Posted on 08/22/2007 7:13:57 AM PDT by ckilmer
I wish he had. Why didn't he again?
That’s pretty much my point. ;^)
Illegal immigration was not that big of a problem during Reagan’s time. Reagan made a mistake signing off on amnesty. He must have figured that the laws would be enforced. They were not, and now we have 20 million of them.
“In 1994 our surplus was $1.3 billion. In 1995, our deficit was $15.8 billion. You think that might have something to do with the devaluation?”
Probably had next to nothing to do with it. Oil and most international trade is done in dollars. All the trade figures are stated in dollars. Mexico got dollars for its oil. Things from the US were more expensive for Mexico and Mexicans to buy, but that is their loss and does not change the comparison of US imports and exports, a significant portion of which takes place intra and inter company between US corporations. The deficit now is around $70 billion, all stated in dollars and it took place since the peso devaluation in 1994, everything stated during a period of a more stable peso.
“My table showed that 7 years after NAFTA, we had more manufacturing jobs than we did the day NAFTA passed. That’s one slow sucking sound ya got there Ross.”
Your table shows nothing related to manufacturing jobs lost to NAFTA because it shows only totals, with no data as to where gains and losses took place, and gains are losses and taking place every year. It shows a change in seven years from 16,185 to 17,181 which is anemic growth. And, today we have about the same number of manufacturing jobs we had forty years ago with half today’s population and even less a fraction of today’s GDP.
“Well, 1 million is almost 3 million. LOL!”
Yeah, LOL, LOL, LOL, 1 million in the past ten years, many more pre-NAFTA, and during the maquiladora years.
This is a waste of time and you obviously don’t understand statistics and basic comparisons if you think that table says one thing about gain or loss of manufacturing jobs specifically related to NAFTA.
There are numerous sources showing job gains and losses, and they all show losses of US manufacturing jobs.
Good day,
President Bush, without so much as issuing a press statement, on May 9 signed a directive that granted near dictatorial powers to the office of the president in the event of a national emergency declared by the president.Note that the very next sentence of his article links to a press release dated, you guessed it, May 9, 2007.
I had the opportunity to ask him over a few beers, I'd like to learn whether this was a simple mistake, an editorial "oversight" (writing under time pressure, blah, blah, blah--you've seen it in the MSM before), or deliberate. Because I think Corsi's intelligent enough, I lean toward deliberate. And people fall for it. And conservatives on FR fall for it. And it's sad.
And you feel that way all because I have the audacity to question you if you can direct me to some specific areas of the SPP that you find bothersome, instead of muttering some pablum about "incrementalism."
Our colleagues here seem to have decided that America's situation is horrible, and any measurement that agrees is right and any that doesn't is wrong.
There's got to be a way through this, and logic is not the answer. How about we offer to pay them to agree with us?
1. offer them money (your idea),
2. appeal to their ideology (not likely to work, given your observation),
3. coerce them somehow (no threats or violence allowed, sorry), or
4. appeal to their egos ("my, your font is handsome today").
Here’s a short paragraph that discusses US manufacturing since 1984:
“The decline in manufacturing jobs that started slowly in 1998 and gained momentum in early 2001 was an unprecedented phenomenon. Despite a steady decline in the employment share of manufacturing relative to total employment for decades – due to the higher productivity level of manufacturing – the sector never experienced a decline in jobs that was as long or as large as the most recent drop, which cannot be explained by productivity gains alone. From 1984 through March 1998, manufacturing employment was approximately steady around 17 million jobs, before it declined, first slowly and then at an accelerated pace, to 14.3 million jobs by January 2004, its lowest level since July 1950. Back then, the U.S. economy had about one third of the jobs it has today.”
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/02/b27975.html
We have fewer total manufacturing jobs now than in 1984, and I haven’t found a source yet, but I’ve about certain we had around 17 million jobs in the 1960s with about half the population and a fraction of the GDP.
You didn’t. Please tell me you didn’t. You did.
That's funny! Suddenly imports cost them TWICE as much, but that didn't have anything to do with it! You must be a product of our public school system.
Your table shows nothing related to manufacturing jobs lost to NAFTA because it shows only totals, with no data as to where gains and losses took place, and gains are losses and taking place every year.
Still waiting for you to provide a table, oh, right, you won't.
1 million in the past ten years, many more pre-NAFTA
How many more?
This is a waste of time and you obviously don’t understand statistics and basic comparisons if you think that table says one thing about gain or loss of manufacturing jobs specifically related to NAFTA.
How bad could NAFTA have been if we gained jobs net?
We used to have a lot more farmers producing a lot less food. It's terrible how productive we are.
You certainly have the point but that could be said of anything. My complete post, (yea, I goofed it) is my real point in that his “quotes” do not sound like him at all, they sound like something written for him. And quite honestly, they sound like someone with a real holier than thou attitude. A lotta other folks here picked up on the same thing. If that represents the “advice” he is getting that or those individuals may be responsible for huge gaffes in policy and need to be kicked to the curb, pronto.
Folks are waaay serious about national sovereignty, which is hand in glove with the issue of securing the borders and getting the illegal aliens out of this country. IF they thought they suffered through hell when attempting to shove through amnesty for the illegals they have not seen a DAMN THING compared to the frenzy that will occur on an attempt at a NAU.
The White House will be a pile of ashes, again. Only it will not be at the behest of the British. There will be honest god-fearing American Citizens there that have a solid understanding of the ultimate responsibility of the office of the President as Commander in Chief to protect the sovereignty of this Republic, not “negotiate it” to corporate entities.
Is the NAU fer real? I am seeing more of it every day and I see absolutely nothing that tells me it is not being planned.
And friend, a few smart-ass remarks about how “amusing” the discussion of it’s existence is did NOT help that side of the argument.
I blame Google.
"You lay out a conspiracy and then force some people to try to prove it doesn't exist. That's just the way some people operate," Mr. Bush said.
Well, that settles it. After all, George's word is gold, right guys?
.
.
.
.
Uhhh... guys?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.