The names of the eight congressmen who voted against the No Calls List.

[SuffragetteSal]

I wonder how they would feel to have their family dinner interrupted with a solicitation phone call!

Here they are...
Rob Bishop (UT) Republican

Kendrick Meek (FL) Democrat

Ted Strickland - (Ohio) Democrat

Chris Cannon - (Utah) Republican

Ron Paul - (Texas) Republican

Lee Terry - (Nebraska) Republican

Jeff Flake -( Arizona) Republican

Tim Ryan - (Ohio) Democrat


Link: http://www.scn.org/~bk269/telemarketing_votes.html

[sham]

1. yawn.

:eyes:

[SuffragetteSal]

4. that's your 'yawn' opinion

that and a dollar will get you a coke.

[buff2]

2. I am really shocked

that Ted Strickland voted against it. He's always been right on the money with the issues I care about.....but not this one! Shame on you Ted! :spank:

[dsc]

65. My guess is that there must be a bunch of this marketing

in youngstown or warren or both. Since both Strickland and Ryan voted against it. Many people in Strickland's district would work in Youngstown and Warren.

[7th_Sephiroth]

3. i'm a Dem from fl

and meek just lost my vote.

[Cheswick2.0]

51. I'll bet there a lot of people in your district employed as telemarketers

and your congress person was voting to protect their jobs. Crappy as those jobs may be, it is better than nothing for many people. Cut him a break for that.

[vi5]

5. Probably much better then if they were unemployed...

Because their low skill/low training job was eliminated.

I'm assuming that the month or so after this takes effect and the jobless figures are announced that we won't hear any carping on here about the horrible unemployment rate and what a tragedy it is.

[Toucano]

7. As if

They weren't already moving all those call center jobs to India?

That's sort of like saying we have to cut down all the trees because it creates jobs.

[vi5]

11. So you are saying there are no telemarketing jobs in America?

C'mon. You know that's not the case.

If someone wants their name on the list then fine. That's what it's there for. I'm just surprised that given the huge outcry over the jobs that this country is hemoraghing (sp) due to the poor economy and the actions of Bush and the repubs, that we hear on this board day in and day out, that people would want the government more concerned with doing something that creates jobs rather than ones that take them away.

I have caller ID. I also have this thing called a policy of not answering my phone during dinner and turning off the ringer. And an unlisted number. All of them work wonders for me.

[Toucano]

20. Of course I know that's not the case.

That's why I never said, "there are no telemarketing jobs in America".

I would also NOT say there are no manufacturing jobs in America but that would not negate the fact that we are hemmoraging manufacturing jobs.

My point is that even the low skill AND high tech AND manufacturing jobs are being sent overseas at an alarming rate.

Giving corporations free speech rights in the guise of protecting jobs is the problem. As you illustrated, there are better ways to deal with telemarketers. No one I care to talk to calls my home phone. If I want to talk to you, you would have my mobile number.

[Avalon Sparks]

50. I agree with you 100%

Although calls can be annoying at times, unemployment going up even more would be worse.

[Robin Hood]

8. I'm sorry but,

Because you have built a business off of intruding into my home, does not give me any sympathy on whether you lose your ass. And it is still Bush's responsibility, because he has created such a bad business climate that these jobs can not be absorbed.

But no one has the right to harass me at home just to make a buck. I would like to see this applied to TV commercials as well. After all, I am paying 80 bucks a month and most of the time I spend sitting through commercials.

[vi5]

12. Have you thought about an unlisted number? Or Caller ID?

Of just simply turning off your ringer when you don't want to be bothered?

You can find a rationale for any number of jobs being uneccesary if you want to.

[Robin Hood]

19. I have caller ID and an unlisted number.

But that does not stop them. All the caller ID says is "out of area", Which could be a number of people that I know. And why should I turn off the service that I am paying for?

[Pepperbelly]

21. heaven forbid that you ...

be disturbed by someone. I am horrified.

