The United States is a THIRD WORLD NATION, it just doesn’t realize it yet. Unless you live in Mexifornia a state overrun by third-worlders where you seldom hear English and where millions of illegals are illegally employed with stolen social security numbers and the elected politicians, each and every one of them, are busting their ass for bit by bit by bit amnesty to keep the floods of “cheap” labor illegals coming in from INDIAN, CHINA, and MEXICO.
California also has the largest number of elected La Raza whores for illegals, including Feinstein, Boxer, Eshoo, Lofgren, Farr, Baca, Berman, Harman, Waxman and of course, Pelosi who hires illegals for her 20 million dollar Napa winery, and has vowed to fight the wall to protect us from the Narco-Mex invasion.
California operates $16 billion in the red, and then spends $14 billion for social services to illegals. Sanctuary City of Los Angeles puts out nearly $40 million PER MONTH in welfare to illegals!
June 29, 2007
Defeat of amnesty bill is a victory for all Americans (UNFORTUNATELY THIS WAS PREMATURE - FEINSTEIN, BOXER, PELOSI WENT TO TOWN IMMEDIATELY FOR SECRET BACK ROOM DEALS FOR BIT BY BIT AMNESTY THAT BENEFITS THEIR PAYMASTERS AND FUCKS OVER THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA AND THIS NATION!)
Tony Phyrillas
Another liberal, Sen. Diane Feinstein of California, said the American people are too stupid to understand the opening the nation's borders to anyone who wants to come in is good for them.
Feinstein said amnesty opponents "don't understand the bill."
Feinstein urged her colleagues to vote for cloture because "if we miss this opportunity, there is not likely to be another opportunity in the next few years to fix this."
People! There’s a reason why WALL ST supports Hillary Clinton and has given her 89% of her campaign bribes (the other 11% coming from illegal Indians, Pakis, and Chinese felons, and Dianne Feinstein who has paid out hush money to politicians all over the country. Google Feinstein and war profiteering!) There’s a reason why Clinton works for amnesty and chain migration with NARCO-MEX. There’s a reason WALMART bought her off and put her on their board of directors!
The reason is called... THE WALMARTing of AMERICA! And Hillary Clinton is no fucking populist! It was Clinton that bellied up with Dianne Feinstein and pushed the banker’s bankruptcy bill that prevented people from renegotiating their obscene mortgages (look up Feinstien and Bank of America and Wells Fargo at OPENSECRETS.org)
Barack Obama as also promised AMNESTY for the votes of illegals’. All three candidates promise DRIVER’S LICENSES, the map to citizenship La Raza and the Mexican government are demanding. A citizenship with no lines, no fines, no back taxes and no learning English!
The Emerging Third World U.S.
Francis Ferguson
OpEd News
February 26, 2008
I have an expression I present to my economics classes. It has a certain impact: the US is athird world nation, we just haven’t realized it yet. Our emerging status isn’t obvious. Products remain relatively cheap (energy excluded) despite the falling value of the dollar against most foreign currencies. But there are real signs.
Most Americans who are paying attention have noticed a long term decline in manufacturing jobs in the US. Quarter after quarter, year after year, the government reports job gains, but those gains are primarily in service industries: health care (we’re not talking doctors, here), restaurants and bars, retail trade and, until recently, construction. A close examination of the figures will usually reveal a decline in manufacturing jobs. This is not an accident.
The loss of American manufacturing jobs is largely the result of American firms moving their manufacturing off shore, to labor markets in which workers earn a tiny fraction of US wages. Once the globalization process began in earnest, it became impossible for many American firms to maintain US production even if the wished to. Keeping jobs here would render these firm uncompetitive as the rivals moved to take advantage of peasant wages in places like China , India and other developing nations.
Over the past 30 years, American manufacturing has moved offshore at an accelerating rate. Walk through any big box store (or any other for that matter) and look where things are made. Overwhelmingly, it’s China or other developing nations. The process is inexorable. With “Globalization” we have opened the world’s borders to free trade in goods and services. On the one hand, this has presented opportunities for US manufacturers to expand profits by shifting production to countries where wages are a tiny fraction of those in the United States. Goods made abroad can be sold at an attractive price in the US while still allowing producers to increase the difference between price and total cost, otherwise known a profit. Those companies with a sense of national pride and identity are, finally, forced to move some or all of their production offshore in order to survive.
