offshoring came about loooong before Bush.........
Posted By: MSMT on 2007-02-06
In Reply to:
xx
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Millions others wish Bush would be outsourced too, as evidenced by the poll. Bush = 1st Class moron
Offshoring to India...Offshoring.
nm
Bush did nothing
and Bush did nothing, nada..zilch..he was too busy vacationing at his ranch or taking half a day off each day or sleeping, LOL. I have a friend who lives in Texas and she said Bushs nickname was the half day governor, they all knew he left by noon and went to sleep by 6pm..The guy is an idiot, warmonger, war dodger..Had to get his poppy to get him out of the Vietnam War and when he was in the National Guard could not even finish that obligation, had to get his poppy to get him out and falsify the records to make it look like he was in for his whole enlistment..I just love how Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and Rice never went to war yet they are so quick to send our sons and daughters to an immoral, illegal, wrong war..they should all be tarred and feathered..better yet, they will be impeached.
Bush said he was getting rid of IRS.sm
Keep your fingers crossed that we go to a consumption tax (flat tax). According to an IRS report a few years back during the IRS abuse hearings, they said there are more than 60 million nonfilers and delinquent taxpayers. They have to do something to change the tax system and the laws.
Not just Bush.........
The problem is we have been selling this country off little by little for decades, so I can blame Bush, Clinton, and Bush, Sr, not to mention Jimmy Carter, who would sell his mother if he thought he could be someone's buddy 'ole pal 'ole chum. We have handed over strategic info to our enemies for years, way before Bush, tried to manipulate countries to do what we wanted, turned on those countries when their leaders got too powerful, etc., etc., and we have accomplished nothing but owing other countries to the tune of trillions of dollars. We are a wasteful country and our leaders are NOT looking out for us. Our congress are wasteful people and Heaven forbid one man with a backbone, Ron Paul comes to mind, says STOP IT, STOP IT, STOP IT!!!!!! He has been waving red flags for years and years, but other congressman are too money greedy to do what they are suppose to do. One way to stop all the crap is stop letting them write their own paychecks....they are a public servant.. We decide their paychecks. Once they are done with public service, they go back to making whatever they can on their own, not the $285K they get yearly for the rest of their lives after leaving, not to mention the wonderful healthcare they sign themselves up for, not to mention once they die, their spouses get all that moolah for the rest of their lives with all the healthcare perks. What's wrong with this picture. This happened way before Bush. We are a country that let our public servants serve themselves and serve us up on a platter for the world to take apart bite by bite.
George Bush
He is an embarrassement to this nation. He makes us all look like floundering idiots and he's the lead idiot.
I bet all the "red state" folks that voted for him are having second thoughts. He could care less. I do believe that he is slow on the response because it was not an area of well to do white people who support him but are poor hardworking mostly minority people. Take a good hard look America; this is what we are stuck with.
Did it occur to anyone that even terrorist groups are laughing at us!!!! UUGGHHH.
I'm ready for the flaming that is sure to come my way but...whatever....I can't stop crying from watching these people trying to survive in conditions that no one should be forced to endure.
George Bush
I'm not slow, just making a comparison to say....Florida last year. Granted the situation is on a much bigger scale but if you think back, most of the people were able to leave the areas hardest hit in Florida, mostly white, with transportation available.
As Katrina was coming up through the Gulf, the people left in New Orleans were the people who had no transportation, who lived in housing projects and/or were unemployed. They had no way to get out. I use the race issue because it is painfully obvious that most of the people waiting at the Superdome, on rooftops and various other locations were mostly black. There is no way to have missed that.
It is also painfully obvious that George Bush has taken a beating over this (and about time too in my opinion) and suddenly trucks, food and water are to be had. I guess he heard enough bull from enough people to finally do something to try and salvage himself politically.
Bush bashing
Administrator-- could we please have all the Bush bashing placed on the political board where it belongs????
Well, Bush DOES consider himself at the right hand of The Man...
I'm sure good ol' Bush will come out
with a lot of encouragement and more words about how "good" the economy is when he gives his state of the union.
