot, (3) The H1-B visas you complain about skyrocketed under a Democrat (Bill Clinton) from under 100,000 to around 900,000 during his tenure and the cap was reduced back to 65,000/year by the current administration.

You initially said, "You don't think that Big Business pressured congress into raising the H1-B visa CAP over and over and over, until it hit 500,000 for computer programmers?"

Well, the CAP never hit 500,000!

It was raised to 195,000 for the years 2000, 2001, 2002 & 2003 and returned to 65,000 in 2004.

I'm showing you very clearly that your blaming the WRONG forces (yeah, it WAS indeed GATT & NAFTA) and the WRONG people (as the chart you referenced showed, the H1-B visas went from under 100,000 in 1992 to around 900,000 by 2001, when Bush took office.

Look, if you're going to try and make an argument, at least make the right one, OK?

Oooops! A CORRECTION:

"The very chart YOU posted a link to shows that the number of H1-B visas (500,000) issued betweem 1998 & 2001 (Clinton's last years, was the same as the number from 2000 - 2002"...was a bit mangled...That SHOULD READ; "The very chart YOU posted shows that the number of H1-B visas (500,000) issued between 1998 & 2001 (Clinton's last years was MORE than DOUBLE the number issued between 2001 & 2002 (Bush's first year). The year 2000 to 2001 (Clinton's last) has the exact same SLOPE AS THE YEAR 2001 TO 2002 (Bush's first).

That chart indicts Bill Clinton as the culprit who "stole your business!"

Under Bill Clinton, H1-B visas went from under 100,000 in 1992 to around 900,000 by 2001!

Ironically this gets us back to the Clintons and Walmart. The Walton's strongly supported the Clinton's political campaigns and Hillary (who'd earlier worked as a Corporate attorney on behalf of Walmart) served on their Board of Directors, while First Lady of Arkansas, and until forced to resign when Bill ran for President - they both have benefitted handsomely from her Walmart stock and the Walton's fiscal support.

Yeah, keep on mistakenly believing that some Republican ogre ruined your life.

You are either retarded, or simply too full of Rush Limbaugh's shit to comprehend anything.

I am NOT a Democrat. I am well aware of Clinton's actions. But as I said, the industry was still for the most part alive and well before Bush took over. That is when the industry left America. The cap EXPIRED in 2004, and there was no need to renew it. Why? The industry was gone. The Indians took their training and went back to India.

In fact, Big Biz no longer wants them over here. They want them in India, where they make a little over $5,000 a year. India doesn't have nagging anti-business problems like environmental laws, labor laws, running water, sewer systems, human rights, etc ... You know, all those things Republicans just hate.

Those Indians know how to live, in dirt floor huts, eating rice with a little curry poweder, not asking for all that expensive meat like a fat lazy American.

Let's see, did I cry for the manufacturing jobs when they left. I don't remember. You see, the GOVERNMENT told me to get an education, MATH & SCIENCE, so that I could go into computers! Yes, high tech was going to replace those manufacturing jobs! I'd better study hard and prepare.

And that's exactly what happened. The manufacturing jobs left, computer and high tech jobs came, and the economy and salaries boomed under CLINTON, until BUSH and the Neocons, who hate the American Worker, took power and allowed traitor corporations to ship our American industry to India.

You see, Clinton didn't hate Big Biz. When they needed more workers, he let them come in. I personally thought he let a few too many in, but during his tenure my salary did not fall. Even though according to dumbass Neocons like you, SUPPLY AND DEMAND dictated that I be allowed to rape employers endlessly at any price I set (no wait, you only think OIl Companies should be able to do that to consumers, right?) good ol' Bill Clinton steppted in to make sure there were enough programmers so long as they weren't stealing American jobs.

Bush arrives and companies see that the fox is in the henhouse. Bush presides over the largest exodus of wealth America has ever witnessed. We have lost what we innovated. We have given away the computer industry. America sold out a trillion dollar industry for the short-term profits of a few corporations.

So, what has replaced it? Please, point me to the new jobs that are just as good or better than IT jobs. Go ahead, answer the fucking question.

You can't.

"I am NOT a Democrat." (BH)

Who said YOU were a Democrat?

Now I AM, in fact, still a registered DEMOCRAT.

