Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Hillary 2016: the good, bad and ugly [View all]cascadiance
(19,537 posts)37. Also add her support for expanding the H-1B and other insourcing indentured servant programs...
We don't need to expand exploitation programs like this that allow companies to insource cheap labor from India for tech jobs that many Americans could do that are out of work, but aren't willing to work for the *cheap* wages that are allowed through this program that allows companies to *control* these employees that work for them here in a way that keeps their wages low. Those in India working here temporarily though don't mind working cheaply for a while when their families back in India can live on a tenth of what American families have to live on here. They build up a savings, and then return to places like Bangalore, which now has replaced Silicon Valley where most of the high tech jobs are, because we TRAIN them through this program, and therefore move our high tech industry over to places like India, China, and southeast Asia.
Now, I'm all for allowing some *sane* immigration policies for those who want to move here and make a commitment to living here, either through getting a green card or getting citizenship here. We should be instead pushing to streamline these programs that aren't working very efficiently now by design so that we can have them working here on an even playing field that doesn't allow corporate America playing games that keeps everyone's wages lower.
Clinton's support for this is yet another reason I as a tech worker that has suffered from this and the economy through recent years can't support her, if a more progressive option is available.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
49 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
the brutal sanctions against Iraq during Bill's years was not kind to women and children either.
Whisp
Feb 2013
#9
The policies Bill and Hillary supported in the 90s have devastated this country. Her support for war
Romulox
Feb 2013
#8
I fail to see what you are disagreeing with. You agree she has hurt the country, you agree
Romulox
Feb 2013
#14
If you're arguing that Americans are better off today than the late 90s, take it up with reality.
Romulox
Feb 2013
#20
Nope. Not any more than I would give credit to a Meth head for a sudden burst of energy...
Romulox
Feb 2013
#26
Also add her support for expanding the H-1B and other insourcing indentured servant programs...
cascadiance
Feb 2013
#37
maybe she made a deal here to speak for hundreds of thousands of dollars somewhere in India. n/t
Whisp
Feb 2013
#49
Her votes for, and support of, Bush's wars makes her a No Sale for me.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Feb 2013
#11
Hillary now repealed Glass-Steagall & enacted NAFTA?! Oh boy, it's going to be a long 4years.
JaneyVee
Feb 2013
#13
Correction, he always has been clinton, the sequel. It was the biggest hoot of the '08 primaries.
Maven
Feb 2013
#35
He was not a "commited corporatist" like Hillary already showed herself to be...
cascadiance
Feb 2013
#43
I think his "plans" to go after Iran were FAR LESS nebulous than Hillary's were...
cascadiance
Feb 2013
#46
And those that espouse liberal views should really have their backgrounds checked too...
cascadiance
Feb 2013
#39