I wonder if he has any clue at all that the "union" is falling apart right under his nose. 
What is this with Missy bush
x
re bush and impeachment...sm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush
and a couple of paragraphs from there (it's very lengthy that link but very interesting):
A March 16, 2006 poll[18] by American Research Group showed that 42% of Americans favored impeaching Bush. The same poll showed that a plurality of Americans favored the Senate censuring Bush regarding his authorization of wiretaps without court orders.[19]
An informal website poll MSNBC (April 14, 2006) asked whether there was justification to hold a formal impeachment trial, insufficient justification, nothing done wrong, or don't know. Roughly 250,000 votes were reported, 86% voting yes for impeachment. [20] (note that web polls are not scientifically conducted, and can be criticized on the grounds they may be unrepresentative of popular opinion)
George W. Bush! :) NM
d
Most definitely LAURA BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! nm
.
George W. Bush. nm
Don't turn this into a Bush bashing
nm
Seems likely it is fashionable to blame Bush for everything now. nm
xxx
under a rock....BUSH is responsible....sm
Your president Bush, whom you *sound* like you voted for...is most definitely responsible for fulfilling his family's nearly 30-year pact with the Saudi's at ALL AMERICAN WORKERS expense. They had a deal from nearly 30 years ago and now the Bush dynasty is paying them (the Saudi's) back by selling ALL OF US OUT, including our PORTS!!! He has jeopardized ALL OF US due to his NEED/WANT for global acceptance of HIM.
If you cannot *see* this - time for you to get some serious help.
I never said I supported Bush...I just said I have nothing to hide.
If it prevents another horrible act like Sept. 11, then I really don't care. I don't have my head in the sand by the way. I keep very current with what is going on. I am totally against Bush and everything he stands for, but I am FOR protecting this country.
question is Do I really care what the Bush Adm.
 N_O_T
You are correct, same as Bush basically. nm
xxx
Love Clinton, hate Bush
Rather have a lover of women in the WH than a lover of war, death, dividing the country, alienating the world, destroying the environment, allowing gases to rise, water to be polluted as he cuts back regulations for businesses, cutting the rights and protections for the middle class, on and on and on and on and on....Bush is a disaster..a freak..a sociopath..check it out on the internet..doctors have posted articles that Bush is a sociopath..and I agree, my four years of psychology in college lead me to this conclusion, never said anything but now Ph.D.s are saying it too.., LOLOLOLOLOL
if you can't debate, destroy! bush cronies do the same!
Do you realize that the Bush tax cut saved this economy after 9/11?
Everybody got a tax cut. Now you can't cut taxes to those who don't pay any, can you? That would be socialism. BTW, do you realize that the unemployment rate in those countries with cradle to grave entitlements runs more than 10%, as compared to our 4.9%. France for example. I know it seems like a simple solution that the taxes from the high wage earners should be taken away and given to those who don't earn anything, but in economic terms, that can destroy an economy and therefore hurt the low wager earners even more. Case in point, the Clinton luxury tax back in the 90s. He put a huge tax on boats and jewlery and had to remove it because of the trickle down damage that did to all the jobs those luxury items created.
You are way out of line. What Bush is saying is that there is no qualified female
PHYSICIAN to lead a woman's health program in the US, and he is going to make sure that women are treated the same way he would treat animals or reptiles. After all, didn't he get his kicks as a kid by putting cherry bombs down frogs throats and blowing them up. He has no respect for any female.
Laura Bush. Not to start an argument, LOL, I really do. nm
.
I like Laura Bush, She has alot of class.
If we want to get personal about the husband situation, then I mean come on, who can forget all of Bill Clintion's antics?? Ole' Hillary stayed w' him just to further her career. To me personally, When I look at the current Bushs I can see they they like each other, even DARE I DAY IT< LOVE each other. With the Clinton's all you got was cold air from Hillary, but then again who can blame her? But she is the one who stayed......so I don't feel bad for her at all.
THESE ARE JUST MY OPINIONS!!!!!! Everyone have a wonderful day!!!!
