Mothering Forum banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,755 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">Truman First Term: 60,000 jobs gained per month<br><br>
Truman Second Term: 113,000 jobs gained per month<br><br>
Eisenhower First Term: 58,000 jobs gained per month<br><br>
Eisenhower Second Term: 15,000 jobs gained per month<br><br>
Kennedy: 122,000 jobs gained per month<br><br>
Johnson: 206,000 jobs gained per month<br><br>
Nixon First Term: 129,000 jobs gained per month<br><br>
Nixon/Ford : 105,000 jobs gained per month<br><br>
Carter: 218,000 jobs gained per month<br><br>
Reagan First Term: 109,000 jobs gained per month<br><br>
Reagan Second Term: 224,000 jobs gained per month<br><br>
G. Bush: 52,000 jobs gained per month<br><br>
Clinton First Term: 242,000 jobs gained per month<br><br>
Clinton Second Term: 235,000 jobs gained per month<br><br>
G.W. Bush : 69,000 jobs LOST per month</td>
</tr></table></div>
for the full story here is the link:<br><a href="http://www.thenation.com/edcut/index.mhtml?pid=645" target="_blank">http://www.thenation.com/edcut/index.mhtml?pid=645</a>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
300 Posts
People who are unemployed, especially when the jobless rate is dropping, meaning they are not bothering to look any more, have more time to devote to deciding on political matters.<br><br>
When "Daddy issues" such as the economy turn into "mommy issues", meaning Daddy is out of work, then the tide has turned.<br>
(William Schneider uses these terms!)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,626 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">People who are unemployed, especially when the jobless rate is dropping, meaning they are not bothering to look any more, have more time to devote to deciding on political matters.</td>
</tr></table></div>
Yeah, well, they also have more time to devote to watching "As the World Turns."<br><br>
I sure hope they actually DO pay more attention to political matters with their free time, though.<br><br>
(yes, I'm always a pessimist)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,951 Posts
How is this his fault? I would have thought it had a lot to do with 9/11. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/confused.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="Confused">:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
300 Posts
He could oppose companies that choose to offshore their jobs. How? By requesting legislation to penalize those companies who fire their employees to send the jobs overseas. Instead, when New Jersey threatened to impose a tax burden on companies who do this, the administration gave assurances to foreign countries (India and China) that they would oppose it. He could issue an executive order prohibiting government contracts to companies who fire American workers so they can hire cheap labor in other countries. Even the Republican Party offshored American telemarketing fundraising jobs!<br><br>
9/11 was part of the slow down, but certainly not all of it. Last estimate I heard was about 33% of the deficit was related to the disaster. That leaves Bush holding the executive bag for the other $300 million in the deficit. The deficit also impacts businesses as interest rates rise and borrowing becomes more difficult. The war creates an environment of uncertainty, causing consumers to hang on to their money versus spending it more freely and stimulating the economy.<br><br>
Instead of spending $100 billion on Iraq, he could use that money to create jobs for designing, improving, and building our infrastructure.<br><br>
He could spend the war chest on making it financially easier for students to get educations so our population is up to the challenge.<br><br>
He would have you believe he is helpless, but domestic policy makes a big difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
573 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">He could oppose companies that choose to offshore their jobs. How? By requesting legislation to penalize those companies who fire their employees to send the jobs overseas. Instead, when New Jersey threatened to impose a tax burden on companies who do this, the administration gave assurances to foreign countries (India and China) that they would oppose it. He could issue an executive order prohibiting government contracts to companies who fire American workers so they can hire cheap labor in other countries.</td>
</tr></table></div>
That's not gonna happen. It's unrealistic and completely against free market concepts.
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">Instead of spending $100 billion on Iraq, he could use that money to create jobs for designing, improving, and building our infrastructure.</td>
</tr></table></div>
I don't think this country needs another New Deal. And abondon Iraq? Yeah, that would fly real well, not to mention it would be the worst thing he could do morally, politically, economically, militarily, security-wise, etc. I guess he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't?
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">He could spend the war chest on making it financially easier for students to get educations so our population is up to the challenge.</td>
</tr></table></div>
War chest? Is this before or after the New New Deal?<br><div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">He would have you believe he is helpless, but domestic policy makes a big difference.</td>
</tr></table></div>
He's never said he was helpless. His tax cuts have probably prevented the recession from getting worse than it was. It is a truth that the business cycle will run its course, and the best government can do is to lessen the negative impacts.<br><div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">The deficit also impacts businesses as interest rates rise and borrowing becomes more difficult.</td>
</tr></table></div>
Interest rates have been at 40-year lows for a year or more, and still are.<br><div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">The war creates an environment of uncertainty, causing consumers to hang on to their money versus spending it more freely and stimulating the economy.</td>
</tr></table></div>
I am sure the war and uncertainty did not help, but it's something we did and we have to finish it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
300 Posts
We have had taxes on imports, etc and various types of protections for decades. The federal and state govt. can do these things to protect American jobs and national security. Not just economic security, but making sure we don't outsource the manufacture of critical items to our defense, including little things like computers, not just bombs, steel, and including proprietary information.<br><br>
Interest rates are low now, but if the deficit remains high, interest rates will increase, and we are already seeing a slight creep upwards (check new rates on home mortgages). The higher rates will increase the cost of doing business, increase bankruptcies, prevent business expansion, and probably cause more layoffs. Furthermore, the Cost of Living Adjustments for govt transfers will increase and establish new, higher basis for social security and other benefit payments, blooming the deficit even more.<br><br>
I'm not saying abandon Iraq. It looks to me like we're stuck in something Rumsfeld didn't plan on. Even he said we'd only be there for about six months, and he was too stubborn and full of himself to listen to people like Shinseki who told him it would take more soldiers to secure the peace. Studies of occupations indicated that we needed at least 200,000 troops and he wanted to run the war on the cheap. There have been incredible delays in securing the peace and rebuilding the infrastructure because of this. If he had followed Shinseki's advice, maybe we'd be on our way out of there already, with the pipelines flowing and Iraq making money on oil sales, and possibly repaying us.<br><br>
You can talk about the business cycle as being part of the problem, but the historical fact remains that even during down business cycles we have had net increases in jobs in the US. Domestic policies can make it easier for companies to remain in the US and not offshore. Tax policies can even the playing field for those corp who would leave to take advantage of foreign slave labor.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top