Page 27 of 27 < 1 2 ... 25 26 27
Topic Options
#525478 - 11/21/03 06:57 AM Re: Nutty laws in Vermont....?
Samuel Catalino Offline
Member

Registered: 04/04/99
Posts: 4447
Quote:
Originally posted by Dean R Milburn

Sure -

1. I don't have a problem with it.
2. 84 companies were asked to submit bids, including local firms, only 5 submitted bids and two of those withdrew. So there were plenty of chances for US based firms to go after the work if they wanted to. No Indiana firm even submitted a bid, the next lowest bid was over 50% higher in cost ($8.1 million).
3. The only other companies that submitted bids also outsource to India (Accenture and Deloitte), so it's not even like the state had a choice of keeping all the jobs in state or even in country.
4. This is an interesting case because the Indiana DWD is the agency responsible for administering many of the programs (however inadequate) for aiding displaced workers. The system in question is to aid with that process. So the state had a choice, buy the system for $23.3 million dollars or buy it for $15.2 million dollars. Same system. Only in one case you have $8.1 million left over. 1% of the total budget for the agency. Money that can be used for programs to aid a large number of displaced workers, not just a few dozen programmers. You decry the redistributive policies as wasteful, well this is a case when they decided to be efficient.


Somehow, I thought that would be your answer.
I wish they would outsource the people who set up the conditions for this bid, because, as you know the same companies also do the same thing in Ohio.
They might as well remove this program for all it is doing or not doing, by your admission. I see no benefit for the taxpayers or the people it is supposed to help, so why not get rid of it?
_________________________
"If we lose a hundred troops a week, then Dean will be our next Prez." Jack V, avid Dean supporter with no concern for the troops.

Top
#525479 - 11/21/03 07:00 AM Re: Nutty laws in Vermont....?
Samuel Catalino Offline
Member

Registered: 04/04/99
Posts: 4447
Quote:
Originally posted by Dean R Milburn:


We're just going to have to disagree on this one.


I concur.
_________________________
"If we lose a hundred troops a week, then Dean will be our next Prez." Jack V, avid Dean supporter with no concern for the troops.

Top
#525480 - 11/21/03 07:16 AM Re: Nutty laws in Vermont....?
jack Offline
Member

Registered: 11/11/99
Posts: 12596
Loc: Just south of NYC
Sam let's get a couple of things straight.

When I harass you, I always do it with this logon. I have never harassed you with a puppet topside.

There are others who abhor your assholiness also, you know.

One thing straight, excuse me.

Top
#525481 - 11/21/03 07:26 AM Re: Nutty laws in Vermont....?
Samuel Catalino Offline
Member

Registered: 04/04/99
Posts: 4447
Quote:
Originally posted by Dean R Milburn:
Well, Sam, you use the word however you want it.
Just about every dictionary definition of the term I've encountered raises it above the level of mere custom to contain a element of right vs. wrong. Mores may be customs, but not all customs are mores.

When you use the term immoral, I'll just assume it means going against custom. When I use it, assume I mean "wrong" as opposed to "right".


All morals come from mores which are customs. You are dancing around this one.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dean R Milburn:
I don't prefer that ANYBODY suffer. That's why the expanded safety net is part of my policy. You seem to have problems caring about those who would lose their jobs (foreign and American) because of your policy.


It sure looks to me that you don't care about the American worker. Your "safety net" does not cover those who lose their homes and have their economic conditions fall. I am only concerned about my country and in fair trade.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dean R Milburn:
I'm not even sure you know what the terms mean, since you the characteristics you apply to those terms are not the same ones GHWB applied, a man you said supported such things. Like I said, if you have a different definition that the ones I provided, I'd like to hear it.


Again it has to do with globalism. Nor will I provide you with my definition of it since you will not provide your definition of Christianity.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dean R Milburn:
Okay, we're going in circles here. You've never been able to justify your position that the visa programs create a less free market than the one that exists with them. It's utterly nonsensical. The problem is this, apparently you are philosophically opposed to both market intervention and redistributive policies. Your "patriotism" makes you philosophically opposed to guest workers and offshoring. Your policy prescription to remove the visas, while consistent with your "patriotic" philosphy, is utterly inconsisted with your opposition to intervention and redistribution, so you are forced to create the notion that the natural state of the labor market is one of US labor only so that market freeing moves by the government are seen as interventions and that no redistribution occurs.