By 2012, the Bush Admin wants all facilities EMR.
This won't happen, but it is the goal. Some doctors will still use transcriptionists to enter the info, but I'm guessing the job description will be changed to Medical Data Entry Person, not require any special skills, and be minimum wage--not that I'm pessimistic or anything.
Some will do it themselves, and some will resist until the very end and beyond, but these guys are probably still hand writing their notes, so that doesn't help us. lol!
Same thing Bush wanted and was critized for. nm
xxx
George Bush hates medical transcriptionists.
nm
bush bashing? Do you like paying 5 bucks a gallon for gas? NM
get a life.
the bush-saudi long-time connection....sm
conspiracy theories or not - all this gives food for thought for those still living with a functioning brain. Also, there are literally thousands of these articles online for those who are interested.
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=99415
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/The_secret_saudi_052703.htm
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/saudi.html
Bush is speaking tonight on Mexico border at 8
I just heard on TV that Bush will be speaking at 8 pm on ABC insteady of Oprah's Legend Ball, and when he's done, last night's Grey's Anatomy will be rerun and then the 2-hour finale from 9-11 pm EST.....
So if ya missed it last night, you'll get about 3 hours tonight of the Season Finale.......
You are certifiable... Bush's war on terror? Excuse me, but THEY attacked us, or did you forget?
x
It's been all over the news about Bush being to blame for this natural disaster. Anyone sitting i
would have been blamed, too. It really doesn't matter what political affiliation they would be. People HAVE to put the blame somewhere and why not right at the very top? What this really comes down to is that PEOPLE, not VOTERS must come together and work in harmony for the common good of our fellow man. If we leave all the political baloney out of the equation, something good can be done.
It was wonderful outside. The butterfly bush is covered with butterflies of all colors. nm
:)
Is Venom ER still on? Learn lots about snakes there. Love that Dr. Bush! nm
s
Laura Bush, Judge Judy, Mariska Hargitay (from L&O SVU)
x
LOL, maybe you should stop reading anti-Bush blogs because you're wrong.
d
I have not had a raise since 1994, should I blame Clinton or Bush? At any rate, see inside...
Musky Income Myths
by Alan Reynolds
Alan Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and a nationally syndicated columnist.
Democratic presidential candidates advocating really humungous tax increases -- Howard Dean and Wesley Clark (until he withdrew on Feb. 11) -- appear to have lost ground to two favoring merely enormous tax increases, John Kerry and John Edwards. It would seem to follow the latter two should rethink their plans before challenging the only candidate who thinks tax rates are plenty high enough, George W. Bush. Amazingly, however, the Democrats are pulling out the old "income inequality" card. It worked so well for George McGovern and Walter Mondale.
Business Week says Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards "believe a Democrat can repeal top-tier Bush tax cuts with impunity because income inequality has widened under Bush." Taking a less partisan and more statistically defensible line, the Socialist Equality Party says, "Until the Bush administration, the Clinton years saw the greatest growth in social inequality in American history."
Such claims suggest the top 20 percent, or 5 percent of families, have been collecting a rising share of "our" personal income -- hence "income inequality has widened under Bush." Any candidate who says that has to be lying. The latest available data on income shares is for 2001, and they show no increase in inequality.
The recession was no picnic for top earners: There were 690,000 fewer managerial jobs in 2002 than in 2000. If these cash income figures included capital losses, they would reveal ample pain among "the rich" in 2001-2002. The poverty rate did rise from 9.2 percent to 9.6 percent in 2002, but that was still lower than the poverty rate in any year from 1980 to 1998.
To defend President Clinton from socialist egalitarians, prolonged increases in real output per worker (like 1996-2000) translate into increases in real income per worker. Since there are typically two workers in top income groups and less than one full-time worker in the bottom income group, it is mathematically unavoidable that the gap between two-earner families and no-earner families must grow wider whenever the economy is doing well. Real median income among families with two full-time workers was 43.6 percent higher in 2001 than it had been in 1991 -- an annual increase of nearly 4.4 percent a year. Families with no full-time workers did not do that well.