[Robin Hood]

24. Disturbed, harrased and ripped off.

You should be horriffied that corporations are using your resources to target you. They are using my fax machine, ink, paper and phone line, that stuff is not cheap. I am horrified that so called liberals are such corporate whores.

[Pepperbelly]

30. God forgive that ...

someone might put food on the table for their family in a way that disturbs your dinner.

Whatever.

I just do not understand the premium of privacy at the expense of people's livlihood. But hey, I'm old school Democrat and actually think that people being able to take care of their families is a good thing.

[Robin Hood]

33. Taking care of your families by ripping mine off.

And that's all right with you. My time and resources take away from my family. 3 million telemarketers compared to at least 50 million people that they have ripped off in time and resources.

[karlschneider]

52. So post your home phone number. I have a lot of stuff I'd like to sell.

:grr:

[RC]

42. I remember whan Caller-ID first came out...

And all the screaming about the invasion of privacy of the caller.

This is the same basic argument all over again. Some feel that YOU, in your own home have no right not to be intruded up on by strangers.

[blondeatlast]

6. Maybe we can find out . . .

:evilgrin:

As an Arizonan, I can tell you that Jeff Flake is very aptly monikered.

[Robin Hood]

10. lol..

[synthia]

9. how many people are you willing to put out of work

so your phone doesn't ring during dinner?

[SuffragetteSal]

13. See reply #7

n/t

[vi5]

14. NIMBY

Not In My Back Yard

[Robin Hood]

16. As many as it takes for people not to use my resources for their gain.

I get fax spam, which uses my ink and paper. And I used to get 4-5 tele-marketing calls a day before I signed up for my states no call list. i can tell you that living without a constant barrage of telephone commercials is wonderfull. I finally have my house back.

I don't give a crap about some piss ass job that does nothing but harass me in the privacy of my own home. is nothing sacred anymore? Do we whore out everything for a measly buck. Let's cut down all the trees and do away with any environmental and worker regulations, after all, it's all about the mighty dollar and the sucking up to corporations.

[vi5]

18. Hmmm...

"I don't give a crap about some piss ass job"

How very liberal of you.

[Robin Hood]

22. Oh bullshit.

Don't play that crap with me. QUestioning my liberal politics. It is very liberal to stand up to corporations and their intrusions into one's personal life. From piss test to telemarketers, we have given up our privacy for the al mighty corporation.

[vi5]

I never said anything about corporations......

I simply stated my reasons for not wanting to be put on the list, and also what I do to remedy the unwanted solicitation calls.

Unless someone works for themselves or a family member we're all whoring ourselves out doing whatever it is we do for a living. I just don't see the need to put my job or what I do for a living above anyone else's so called piss ass job.

[Robin Hood]

27. "I never said anything about corporations"

Who do you think is calling you? You un plug your phone if you want. I can't because what if one of my kids has an emergency and needs me or their mother? Why should I turn off the service that I pay for and rely on? It is ridiculous that I should have to suffer or be a hostage to telemarketers in my own home.

[vi5]

29. Hey...to each their own....

I have a cell phone that I use for personal calls, and when I get a soliciation call on my main phone I simply say I'm not interested and hang up.

And to my knowledge I've never received a soliciation call from Enron, or Phillip Morris or RJR Reynolds or Wal Mart or Goldman Sachs or any company I would regard as a "corporation".

[Lydia Leftcoast]

66. I briefly worked in a call center during the Reagan recession

The ultimate employer was a nationally-known company, but people who ran the call center were scum, smarmy con-man types.

After I left the call center (deciding after two weeks that I wasn't that desperate) I signed up with a temp agency and worked in such places as a hospital laundry and a metal plating plant. The work was difficult and unpleasant, but I liked it far better than bothering people and trying desperately to make my sales quota while the supervisors yelled at us to try harder.

The turnover in the call center was very high, by the way. By the time I left, there were only two people left (out of a fifteen-person call center) who had been there the day I started. This was during the Reagan recession, mind you, when Minneapolis had an 11% official unemployment rate.

I would suspect that in most cases, working in a call center is not anyone's lifetime career but a short-term job that people try for a while and then quit in disgust.