You'd make more sense if you just admitted that the principles are at odds with each other, but that the "patriotic" principle (combined with the altruistic pain stopping principle) outweigh your committment to fewer government interventions and your opposition to redistribution.


I don't know how much clearer I can make it. The market intervention came with the invention of these visas, which have the purpose to bring in workers to take over USA workers jobs.

Government intervention should come only when trade is not fair on both sides, and that is when I believe that government intervention should be utilized.


Quote:
Originally posted by Dean R Milburn:
Like I said, although you refuse to go into specifics, it would take quite a bureaucracy to administer the program you wish to undertake. I don't see why you think this particular bureaucracy would be any less wasteful. The only group in the world who does anything like what you suggest is the WTO and you find them incapable.

You are the one suggesting your policy as a cure all, I've pointed out the general flaws with it, you seem to imply that specifics will address those issues, but you don't want to go into them. So be it.


The WTO has no authority over the USA(as the Constitution prohibits any such outside authority), and that is why I have a problem with them. If you feel comfortable with other countries dictating economic policy to the USA, then you might consider yourself a citizen of the world, with no loyalties to any nation.

Nor shall I go into any specifics because of your stonewalling on other topics we have talked about


Quote:
Originally posted by Dean R Milburn:
And some Indian nationals would consider your plan unfair to them. Murder can occur during a war. But war is not inherently murder. That's all I'm saying.


How did Indian nationals get involved in this part of the discussion? Are they engaged in any war with the USA? Where did you come up with this?
War is murder. It is the result of heightened passions and nations who can not resolve their differences in a civilized manner.


Quote:
Originally posted by Dean R Milburn:
Take your ball and go home. My remark on Lewis and Tolkein was parenthetical to the discussion at best (as was the fact you brought Tolkein into the discussion at all or gave your opinion as to how good a comic book writer he might have been). If you have an argument to make on whether or not Lewis credited Tolkein with bringing him to what he (Lewis) defined as Christianity, go for it. I opened that door.

My definition (or lack there of) of Christianity is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Your refusal to define your "fair trade" policy is not.


You brought it up, not I. If you want a discussion on items that I bring up, and refuse to discuss on items that you bring up, I shall reciprocate.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dean R Milburn:
You asked if I saw where you were going with that, I'm telling what I saw. If I'm wrong, please make yourself clearer next time. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I'm going to call it a duck until I see evidence to the contrary.

Economic isolation is the end result of your policy. Trade only occurs when one party or another has an advantage in production. You want to level the playing field. No advantage, no trade.


Being that you went from comparing me to Buchanan to Rand pretty much tells me you don't know what you are talking about.

Wrong again. I want no government intervention that causes an advantage in production. Again, you misrepresent my position as I only want to level the playing field when other governments intervene to create unfair playing fields.
_________________________
"If we lose a hundred troops a week, then Dean will be our next Prez." Jack V, avid Dean supporter with no concern for the troops.

Top
#525482 - 11/21/03 09:28 AM Re: Nutty laws in Vermont....?
Dean R Milburn Offline
Member

Registered: 07/06/99
Posts: 2043
Loc: Indianapolis
Sam -

We're done here.

Your refusal to provide anymore insight into your policy prescriptions precludes anything but an infinitely circular regression of our previous points. No room left for sharpening wits at this point.

Providing you with a definition of Christianity is 1) irrelevant to the issues at hand and 2) would be utterly pointless given your propensity to define words according to how well it aids your arguments rather than how the words are actually used. I mentioned an issue of fact. Look at any bio of Lewis, and you'll see he credited Tolkein (amongst others) of bringing him to Christianity. If you wish to dispute that is the case, fine. If you wish to dispute that Lewis was a Christian fine. But neither of these things have anything to do with my definition of Christianity.

The way you use my refusal to provide this definition as a life preserver for the sinking ship that is your inconsistent, irrational and downright harmful policy prescription.

You're a reasonably well informed guy, but your knowledge of economics is sorely lacking. This is most evident in your extremely poorly thought out position that IT does not create wealth, it merely cuts costs (as if the two were somehow not synonymous). Combine that with the fact that you are not conversant in the most basic terms of the field (redistributive, progressive taxation, laissez-faire) and its pretty clear you need to do your homework.

So rather than do that, your arguments get progressively more shrill. "You are dancing around this one"; "You don't care about the American worker"; "You might consider yourself a citizen of the world, with no loyalties to any nation"; "stonewalling".