Most important, it is simply a statistical hoax to make long-term comparisons between the average (mean) income in any top income group with averages in lower groups. That is partly because the upper threshold on the group just below the top rises over time whenever real incomes in general are rising. As a result, increases in general prosperity mean incomes that once would have been large enough to make it into the top 5 percent no longer qualify.
Census figures say the top 5 percent collected 21 percent of all personal income in 2001, up from 20.3 percent in 1993. Measured in constant 2001 dollars, however, a family needed more than $164,104 to be counted among the top 5 percent in 2001, while anything above $136,539 would have qualified in 1993.
So long as that threshold kept rising, the share at the top was almost certain to rise, too. After all, an average of all income above $164,104 is almost certain to be larger than an average of all income above $136,539 simply because all incomes between those two figures were included in the top average in 1993 but excluded in 2001.
For the same reason, it makes no sense to compare long-term growth of average income in any top income group with growth below. Only the top group has no income ceiling, and the lower threshold defining membership in that top group rises whenever incomes in general are rising.
Because only the top group has no ceiling, increases in a small number of very high incomes (e.g., trial lawyers) can make the mean average in the top group rise much more than the incomes of typical members of that group. This is why it is considered misleading to refer to mean rather than median income as "average" in every other case, and why it is particularly misleading in this case.
Rising real income also raised the definition of the "middle class." The lower and upper limits defining the middle three-fifths were $20,262 to $64,241 in 1975 (in 2001 dollars) and $24,000 to $94,150 in 2001. Periodic fables about the "vanishing middle class" miss the obvious: Those who "vanished" moved up.
The main reasons some families earn more than others are not as shocking as politicians would have you believe. Consider these horribly shocking Census Bureau facts about inequality:
Families with two people have incomes at least 3 times larger than families in which nobody works. Median family income in 2001 was $51,407. But that figure combines median income of $21,958 among families with no workers and $66,151 among families with two earners. Among married couples where both work full-time, median income was even higher -- $76,150.
Mature, experienced employees earn at least 3 times as much as they did when they were young apprentices and trainees. Average family income was $16,014 among families in which the household head was younger than 24, but $45,978 when the household head was 45 to 54.
College grads earn at least 3 times as much as middle-school dropouts. For family heads with a bachelor's degree, median income was $78,518; for those with less than a ninth-grade education, median income was $25,077.
If all this rampant inequality strikes you as grossly unfair, you should indeed consider electing politicians promising to do something about it. But they can't really do much unless they promise to take money from two-earner families and give it to no-earner families, to take money from those who go to college and give it to those who didn't bother attending a free high school, and to take money from those who are at an age where they're trying to put the kids through college and give it to those in their early 20s.
The taking half of that policy is a reasonably precise description of who indeed would have their pockets picked under the tax plans of Messrs. Kerry, Edwards (and Clark). In whose pockets the expected booty would actually end up, however, is apt to prove as mysterious as figuring out what Mr. Dean did with all those millions he collected with Internet spam
not to mention, mr, bush likes to call this "living the american dream"
nm
BBQ burgers and hot dogs, corn on the cob, Bush's baked beans, and potato salad.
Except I made the potato salad yesterday.
Offshoring
Just remember YOUR elected representives allowed this offshoring to happen. Nothing illegal thanks to the politicians is happening when work is shipped offshore while allowing Americans to lose jobs while increasing taxes.
This is all the fault of the greed and power of the politicians and the corporations. It's not about an Indian worker who has been offered a job and can't lose their accent to please the consumer.
As far as contacting you in a few years when our jobs are overseas, they are shipping them out daily. Where have you been? Check OSI, Precyse, etc. They all offshore some outright and some undercover.
I don't have problems with the workers. I have problems with the government allowing this to happen and the corporations who cut costs while cutting quality by shipping work out of our country.
Keep you eye on your enemy and it is some Indian who is trying to keep a job to make a living.
To those against offshoring...