Aside from the short term charm of finding bargains on the shopping rack, there are serious consequences here. Let’s look them. The first problem is the disappearance of the American “living wage”. The only reason Americans have managed to avoid confronting their declining real income per capita it by increasing the number of family members working. There was a time, in American mythology at least, when people accepted that one working family member could support 4 people at a reasonable standard of living. This was the vision of America Nixon and Krushchev debated, famously, at an exhibit of the postulated US living standards presented in the Soviet Union. This was the Ozzie and Harriet version of American life which was broadcast to the world and to the home audience as standard: the norm. It wasn’t, of course, but it was close enough to what middle America saw around them to be at least plausible. The incomes implicit in that early 1960’s view of American life may have improved until the early 1970’s (there was a war going on and war is always good for employment and incomes), but since that time statistics indicate that the real (inflation adjusted) incomes of American working people have actually declined.
Already, young people are finding no jobs, or a universe of job opportunities which pay poverty wages… This is a problem that is not going away. It’s going to get worse.
A revealing example of this is the February 12th 2008 decision by General Motors to offer buyouts to all 74,000 union hourly workers. This followed closely a similar action by Ford. This would include severance packages for all employees, varying in terms depending on years of service. Relatively new employee’s would get a lump sum payment for leaving and forfeiting all health and post retirement benefits. The new workers, waiting in the wings, will earn on average $16 and hour as opposed to the current average $28 an hour. That rounds to a 43% reduction in income, and little is revealed about what benefits these new workers will receive, or whether or not the will have union representation—though I expect they will. Here is an example of a central, traditional area of American employment were workers are moving from an average of $58,240 pre-tax per year to $33,280 pre-tax. Obviously, these people have a surprising readjustment to make. They’re just the prominent tip of the iceberg. Already, young people are finding no jobs, or a universe of job opportunities which pay poverty wages. It’s why so many young workers (and unemployed youngsters) live at home
ASK HILLARY ABOUT NAFTA! What would Hillary’s CHAIN MIGRATION do? Except quadruple the number of illiterate Mexican gang!
This is a problem that is not going away. It’s going to get worse. Several convergent forces are leading to US economic destabilization. One force driving this tragedy is free trade, also called globalization. One of the more profound spokesmen on this subject is Paul Craig Roberts an economist in the Reagan Administration who has written extensively on the topic and lends support to the argument that globalization is on the verge of ruining the US economy.
The loss of American manufacturing jobs is largely the result of American firms moving their manufacturing off shore, to labor markets in which workers earn a tiny fraction of US wages. Once the globalization process began in earnest, it became impossible for many American firms to maintain US production even if the wished to. Keeping jobs here would render these firm uncompetitive as the rivals moved to take advantage of peasant wages in places like China , India and other developing nations. Even signature American enterprises such as Boing are moving larger segments of their airliner manufacturing to other countries. The finished sub-assemblies for the 777 Dreamliner, for example, are flown to Seattle for final assembly. Highly skilled professionals, such as radiologists (medical doctors specializing in interpreting X-rays) are finding their work sent via high speed communications to much lower paid radiologists in places like India. The effect of allowing the unimpeded flow of capital and goods and services between nations is precisely the same as allowing the free movement of people across borders. In the end, we will experience a relative equalization of wages, world wide. Obviously, those in the current Third World will find wages improving. With billions of impoverished workers waiting in the “wings”, US workers will find their wage declines much more starting and profound than the increases granted to the struggling poor of the developing world.
have financed the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The ultimate point, here, is the absolute unsustainability of the US’s position. We cannot expect our trading partners to hold dollars in unlimited quantities, and as we’ve no hope of being able to achieve a positive balance of trade, that’s exactly what we are effectively seeking. That nations are cautiously moving out of dollar holdings is revealed by the rather steady overall decline in the value of the dollar over the past three years. This will continue.