My uncle Peter was a NY State Supreme Court judge...and a Democrat.

My uncle John was the Public Administrator for Staten Island...and a Democrat.

My cousin Mike is a NY State Assemblman from Staten Island...and a Democrat.

I like Conservative Democrats like Zell Miller, but unfortunatley that Party has been hijacked by its northeastern Liberal wing. More's the pity. (Or should I have said, "Moore's the pity?")

One of the primary dictums of Free Trade is that if a job can be done cheaper elsewhere, then it's not economically viable to do that work here, any more than it's economically viable for a NJ dairy farmer to continue trying to eek out a living on that 600 acre farm, when the sale of that land to a developer could put him on easy street.

If computer programmers in India can do comparable quality work at cheaper prices than American cans, then those jobs aren't a viable part of the American economy any more.

Hell, I'd argue in favor of America's steel industry long before I would for computer programming jobs. We should be making our own steel, if only for national defense purposes. You don't want to be in the position of being able to be "cut off" from steel because your supplier becomes allied with an enemy.

But all arguments aside, that die has already long been cast and Free Trade rules the day now, whether you, or I or anyone else likes it or not.

All jobs in America have suffered some salary retraction over the past decade and that is primarily due to TWO (2) factors - cheap immigrant labor flooding the country and more open international competition via the expansion of GATT and the passing of NAFTA and related trade treaties.

Both of these things have put a profound downward pressure on ALL U.S. wage rates.

Back in 1988 the FDNY (NYC's Fire Dept) was the busiest Fire Dept in the country and almost certainly, the world. It was also the highest paid Fire Dept in the country as well. Today the FDNY is still the busiest Fire Dept in the country, at least in terms of Occupied Structural Work - the primary measure of fire duty, though L.A. may do more medical responses, but the FDNY has slipped to 47th in terms of pay and its lost many of its other Municipal benefits along the way.

Like all employers, NYC has been forced to stretch its dollars and has, in turn, forced Unions to deliver "productivity increases," or "Givebacks" of previously won benefits. During Guiliani's tenure two consecutive contracts were front-loaded with Zeros (0% increases) which allowed the FDNY to fall behind many other Municipalities - the NYPD and NYC's teachers have suffered the same fate.

None of that is either "GOOD' or "BAD," it's merely the trade off of Free Trade - lower cost goods and services at the expense of shrinking salaries (or diminished labor costs).

You apparently didn't cry a bit when all those grunt manufacturing jobs were packed up and sent overseas, but you cry like a stuck pig now when trade policies hurt your own competitive standing. IGM.

If American computer programmers couldn't compete with the lower cost of foreign labor, they should've offered more productivity, longer hours, more output, anything to bridge that gap.

Add to the growing list of miscues on your part, *India is NOT a land where most people live in huts without running water, etc. It's a nation with several huge cities with skyscraping office and apartment complexes just like most other modern big cities and its own emerging Movie industry.

Add this to such miscues as your continued use of the term "Neocon" (both Barry and I have carefully explained what that term really means, yet you continue to misuse it)...and your eroneous claim that the CAP for H1-B visas was raised to 500,000 when the CAP never exceeded 195,000. The agregate, or total topped 1 million, but the CAP never reached 200,000 and those are just two that come right to mind.

Free Trade was roundly debated throughout the 1980s and won out. GATT was expanded in 1991 and NAFTA was passed in 1/94, both under the auspices of Democratic controlled Congresses and the latter under both a Democratic Congress and with a Democrat in the White House (WH)!

That same WH Democrat (Bill Clinton) raised the total of H1-B visas from under 100,000 in 1992 to around 900,000 when he left office in 2001. He presided over the bulk of the increase in all those H1-B visas. That you, like the dinosaurs, didn't experience your extinction until some time after the critical event, is only mildly interesting. That you continue to blame the wrong people and even the wrong forces for your troubles is only mildly amusing.

Look, if both Bill Clinton and G W Bush both felt that all those computer jobs should be subjected to more direct international competition, how could two men so divergent on most issues, be wrong on one of the few they appeared to agree on?

I'll accept that both the pro-business Clinton and the equally pro-business Bush truly believed that America NEEDED more computer programmers.

Regardless, real entrepreneurs find new opportunities, they don't waste time blaming others for their past failures.