homer said:
johnsobas said:
homer said:
toastboy44562 said:
Im sure he added debt in the beginning, but we were on the track to make some serious money. Bush recommended to go to iraq, at the a lot of the congress was his buddies. So he could basically do whatever he wanted within reason. He could have controlled how many jobs went overseas by trying to enforce different tarifs and being more liberal and trying to get other countries to trade with us more. I dont know about the rest personally you could be right.
|
Overall during his presidency, he did add to the deficit though, or am I mistaken? Clinton took us to Somalia, and left abruptly throwing that country into chaos, if I am not mistaken. Why doesn't Obama do the things you speak of? Then we could stop the loss of more jobs, and perhaps court other former American factories to come back.
|
yes but he inherited a deficit and turned it into a surplus. clinton's overall debt was very small, bush's debt was insane, obama's debt might become worse. clinton sent tons of jobs overseas too, he passed NAFTA, working conditions got worse. It was a strong economy at the time though. He does get too much credit, the economy probably would have been great anyway. Basically clinton was not as bad as other presidents in recent times, i don't think he was great by any means. Presidents still have to bow their heads to corporations and it's hard to blame them, they wouldn't be where they are without doing that.
|
Why would they pass NAFTA anyways? Doesn't that just encourage companies to move to Mexico, for cheaper wages? I agree with you though. It seems democrats do give too much credit to Clinton, and hate too much on Bush, while Republicans tend to hate on Clinton and act like Bush never existed lol.
|
A generally accepted principle of economics is that free trade benefits both parties; and to explain it in a very simple way, trade between an advanced economy (US) and a developing economy (Mexico) enables the developing economy to rapidly grow by producing inexpensive unsophisticated goods/services while the advanced economy regains manufacturing/development capacity to build more sophisticated and advanced goods/services.
The problem the United States has faced over the past couple of decades is that their excess production capacity is really poorly suited to the advanced development jobs “of the future”. Once again to simplify this, the high-school dropout who gets drunk and high during his lunch hour may be able to assemble toasters, but no electronics company in their right mind would hire him to work to develop the precise components that make up modern goods; and he certainly lacks the education to work in the research and development of these products.