With the falling dollar, rising import prices and declining wages and salaries for American workers, the US is headed for a radically different lifestyle. Until US wages fall far enough to make us competitive with workers in developing nations, our decline will continue. Globalization let this evil genie out of it’s bottle, and it’s not clear that anything can force it back.
.......................
The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com
ARRIVAL OF ALIENS OUTS U.S. WORKERS
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published April 10, 2006
An Alabama employment agency that sent 70 laborers and construction workers to job sites in that state in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina says the men were sent home after just two weeks on the job by employers who told them "the Mexicans had arrived" and were willing to work for less.
Linda Swope, who operates Complete Employment Services Inc. in Mobile, Ala., told The Washington Times last week that the workers -- whom she described as U.S. citizens, residents of Alabama and predominantly black -- had been "urgently requested" by contractors hired to rebuild and clear devastated areas of the state, but were told to leave three job sites when the foreign workers showed up.
"After Katrina, our company had 70 workers on the job the first day, but the companies decided they didn't need them anymore because the Mexicans had arrived," Mrs. Swope said. "I assure you it is not true that Americans don't want to work.
"We had been told that 270 jobs might be available, and we could have filled every one of them with men from this area, most of whom lost their jobs because of the hurricane," she said. "When we told the guys they would not be needed, they actually cried ... and we cried with them. This is a shame."
Mrs. Swope said employment agencies throughout Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi faced similar problems, when thousands of men from Mexico and several Central and South American countries -- many in crowded buses and trucks -- came into the three states after Katrina, looking for employment and willing to work for less money.
The number of foreign workers who flooded the area after the hurricane has been estimated at more than 30,000. Many of them have been identified by law-enforcement authorities and others as illegal aliens.
The Gulf Coast Latin American Association noted in a report that whether those workers will remain after the cleanup work is completed is not clear, but the longer those jobs last, the more likely it is that the workers will settle permanently. After Hurricane Andrew hit southeastern Florida in 1992, the association said, the construction boom attracted large numbers of Hispanic immigrants to several areas, including Homestead, Fla., where the Latino population doubled during the 1990s.
Many of the illegal aliens came into the Gulf Coast states not only from south of the border but also from California, Arizona and Texas, responding to the demand for workers. U.S. Border Patrol officials in the three states have reported an increase in the number of illegals apprehended.
Some of the migrants who did get jobs in the Gulf states also were mistreated, records show. Two class-action lawsuits are pending in federal court in New Orleans in which thousands of migrant workers said they never were paid, although many worked 12-hour shifts, seven days a week and were required to remove toxic contamination from hurricane-ravaged buildings.
Some of the named companies were working on contracts from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other government agencies.
Government estimates put at 400,000 the number of jobs lost in the Gulf region as a result of Katrina, which displaced more than 1.5 million people, and many of those workers left the area to seek employment elsewhere because available construction, laborer and cleanup jobs in Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi had been filled by foreign workers, including illegal aliens.
President Bush last week signed the Katrina Emergency Assistance Act of 2006, which extended for 13 weeks unemployment compensation benefits to more than 140,000 residents of the Gulf states who were displaced from their jobs by Katrina. Their benefits, funded by FEMA, had expired March 4.
Would-be employers in Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi, awash in cleanup and reconstruction jobs, faced little in the way of legal problems in hiring the illegal aliens after Katrina because the Department of Homeland Security temporarily suspended the sanctioning of employers who hired workers unable to document their citizenship.
Mr. Bush also had suspended the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires local contractors to pay "prevailing" wages, in the areas hit by Katrina to encourage reconstruction and cleanup.
"The men we sent to jobs in Alabama were local fellows looking for work, men who needed jobs," Mrs. Swope said.
"After driving 50 miles to the work sites where they had been promised $10 an hour, they discovered the employers had found substitutes who were willing to work for less."
................
