Reply With Quote
That figures.
I understood it just fine.
Bull .
That's not what "trickle down" is about. When "trickle down" was conceived, it was to create American jobs. Not Chinese jobs.
That figures.
I understood it just fine.
Still, our biggest hurdle is cheap imported goods. We need to tariff the out of them if necessary to return manufacturing here.
Trying to bring back manufacturing is 90's fool's gold -- that ship has sunk and tariffs would only penalize Americans whose businesses depend on cheap imports (95% of all business people/owners who aren't obscenely wealthy -- so the majority of us, basically). The future of the US economy will be determined by innovation: software, hosting/data-management science;and medicine. IMO the building of the infrastructure that powered our economywill be the only "economically salubrious" healing sort of manufacturing would have to do with a recovery of Amurkan economic primacy.
Then we will continue down this endless spiral to poverty.
We need to accept the fact that we ed up as a nation, and take some short term hardships to return to prosperity.
What happens when we keep losing jobs, and there are less and less tax payers to support those who need government handouts?
I say we are doomed as a nation unless we change out thinking.
Maybe a thread on Olympic Gymnastics would have been more appropriate.
You can never have too many beer threads. Or coffee threads.
A good point, although I'm not sure if the backbone of the American economy should be based on manufacturing, or if it could be anymore.
(That said, I'm not sure what the backbone of America is currently.)
personal debt?(That said, I'm not sure what the backbone of America is currently.
It doesn't need to be "based' on manufacturing, but if we keep decreasing the manufacturing jobs we have, we will have less employed.A good point, although I'm not sure if the backbone of the American economy should be based on manufacturing, or if it could be anymore.
(That said, I'm not sure what the backbone of America is currently.
Where are those replacement jobs for all the manufacturing jobs lost over the years?
it ended up creating Chinese jobs, regardless of what Ronald Reagan told you it would do.
That's because of free trade agreements. Not because of the theories of the time.
Blame Clinton for our global overseas trade agreements.
because it's funny
because it's true....
I agree with Wild Cobra 100% about manufacturing. This country was at its best when its backbone was manufacturing and production, not finance and services. As good as Clinton was in other areas, his policies basically made the manufacturing ship sail as someone else said.
Still, it's hilarious that someone who claims trickle-down, supply side economics works says we need tarriffs on imported goods.
"Deregulations and tax cuts over here would work if you simply had more regulations and tax hikes over there!"
I do. He's largely responsible for all the jobs that have left this country, granted GHWB was just as much in favor of NAFTA during the 1992 elections as he was, and jobs were already leaving this country at a noticeable rate before Clinton came in and made it worse.
Yes, but NAFTA at least was only trying to help our immediate neighbor, which in turn reduces illegal immigration issues. helping Mexico improve their economy only has benefits for us in the end. We cannot solve the world's problems.
At your residence, are you more likely to help your next door neighbor, or the entire community?
NAFTA was just an example. My overall point is that Republicans wanted free trade just as much as Clinton did.
That's because Republicans, as well as Democrats, are usually businessmen (or wealthy, at the least). And free trade is good for upping the bottom line of those on top.
Maybe, but that doesn't mean it's right, or that I agree.
Do you have the votes tallies available for how many republicans and democrats voted for the trade agreements, or is it your spin, or someone else's that you are repeating?
You spin me right round baby right round:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_A...rade_AgreementThe agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats
Three pages and no one has made a smart-ass comment about the typo in the le?
Free trade was inevitable, as was manufacturing moving to lesser developed, lower salary, lower regulation countries. It is a global economy. No use ing about it now. The US has moved into a mature service economy. People need to adjust their expectations.
That's NAFTA.
What about the trade agreements that followed. Did they have as much republican support as NAFTA?
Nothing wrong with Tickle Down. Don't be a hater.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
