Job loss is inevitable under the Republican rule. Why? because job creation has something to do with these words: 'kind, nice, friendly, smile, etc.' America under the leadership of republican has none of these characteristics. The result - more job losses, and American people suffers. Is it time for a change?
I use these terms to keep good workers and don't use them for those workers that need to go. If it were that easy, McDonald's would be the world's largetest employer because they trademarked the Happy Meal®. Heck, when Clinton was in power, where was MY **************? huh?
It is that easy, only when one understands it. Would you know how to revive the economy if you were the president?
While other horrors from the Carter administration era like the Iran hostage situation, the oil crisis, disco, polyester pants and the NASL are more memorable; unemployment was also pretty high during the late 70's. No, the key to prosperity is making sure that different sets of crooks are in the White House and Congress. http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-07-03.html
In 1981, Reagan cut taxes, and we immediately had a recession. Then he raised taxes, and we had a long period of prosperity. Then Bush I raised taxes, and the economy stagnated. Then Clinton raised taxes, and we had a long period of economic prosperity. Then Bush cut taxes again and again and again, and we have job losses.
Okay, unless my reading and comprehension skills are off, I'm not able to draw a conclusion either way. You raise taxes, you could be fcuked. You cut taxes you could be fcuked. Or, the opposite. There's obiviously more to it. I just don't see how raising or cutting taxes has that much of an immidiate impact on the economy. I always thought that manufacturing and tariffs had more of an impact. Maybe some of our more financialy educated posters and provide and brief economic overview.
Speaking of job losses More "back-pedaling": "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection. Eighteen months later, key administration officials have concluded that Bush's order has turned into a debacle. Some economists say the tariffs may have cost more jobs than they saved, by driving up costs for automakers and other steel users" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31768-2003Sep18.html
Please. I'm begging you. Just read a SINGLE book about Iranian history and American involvement sometime. Hell, just skim it!. Seriously, "the unexamined life is not worth living." Then come back here and report how ignorant you used to be in thinking that the Iran hostage situation was all Carter's fault. It'll be fun.
When did I ever say that Carter caused the Iranian hostage crisis? Like disco, the NASL & polyester pants; it happened while he was president. I'll read your hostage crisis book as soon as you read my post where I write "Carter administration era" as opposed to "Carter administration".
Re: Speaking of job losses But wait a second? Customs duties are, in effect, taxes. In fact, they were pretty much the only taxes that the federal government imposed until the income tax. I thought that raising taxes was supposed to create more jobs and lowering taxes was supposed to destroy jobs?
http://www.nemw.org/taxburd.htm Trent Lott's Mississippi and & Robert Byrd's West Virginia get $1.80 in federal spending for every dollar they pay in taxes. So Mississippi and West Virginia should have the nation's lowest unemployment and highest per capita income, right? New Hampshire & Connecticut are being raped. They don't get back 70 cents on the dollar. So New Hampshire & Connecticut should be the poorest states, right?
Government spending is up under Bush by 18% in the past three years. Your post ancient crap. Modernize your thinking on economics. Then post again.