If you want me to continue you will need to
1. Admit the irrelevance of a Christianity definition to the issues at hand or provide a reason why it is relevant.
2. Admit that its more laissez-faire to have the guest visas than not to have them, thus any "tinkering" by the government, is not the same class of "tinkering" that interferes with markets. It is rather "tinkering" that frees markets.
3. Explain why your policy will not cause jobs to be lost in US industries that use your protected industries as inputs.
4. Given your stance on the waste and inefficiency of government, explain how your policy will not create a bureaucracy that will be both wasteful and inefficient.
5. Quit tarring me with the brush of the status quo with crap like "your 'safety net' does not cover...".

Otherwise, see you in the funny papers.

Top
#525483 - 11/22/03 07:34 AM Re: Nutty laws in Vermont....?
Samuel Catalino Offline
Member

Registered: 04/04/99
Posts: 4447
Quote:
Originally posted by Dean R Milburn:
Sam -

We're done here.

Your refusal to provide anymore insight into your policy prescriptions precludes anything but an infinitely circular regression of our previous points. No room left for sharpening wits at this point.

Providing you with a definition of Christianity is 1) irrelevant to the issues at hand and 2) would be utterly pointless given your propensity to define words according to how well it aids your arguments rather than how the words are actually used. I mentioned an issue of fact. Look at any bio of Lewis, and you'll see he credited Tolkein (amongst others) of bringing him to Christianity. If you wish to dispute that is the case, fine. If you wish to dispute that Lewis was a Christian fine. But neither of these things have anything to do with my definition of Christianity.

The way you use my refusal to provide this definition as a life preserver for the sinking ship that is your inconsistent, irrational and downright harmful policy prescription.

You're a reasonably well informed guy, but your knowledge of economics is sorely lacking. This is most evident in your extremely poorly thought out position that IT does not create wealth, it merely cuts costs (as if the two were somehow not synonymous). Combine that with the fact that you are not conversant in the most basic terms of the field (redistributive, progressive taxation, laissez-faire) and its pretty clear you need to do your homework.

So rather than do that, your arguments get progressively more shrill. "You are dancing around this one"; "You don't care about the American worker"; "You might consider yourself a citizen of the world, with no loyalties to any nation"; "stonewalling".

If you want me to continue you will need to
1. Admit the irrelevance of a Christianity definition to the issues at hand or provide a reason why it is relevant.
2. Admit that its more laissez-faire to have the guest visas than not to have them, thus any "tinkering" by the government, is not the same class of "tinkering" that interferes with markets. It is rather "tinkering" that frees markets.
3. Explain why your policy will not cause jobs to be lost in US industries that use your protected industries as inputs.
4. Given your stance on the waste and inefficiency of government, explain how your policy will not create a bureaucracy that will be both wasteful and inefficient.
5. Quit tarring me with the brush of the status quo with crap like "your 'safety net' does not cover...".

Otherwise, see you in the funny papers.


Dean,

I agree. You ask the same questions, I give you the same answers and you fail to answer my questions. That is not an exchange of ideas on any level and I choose no longer to continue this discussion unless you answer my questions. You have asked and asked and deviated from the subjects we began with, that to now say that one subject is out of bounds...it proves that you have no desire to discuss, but to hammer and dictate. I can not and will not abide by those terms.

If you are not going to discuss subjects you bring up, I don't feel the need to continue to explain my views again and again. You ask, and I explained. Anyone who does realize that an IT center is not a wealth producing center in the business world is clearly not in touch in the business world. IT centers do not produce wealth. They streamline effieciency of information, whereas other areas of every business I ever worked with (a number of Fortune 500 countries)were the ones responsible for creating wealth in the company.

Now, you come up with your five points which I must follow in order to continue this discussion. That proves you just want someone who agrees with everything you come up with to continue this discussion. You might have well written the following: "Sam, if you don't agree with every point I make, it is pointless to continue. That is not exchanging ideas, that is dictating.

I reject this antics of yours and I am forced to concede that you know something of economics but fail to understand what is happening to the real world.

If you wish you to continue this, then everything is on the table. If now, have a nice life.
_________________________
"If we lose a hundred troops a week, then Dean will be our next Prez." Jack V, avid Dean supporter with no concern for the troops.

Top
#525484 - 11/22/03 08:15 AM Re: Nutty laws in Vermont....?
jack Offline
Member

Registered: 11/11/99
Posts: 12596
Loc: Just south of NYC
Anyone else see the irony of Sam's last post?

Or is it just me?

Top
Page 27 of 27 < 1 2 ... 25 26 27