[Robin Hood]

17. wrong post

[greyl]

23. Bullfrogs! End the outsourcing of telephone jobs to India and

other countries, and poof! all the jobs are back.

edit:to put a button on it, when I called my unemployment office, I was transferred to cubicles in India. Same is true of many state welfare offices. I'm in MD, and I remember New Jersey was another offender from NOW:

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/jobflight.html

snip> The numbers are startling: 3.3 million jobs in less than 15 years. That's the number of U.S. jobs expected to be lost overseas by 2015 according to a recent report by Forrester Research. But the sheer size of the exodus isn't what's worrying analysts the most — it's the type of jobs. Some critics are worried that this time it's the corporate main office is getting ready to shut down and head out of the country, packing up cubicles and all. As reported on NOW, a new wave of jobs are leaving U.S. shores: software development, customer service, accounting, back-office support, product development and other white collar endeavors.
<snip

[oldcoot]

40. They also use inmates as telemarketers

Here is an article about the use of prison inmates as telemarketers: http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/archives/1998/aug/07/507568938.html?telemarketers+and+inmates .

[greyl]

46. oh man, those telemarketing companies are bastards.

And the thing is, there are usually only a few people in the company that are paid welllll above minimum wage. (6 digits)

I used to be a telemarketer btw, many years ago and when I was a sales manager, I hired a "telemarketer" or two, but only to call those that had already done business with the company.

The other aspect of this law is that it doesn't forbid telemarketing, it only allows the do not call list. Phone calls to "current customers" or those people who have made a financial transaction with the company, aren't covered.

[SuffragetteSal]

25. you're missing the point

and that is that we should be aware and pay attention to how 'our' paid representatives are voting on issues that effect us each and every day or night. The recalled 'no call' issue happened without them asking us how we feel about it and I think that is wrong. If these 8 congresspersons did indeed represent 'your' opinion - swell. But I don't need to guess that those 50 million people who signed up for the 'no call' list absolutely do NOT want their privacy interrupted. 50 million, did you hear that?

[Cheswick2.0]

53. Sal, they are representing they people who elected them

I'll bet all of these politicians have telemarketing jobs in their districts. I'll also be they would rather be voting on legislation that was going to bring good paying manufacturing or idustrial jobs to their constituents. In the meantime it is not their job to make their people even less employable.

I am with you on the legislation. I think there should be a no call list and I don't believe anyone has the right to call me if I don't want them too. However I won't get on the case of a politician fighting for jobs.

[SingSong]

57. 50 million phone numbers

that translates to quite a few more people!

[blondeatlast]

26. There is more respectable work

My local Jack in the Box always needs workers. So does the Target, and the gas station. But they don't come to my house offering Monster Tacos or sheets and towels during my dinner.

They have this RADICAL idea that if I want what they offer, I should come to them?! How NOVEL!

I admire your resolve, but if these go, someone will create new crappy jobs to take their place.

[Supply Side Jesus]

38. Kinda of hard

to rush around jack n' box and stock shelves in target, or reach over the counter at the gas station when you are in a wheel chair. But what the hell as long as you aint held hostage in you own home!!

[Robin Hood]

43. You are implying

that these businesses do not employ disabled persons. That's a false argument because it's not true.

[RC]

41. As many as it takes...

[SingSong]

54. All jobs are not created equal

If someone is performing a task that is not only annoying, but also costly in terms of time and equipment, they should be looked at for what they are - unwelcome intruders into my home. People don't have to do this job. It's not as though it pays well and has great benefits.

[greyl]

15. was curious what was up in Ohio and

found that many of these votes may not have been "for the telemarketers", but against an increase of federal power over states.

In particular the Ohio Small Business Association seems to have a strong leaning toward giving the states power over to the feds.

So point is, be careful about jumping to unwarrented conclusions about the votes without knowing the reasoning behind them.

[Yupster]

28. I could have guessed Ron Paul

He's a libertarian who doesn't think the government should have an opinion about anything. He ran for prez on the Libertarian Ticket in the 80's.

