Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thanks for caring who I vote for but it's none of your business. I have the right to independently evaluate each candidate and vote for the person/party based on what I think, not what I'm told to think. I'm not part of a herd that needs to be cared for and pointed in a direction. I also have the right to choose not to vote.
Obviously you don't understand that the "new jobs" that are being created, the majority of them are part-time. Eliminate one full time job, create two "new jobs". They must be paying really well because there are many people holding down 2 or 3 of those part time jobs just to get by.
Jobs lost? Well I know of a president that wiped out the manufacturing sector and put a big hurt on the middle class. Jobs lost started with a little thing called NAFTA. Hint: He's a democrat. And if you can figure out who he is, you might know that he regrets ever signing it because of the negative impact it had on the US. Who gained from it? The economies of China and India.
Let me point you in another direction: south. US companies are pulling out of China and setting up manufacturing plants right in your neighbor's backyard. Cheap labor.
How about that national debt thingy? How's that doing? Up $7.4 trillion since Obama took office. That's how it's doing.
But more jobs were created when Clinton was president than when Bush came later.
Not only do deficits shrink when Republicans control both houses of Congress, but unemployment continually declines as long as they are in charge.
From January 1995 through December 2000, unemployment declined from 5.6% to 3.9%, and from January 2003 through December 2006 unemployment declined from 5.8% to 4.4%.
But more jobs were created when Clinton was president than when Bush came later.
Thats because under Bush we had pretty much full employment until the economic crash.
You cant create more jobs than there are people to fill them. Its impossible.
And lets not even discuss that Clinton opposed those policies which lead to job creations. he fought kicking and screaming against them, even shut down the government..
Nevertheless, except for Carter, you can't run from the fact that the economy performs better with more jobs created when a Democrat is president.
If it so important to the Republicans not to have a deficit then Bush should have vetoed efforts to run up the deficit when he was president.
Bush learned from his father that the American people are largely stupid and that being fiscally responsible turns you into a one-term president.
Clinton rode both a stock market bubble and a consumer debt bubble economy so Bush took over and rode a housing bubble economy to stave off the popping of Clinton's bubbles....and then Obama inherited the hangover of both of them (and some guys before that as well.)
Hillary Clinton has apparently given up on winning the 2016 Presidential election. Sure, she will be the Dems nominee, but how can anyone take a leftist seriously when her campaign logo consists of her initial and an arrow pointing right?
Hillary Clinton has apparently given up on winning the 2016 Presidential election. Sure, she will be the Dems nominee, but how can anyone take a leftist seriously when her campaign logo consists of her initial and an arrow pointing right?
Try hard not to be ridiculous. Making a claim like this is obvious nonsense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.