Clinton Tests Out Populist Approach
Obama Cites NAFTA in Questioning Her Criticism of Corporate World
By Perry Bacon Jr. and Alec MacGillis
Washington Post Staff WritersMonday, February 25, 2008; A01
PROVIDENCE, R.I., Feb. 24 -- Blasting "companies shamelessly turning their backs on Americans" by shipping jobs overseas and railing that "it is wrong that somebody who makes $50 million on Wall Street pays a lower tax rate than somebody who makes $50,000 a year," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton increasingly sounds like one of her old Democratic rivals, former senator John Edwards of North Carolina.
Eager to recapture the white, working-class voters who favored her in some of the early primaries but who have since shifted to Sen. Barack Obama, Clinton traded her usual wonky style this weekend for a fiery, populist tone in speeches in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island.
Instead of giving precise policy details, she repeatedly pointed her finger skyward, declared that Americans "got shafted under President Bush" and cast herself as a fighter, as Edwards often described himself, promising to help most Americans, not just the "wealthy and the connected."
In an appearance here Sunday afternoon, she mocked Obama's hopeful rhetoric, declaring that it is not the answer to fighting entrenched interests.
"I could stand up here and say, 'Let's just get everybody together, let's get unified, the sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect,' " she said, as people cheered and laughed. "You are not going to wave a magic wand and have the special interests disappear."
But her rhetoric did not go unanswered. In trying to reach the same working-class voters, Obama continued to emphasize over the weekend that Clinton was part of the White House that pushed the North American Free Trade Agreement through Congress and highlighted remarks Clinton made in support of the deal.
On Saturday, Clinton charged Obama with sending out a mailer that unfairly quoted her as saying that NAFTA had been a "boon" for America, a word that Obama acknowledged Clinton had not used. But the senator from Illinois kept up his attack on Sunday while speaking to dozens of workers at a gypsum plant in Lorain, Ohio.
"Yesterday, Senator Clinton also said I'm wrong to point out that she once supported NAFTA. But the fact is, she was saying great things about NAFTA until she started running for president. A couple years after it passed, she said NAFTA was a 'free and fair trade agreement' and that it was 'proving its worth.' And in 2004, she said, 'I think, on balance, NAFTA has been good for New York state and America.' "
The senator from New York has tried to distance herself from NAFTA, which is unpopular among workers in manufacturing who believe the deal has contributed to the movement of jobs overseas. In Ohio on Saturday, Clinton argued that while NAFTA "passed" during husband Bill Clinton's administration in 1993, President George H.W. Bush actually "negotiated" the deal. Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland (D), a Clinton backer, told Bloomberg News this weekend that Bill Clinton told him Hillary Clinton had opposed NAFTA in 1993.
In Lorain, Obama blamed NAFTA for the loss of 1 million jobs since 1994, including 50,000 in the Buckeye State, and ridiculed Clinton's efforts to distance herself from the trade deal. "It was her own husband who got NAFTA passed," Obama said. "In her own book, Senator Clinton called NAFTA one of 'Bill's successes' and 'legislative victories.' "
Clinton is trying to assume the populist mantle of Edwards -- whom she described in December as "screaming," in his critiques of special interests -- with March 4 looming as the decisive day for her candidacy. Four states will vote that day, but Bill Clinton, among others, has said that his wife must win the two largest -- Ohio and Texas -- to continue her campaign.
Her campaign aides say wooing both working-class voters and middle-income people concerned about the economy is crucial, particularly in Ohio.
"These are the voters who are up for grabs," said Doug Hattaway, a Clinton adviser.
During the campaign, Clinton has often criticized trade agreements and the movement of jobs overseas. Over the weekend, she adopted a far more pointed tone and spent a lot of time emphasizing her populist message, reducing mentions of issues such as balancing the budget that have been standard in her speeches. She spent less time on the intricacies of her health-care plan and her proposal to withdraw troops from Iraq, heeding advice from aides who have urged her to speak in broader terms.
Clinton is seeking to get past the loss of 11 straight contests to Obama and to shore up the support of groups that have been key to her candidacy. In the states where she has performed strongly, Clinton has won among households with less than $50,000 in income, among people without college degrees and among families with at least one member in a labor union. But in last week's primary in Wisconsin, she lost all three groups.
