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.
I think you forgot that NAFTA as a great idea began in the 1980s, and was a done deal while H W Bush was in office.
My goodness, talk about revisionist history. Remember Perot and the great big giant sucking sound if Clinton got NAFTA. I guess he was right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Wouldn't you love the unemployment rate through 2001 recession (4.7% in 2001)? The problem? Forget about adding even 83K jobs. The private sector was LOSING 100K to 200K jobs a month in 2002 and the unemployment rate was very respectable. You seem to be completely out of touch with the realities, where this economy had been since 2007 (I would dare say... since 2001).
Where?
This chart, the gift from obama and his "uniquely qualified team" just keeps giving.
My goodness, talk about revisionist history. Remember Perot and the great big giant sucking sound if Clinton got NAFTA. I guess he was right.
I visited Perot's office during my recent trip to India, actually.
As for being a revisionist, let me cut you some slack and say... you don't have a grasp of the history. The idea on NAFTA wasn't conceived until Clinton took office.
Quote:
Where?
This chart, the gift from obama and his "uniquely qualified team" just keeps giving...
You lay too much faith in charts than in reality and in numbers. Perhaps the latter don't support your cause as much as you would like to? Were you watching when this country was losing private sector jobs, and a good 3.4 million of those for months after 2001 recession? The unemployment rate, the only number you seem to care about, was below 6% throughout... must have been better time than the last 17 months when the economy has added 2.1 million private sector jobs because the unemployment rate is bad? How typical!
While I'm at it, let me provide an additional perspective that is sure to hurt the feelings of many "conservatives" on these boards. The following are number of months with consecutive job losses, beginning with the recession, until job loss finally reverses the course to job gain.
1982 Recession: 18 months, 2.55 million jobs lost
1991 Recession: 19 months, 1.66 million jobs lost
2001 Recession: 32 months, 3.45 million jobs lost
2008 Recession: 24 months, 8.82 million jobs lost
I don't think y'all have the capacity to recognize the damage the 2008 recession (Dec 2007-Jun 2009) caused to the economy and the job situation. You're doing what you do best... whine about not having your person in the White House.
If you care for this country, start with less whining, and try to work with others to improve the conditions. Don't make who's in the political office your one and the only game.
Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.
...and Bush had the housing boom but even during the peak it never achieved the kind of job growth that was routine in the Clinton years nor a revenue surplus.
The surplus was from the "Peace Dividend" of the collapse of the Soviet Union whcih Clinton had nothing* to do with. Clinton inherited a financial windfall; he didn't in any way cause it.
* In fact, while I was getting shot at by Soviet made rockets in Vietnam, "peacenik" Clinton was in a student group touring the Soviet Union.
The surplus was from the "Peace Dividend" of the collapse of the Soviet Union whcih Clinton had nothing* to do with. Clinton inherited a financial windfall; he didn't in any way cause it.
That's revisionist history. Bush's father claimed the peace dividend and still ran deficits happened in the first few years of Clinton's Administration, before his tax increases. The surplus perfectly coincides with his tax-cuts. Denying that it doesn't is just willful ignorance.
I'm not revising anything. That's the way I saw it then and there is no reason to change my recollection now.
So, based upon your recollection, your argument is that the reason Clinton had a surplus in his second term was because Bush1 had a peace dividend, that skipped over his term entirely and also the first term of Clinton, to show up in his 2nd term, and then coincidentally disappeared at the same time Bush2 lowered taxes?
So, based upon your recollection, your argument is that the reason Clinton had a surplus in his second term was because Bush1 had a peace dividend, that skipped over his term entirely and also the first term of Clinton, to show up in his 2nd term, and then coincidentally disappeared at the same time Bush2 lowered taxes?
Just wanted to clarify.
Then let's clarify that the Soviet Union collapsed in December 1991 and Clinton was elected President in 1992. Bush had a four year term beginning with winning the election in in 1988 (as I recall, unless that has also been revised..) Bush could see and declare it coming but didn't get to enjoy the benefits. BTW, Bush left Clinton one more "welcome to the White House" present: Somalia. I almost think the timing on that one was intentional...
I am in no way a GHW Bush fan. I voted for Perot.
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.
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.
Remember Perot and the great big giant sucking sound if Clinton got NAFTA. I guess he was right.
