>Making college free for public colleges and universities?
One of the main - perhaps the main concept behind GATS is promoting more competition, so no, you cannot give anything away that would be stealing the market from the foreign providers- their big educational brands would then have a cause of action against the government - they could demand compensation and sanctions until it stopped.
>Will these folks be working on tech projects that affect the country's security?
I have no idea- probably not, and one thing I constantly think while reading these deals text is that its possible that a few years down the line people will probably want more secret and security oriented spending because they are perhaps one of the only service areas that is exempted.
>I think that even if it is more expensive, we should use US folks, rather than import people from overseas for these jobs.
The US recently won a case on that before the WTO, so that likely will be illegal if any government money is involved. No more preferences, basically no more New Deals. Government spending will gradually have to use an e-tendering system, like the WTO revised Government procurement Agreement e-portal.
This creates a level playing field where the lowest qualified bidder wins.
>We have plenty of good folks here for tech jobs.
yes, i agree with you completely.
>I think it's a ploy to make their pay less.
Oh, its not a play, thats the #1 goal, thats one of the so called "benefits of the agreement" - competition lowers labor costs.
The Clintons have been associated with the idea of globalizing the world for many decades. they generously helped set up the WTO to help the developing nations be easier to exploit.
offering them this reward - kind of like El Dorado, the glittering city of gold if they just behave like us and privatize - they can be successful with their healthcare systems, their educational systems. the US is so rich we even got rid of welfare-
= new reply since forum marked as read