White, working-class men, in particular, are a key voting bloc in a race where blacks have overwhelmingly supported Obama and white women have backed Clinton. A Washington Post-ABC News poll last week showed Clinton leading overall in Ohio, where she led among white men, while the candidates were tied in Texas, where Obama had an advantage among white men.
James Rivard, a Cleveland technician who was polled and whose family makes less than $50,000, said he is leaning toward Obama but wants to hear more about the economy. "My income has been stagnant for like 12 years now, but my expenses have continued to go up, while all of this capital is leaving the country every year," he said.
................................
CLINTON SUPPORTS IMPORTING INDIANS AND CHINESE TO TAKE OUR JOBS.... AND ALSO OPEN BORDERS WITH MEXICO
By John Solomon and Matthew Mosk Washington Post Staff Writers Saturday, September 8, 2007; Page A01
When Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton flew to New Delhi to meet with Indian business leaders in 2005, she offered a blunt assessment of the loss of American jobs across the Pacific. "There is no way to legislate against reality," she declared. "Outsourcing will continue. . . . We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favor of putting up fences."
The two speeches delivered continents apart highlight the delicate balance the senator from New York, a dedicated free-trader, is seeking to maintain as she courts two competing constituencies: wealthy Indian immigrants who have pledged to donate and raise as much as $5 million for her 2008 campaign and powerful American labor unions that are crucial to any Democratic primary victory.
Despite aggressive courtship by Democratic candidates, major unions such as the AFL-CIO, the Teamsters and the Service Employees International Union have withheld their endorsements as they scrutinize the candidates' records and solicit views on a variety of issues.
Facing a cool reception, Clinton and her advisers have used closed-door meetings with labor leaders in recent months to explain her past ties to Indian companies, donors and policies. Aides have highlighted her efforts to retrain displaced workers and to end offshore tax breaks that reward companies that outsource jobs.
But the Clinton camp has been pressed by labor leaders on her support for expanding temporary U.S. work visas that often go to Indians who get jobs in the United States, and it has been queried about the help she gave a major Indian company to gain a foothold in New York state. That company now outsources most of its work to India.
Clinton declined repeated requests for an interview about her views on outsourcing. Her campaign advisers, however, say she believes there are no inconsistencies in the comments she has made here and in India or in her actions as a senator.
At a recent event in Los Angeles, host Nadadur Vardhan told those gathered that they should support Clinton because "she may shift more jobs to India," according to an Indian news account.
Both Clintons made repeated trips to India -- visits that continued during Hillary Clinton's tenure in the Senate. Between them, Bill and Hillary Clinton have made eight visits to India since 2001, and many more to Indian American groups in the United States.
Some Indian American connections have benefited the Clintons personally, too. Vinod Gupta, the founder of a Nebraska data-mining firm, has donated more than $1 million to the Clintons' political causes while also paying the former president at least $3.3 million as a business consultant.
Among labor officials, a nagging question about Hillary Clinton's commitment to protecting U.S. jobs stems from a deal she helped broker for Tata Consulting, one of India's largest technology firms. In 2002, Clinton helped Tata land an agreement to open an office in New York state and to work with a Buffalo area university to create at least 100 jobs in the depressed community.
Tata is one of the largest users of the temporary-worker visas that have allowed U.S. technology companies to fill jobs with high-skilled, lower-paid Indian workers. It used nearly 8,000 such visas last year, according to a recent Senate report.
As a senator, Clinton has repeatedly supported that program and backs raising the cap for annual visas from the current 65,000 to 115,000.
COME VISIT SILICON VALLEY, CALIFORNIA AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN EVERY FUCKING JOB GOES TO INDIANS, CHINESE AND MEXICANS!
It is NOT ok to contact this poster with commercial interests.
 Relevant Posts:
FUCK MEXICO
Mindless Zombie Brainwashed American Sheeple Get What They Deserve
If We Had A Latino Candidate Would He Give The Country To Mexico
This is not American Idol Say no to Obama
AMERICAN AIRLINES SUCKS
|