Have you noticed that anywhere you call, whether it be the phone company, the gas company, the insurance company, you get someone foreign on the phone. Oh yes and do not forget Microsoft and other computer related companies. I realize this cuz i get so damn mad because i can't understand what they are saying to me and they don't understand what i am saying to them. Now I noticed the post below about Earthlink and I am wondering...all of you who are against this..what are you going to do about the fact that the computer company that creates most of the software you use has places in other countries..your gas company..you insurance company, etc. etc. etc.? I, too, do not agree with offshoring, but I do not think there is REALLY anything we can do about it. Not working for companies that do it, yes thats a start, but what are you going to do about the rest of reality and everyday living? Just curious to opinions on this. I am not flaming..just concerned.
Offshoring - don't be too sure.
Look at history....work will be outsourced whether we like it or not. What happened to the steel, printing, shipping, automotive, and many other manufacturing efforts is happening to transcription. While we may produce a better product, if it can be produced cheaper somewhere else it will be. Sometimes MTSO's are forced to look at other avenues because they can't hire and maintain TATs. Clients want their costs reduced when it is already at rock bottom. Transcriptionists want higher pay and the profit margin isn't there to allow this. The transcription business has changed and will continue to change. After all....the only constant in life is change. The offshore MT is hungry and willing to give up just about anything to put food on the table. They probably don't argue, call in sick, complain or quit without notice. They don't bad mouth their employer. They just want to work...much like American workers decades ago. Take heed. I'm in the same boat and don't want to see it happen, but there are many factors that result in change. Transcriptionists are by nature not an organized group. We are mostly solitary and therefore have no voice or at least not one loud enough to be heard. We're all on production. We don't have time for such things. There is no large group lobbying for us. There isn't enough money in transcription anymore to have lobbyists and that is how...regardless of our protests...change happens...silently. People in India and other countries will learn to transcribe. It's only a matter of time. For myself, I am just going to try to do the very best job I can every single day and hope it is appreciated and know that I am not adding to the problem. Actually....I need to get back to work.
A - As soon as I tell them my pay has gone down about 40% since the offshoring (sm)
they are no longer interested in entering this field. In fact, their mouths about drop to the floor.
Having another American MT is not going to save another American job. They will send their work offshore if you are living next door and can do a 4-hour turnaround, just because the price is lower.
I'm getting out also, only doing part-time now and probably won't be doing part-time much longer.
offshoring
Don't know about this company, but there are companies that offshore and lie about it. Know this for a fact. I work for one.
OSi Offshoring - sm
If you are an employee of OSI, you should be able to access that article from the employee web page, try going back to about April or so...it should still be there, where it was originally posted. Read it for yourself and maybe then you'll believe it.
Offshoring
Ah, thanks for clearing that up for me. All this happened before I started. New employees are probably not aware of it, like me.
I probably got myself on the $hit-li$t now, but that's okay for something I did today to see any reaction. It wouldn't be the first time I've been on the list and probably won't be the last.
I will stay, though, as I really do like working for them...and I like the work..
OSi Offshoring
Ah, thanks for clearing that up for me. All this happened before I started. New employees are probably not aware of it, like me. This breaks my heart.
I probably got myself on the $hit-li$t now, for something I did today to see if there was any reaction, but that's okay. It wouldn't be the first time I've been on a list and probably won't be the last.
I will stay, though, as I really do like working for them. I like the work, and really don't have much of a choice anymore.
I think if these companies are going to offshore, they should send the work from the ESL's that can't speak English correctly. That work should be easy for the offshore companies for them to do.
Offshoring
I just wonder who these big businesses think is going to buy their products/services when all the jobs are in foreign countries. Not only that, when there are no jobs, or only minimum wage jobs, who's going to pay the big fat salaries of our idiot politicians? Heard on Lou Dobbs the other night that while the minimum wage remains stagnant, the senate voted themselves a hefty $30,000 raise!!!! Doncha wish we MTs could "vote" ourselves that kind of raise? Or maybe we're not so greedy and we'd settle for a fraction of that.
|