I don't know what the beefs of the others are.

[jiacinto]

31. Maybe they have call centers in their district

that employ a large number of constituents. Did you ever think about that?

I live in Meek's district by the way. I do think there is a call center here.

[SuffragetteSal]

32. if 50 million people don't want to be called at

home that should over-ride even the one center that employs how a few dozen people.

[jiacinto]

35. I find this so ironic

For a "progressive" board the lack of compassion for these people who are losing thier jobs is telling. I don't like being called either and am on the do not call list myself, but I am not going to ridicule and cheer people losing their jobs. They are humans, with feelings, and with children and families to support. That somehow you forget this is telling.

[RC]

44. How often do you feel compassion for someone who is harassing you?

[jiacinto]

45. Look

These people are in tough jobs. I don't like it when they call me. But I am not going to cheer their impending unemployment either. For many of those people that is probably the only job they could find. And to take pleasure in their job loss is cruel.

I am on the DNC list too. But I do feel bad for those losing their jobs. I am sure that they don't like what they do either.

[Robin Hood]

47. Who is cheering their job loss?

:shrug:

[Toucano]

56. Then we're doing them a favor

If their jobs are so miserable. They hate their job, we hate their job, let's end their job! That is PROGRESSive.

No one said they can't be paid to ANSWER the phone for sales leads generated by less intrusive means. Cold calling is a faulty business model.

I also don't accept the following arguments:

-We can't protect the forest because we will lose jobs.

-We can't stop mining under old growth forests because we will lose jobs.

-We can't use telephones because the post office will lose jobs.

-We can't use motor cars because what will become of the blacksmiths?

[spooky3]

59. good point (eom)

[Woodstock]

64. Right on, dralson!!!

They used that same argument for the tobacco farmers - but they'll lose their jobs! So let's keep the killing going so they don't lose their jobs, heaven forbid.

Turns out they could grow broccoli. Where there's a will there's a way.

Big business will ALWAYS take the easiest way out. That's where we come in. We tell them NO. Like we're doing with the do not call list.

Like Clinton said, how about jobs in renewable energy? There are lots of places new jobs could come from, if big business will get off their asses.

If I pay for a private line, an answering machine, a Telezapper, and STILL am harassed in my own home with my own phone, then something is wrong. I can only have a phone if I agree to be harassed? NO WAY. I'm going to fight this all the way. Congress, you are on noticed - we want the do not call list.

[Supply Side Jesus]

39. People's will vs. the constitution

hey, wheatever justifys the ends, right?

[spooky3]

60. The judge didn't agree that the telemarketers have

a constitutional right to call people. He said the problem was that the government was discriminating unfairly between types of speech without a clearly articulated justification.

[Skittles]

34. STOP ACTING

like getting interrupted at dinner is a national emergency. PLEASE.
NO ONE SAYS YOU HAVE TO ANSWER THE F***ING PHONE.

[SuffragetteSal]

36. yeah...wonder if it is my child

with an emergency?! Should I just 'not answer' the phone? Are you kidding? I am paying for my phone service, why should I be 'forced' not to use it or keep it open for emergencies?

Settle down Skittles...you can come over and answer it for me if you like, or perhaps you mother answers it for you. :)

[hooligan]

37. Perhaps you'd like to give out your home number then

I'd like to sell you a clue.

[MercutioATC]

48. If I can put a "no solicitors" sign on my door, why can't I do the same

with my phone? It IS harassment.

[spooky3]

58. yep--and how many goods do these companies

sell to people who DON'T WANT their calls? Unless people are truly crazy, it can't be many. The telemarketers should be thanking us for saving them the call.

[Loyal]

49. I think Ron Paul voted against it,

because he votes against 95% of the bills the House passes. That's just the way he is. The others, I don't know. Maybe they have a lot of telemarketing contributions.

