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.
Maybe no one was complaining about Bush creating jobs because we had the lowest unemployemnt in history when Bush was president.
And his tax cuts? The federal government took more in in taxes in 2006, 2007 and 2008 than any years in history.
Why do democrats keep blaming Bush for everything? It's been well over a year since he left office.
Clinton handed him a 4.0% unemployment rate.
He muffed the ball, repeatedly. He left it at 7.4. So yeah, I am going to blame him. You're going to have to deal with that.
Then it rose to over 10% (10.1%) under Obama just as it did early in Reagan's term (10.8% being Reagan's worst month), and is now showing a 4/10ths drop since peaking out at 10.1%. Again, very close to what happened with Reagan. It actually took longer for the job market to recover under Reagan, assuming that it continues to drop from this point forward, under Obama.
The down turn started under Clinton late 90s. But Bush had eight long years to do something about it. Manufacturing jobs have been leaving the country like a sieve during the decade. His whole Iraq obsession was what killled his Presidency and our country in my opinion. Obama so far gets a passing grade in his first year, although hopefully now that he has health care behind him he can focus on this vital issue more.
The down turn started under Clinton late 90s. But Bush had eight long years to do something about it. Manufacturing jobs have been leaving the country like a sieve during the decade. His whole Iraq obsession was what killled his Presidency and our country in my opinion. Obama so far gets a passing grade in his first year, although hopefully now that he has health care behind him he can focus on this vital issue more.
Why not go further back to Clinton for signing NAFTA and allowing those jobs to move within the next decade ?
If I recall the masses were ok with NAFTA because it was going to bring us BETTER jobs..the menial work would go and we'd be freed up to do better, higher paying work.
Sound like the same sad song sung when mfg left in the 70's ?
How were times good? Everything under Bush was built on credit. We had a credit card that we rung up billions of dollars on, but we dont have any money. If Americans had any foresight they would have seen this coming. Things dont get bad overnight, it took us 30 years to destroy this country.
Your thread wasn't about if times were good or credit.
It was about jobs.
Unemployment was at historic lows under Bush.
How many democrats were whining about a lack of jobs under Bush? None.
Why not go further back to Clinton for signing NAFTA and allowing those jobs to move within the next decade ?
If I recall the masses were ok with NAFTA because it was going to bring us BETTER jobs..the menial work would go and we'd be freed up to do better, higher paying work.
Sound like the same sad song sung when mfg left in the 70's ?
And we can keep going back to say, early 80s, when Reagan deregged the credit industry and the bubble started to fill. But I do hold Clinton and the others you named responsible as well. It was Clinton who signed off on Graham's piece of garbage, after all.
carter/reagan/bush1/clinton/bush2/ AND Obama all puppets of brzezinski. and the CFR
the all the same
obama is bush on steriods
Tru Dat.
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.