[spooky3]

55. Terry was on Cspan--some big telemarketers are in his district

The problem is not just the occasional dinner call, although that's bad enough. I came home today, very tired and wanting to take a nap, to find more than 10 "out of area" calls on my caller ID. These calls continued every half hour, even though my outgoing message says, "if you are a telemarketer, please do not call again". Finally I answered one and said "DO NOT CALL ME AGAIN." It's ridiculous to suggest that I unplug every phone in every room of the house just to stop people from sending their recorded messages to my home every half hour, so I can get a little sleep. Most of us who do not have unlisted numbers get these calls daily.

The legislation provided a good means of solving this problem. The WPost printed an article today with a solution that the FTC had rejected as "too costly" (a phony excuse in my view). Had they given people separate options to refuse charitable and political calls as well as commercial ones, there would be no basis for the judge to have charged the legislation with unfairly discriminating between the types of "speech". How much more costly is it to put three check boxes on a website rather than just one, and to make the lists available to charities and political orgs? Not much, compared to the legal battles and the ire of voters who see a simple but very annoying problem magnified unnecessarily when there are bigger fish to fry.

[Generic Other]

61. we are "marks" and "tricks" to telemarketers

Unscrupulous strangers are phoning our homes constantly. How do we keep our children from answering and giving too much information? How do we keep our aging grandparents from trusting manipulative and dishonest individuals hoping to take advantage of their vulnerability?

What right do telemarketers have to force their way into my house especially if I am not interested in doing business with them? I have never ever bought anything over the phone from a stranger and I never would. This is not because I am trying to deny a man or woman a right to make a living. It is because I do not choose to do business under such conditions. I don't do business over the phone. I don't trust strangers simply because they know my phone number.
This is the answer I have given telemarketers for twenty years.

I assume evryone else on the "DO NOT CALL" list feel exactly as I do. So the question is, how are we, the ones who don't wish to receive calls, hurting the telemarket industry by asking that they only phone those who are interested in their pitch?

Sympathy for con artists is in short supply in my neighborhood. Go peddle that crap somewhere else.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

62. maybe their worried about 20,000 telemarketers added to UNEMPLOYEMENT

rolls (of which most are single moms supporting children) when this law goes into affect on oct 1st...it will add to bushco's shitty record

[soup]

63. Surprised nobody has added This List yet

Not voting in the House were Reps.
Sanford Bishop, D-Ga.
Dick Gephardt, D-Mo.
James Gibbons R-Nev.
Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio
John Larson, D-Conn.
John Lewis, D-Ga.
Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.
Richard Pombo, R-Calif.
Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas
Christopher Shays, R-Conn.
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio
Melvin Watt, D-N.C.
Curt Weldon, R-Pa.

Not voting in the Senate were Sens.
John Edwards, D-N.C.
Bob Graham, D-Fla.
Judd Gregg, R-N.H.
John Kerry, D-Mass.
Joe Lieberman, D-Conn.

From an article here:
http://www.news-observer.com/front/story/2894980p-2666437c.html

So, what does That list say - They don't care either way? They're too busy? Over 50 million people mean nothing to them? They knew it would pass and their vote wasn't needed? They're rarely home for dinner, so haven't noticed the interruptions?


Speaking of corporations making money, AT&T Government Solutions got a $3,500,000.00 contract out of this.
http://www.att.com/news/item/0,1847,11387,00.html

How funny is that? If this works as planned, the company that gets paid to provide a service is getting paid to block an unwanted portion of it by the people who use the service to make money from it.

Does anyone else get a share of the $16,000,000.00 the Senate appropriated for 2003?


I don't like that there's exemptions to the 'do not call'. Maybe it's just me, but why should political and charitable organizations and telephone surveyors be able to bug me, but someone selling magazines (or whatever) can't? and who defines what constitutes a charitable organization?

Keep asking myself why I'm so skeptical about something that would slow down the number of unsolicited calls we get in a day. It goes beyond call-center people losing their jobs. Maybe it's something that's forward looking, or broader, I don't know. Haven't quite figured it out yet. Could just be I don't trust much of anything coming out of government right now, so I tend to look for an 'angle' in almost everything.

:shrug: