Why blame Bush for sending jobs away when Clinton did it not bush.?

Question

It is ironic that the liberals blame Bush for giving american jobs away when it was Clinton that sent the jobs away to mexico under the NAFTA agreement and then to china when He strived to get them the most favored nation trading status. Now the democrates are campaigning saying Bush and the Republicans gave the jobs away.

Answer 1

Well, you're right-it's not completely fair. However, Democrats follow different economic theory-there's lots to study and understand there! Outsourcing is great for US companies-it cuts their costs. Democrats believe in trade of course, as well, but feel there needs to be some controls on it(US companies shouldn't get tax breaks for taking jobs overseas) Everyone agrees that the jobs will probably come back in some form at some time. The problem is we don't know when! Right now, it's very tough, since many baby boomers are still in the workforce but their jobs have been outsourced. It's much harder at 50 or 60 yrs old to re-train and find a similar job. And healthcare costs are very expensive-even if you're healthy. Clinton was attempting to be very moderate politically with NAFTA. He also signed welfare reform. George Bush's economic team has said outsourcing jobs is good for America. It's certainly good for the financial bottom line of the companies who do it. The real question is "Is the US champion of the corporation or the people? Or are they the same now?

Answer 2

Geez-Louise people, why don't you get your facts straight before asking a question. Someone else just asked this same question, only in reverse.
First, Bush Sr proposed NAFTA, due to the sluggish economy during his last two years in office. Clinton was elected, and also supported it. Congress PASSED it. CONGRESS also passed GATT, and ANYONE with an ounce of brains knew we had to give China "Most favored Nation Status", as is now evident today as to why. Bush, Jr. is only following National policy, as did Clinton, enacted into LAW by Congress.

Answer 3

During the Clinton years I actually had a job, a very well paid career. During the Bush years, I almost loss everything, and a year and a half, I struggle to find a job with minumin pay. I couldn't afford to live on my own so I had to move back with my parents. How humilating especially as a college graduate who lived on her own for more than a decade.

Answer 4

Please don't give credit for anyone losing their jobs to something the government does. Corporations will seek out the cheapest labor they can find regardless of the industry. My last company outsourced some jobs to an Indian firm. While I was irritated, I also understood. They're saving money and that's what companies are created to do. Save and make money.

However, in our case (I kept my job) the quality of work coming from that firm was sub par and after a year they returned to in-house talent. It's a free market and trade agreements are made to facilitate trade, not to "give" jobs away. Only companies can do that.

Answer 5

Well the fact of the matter is that incomes are up and more people are employed now than during the time Slick Willie was defiling the Oval Office...

The Worker Rally
October 9, 2006; Page A18

The Labor Department released its September jobs report on Friday, and some wags are calling it the "whoops" report. The "whoops" is a reference to the upward revision of 810,000 previously undetected jobs that Labor now says were created in the U.S. economy in the 12 months through March 2006.

So instead of 5.8 million new jobs over the past three years, the U.S. economy has created 6.6 million. That's a lot more than a rounding error, more than the number of workers in the entire state of New Hampshire. What's going on here?

Our hypothesis has been that, due to the changing nature of the U.S. economy, the Labor Department's business establishment survey has been undercounting job creation from small businesses and self-employed entrepreneurs. That job growth has been better captured in Labor's companion household survey, which reported 271,000 new jobs in September after 250,000 new jobs in August, and a very healthy total of 2.54 million new jobs in the past year.

The household survey is what is used to determine the unemployment rate, which fell in September to 4.6%, the lowest level in five years. The establishment survey, meanwhile, is used to announce the monthly "new jobs" numbers. Every year the Labor Department revises its job estimates from the previous year, in essence reconciling the figures from the two surveys, and the missing 810,000 jobs was the result through March 2006.
(http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB116034633519486238-lMyQjAxMDE2NjAwOTMwNDk2Wj.html)

Answer 6

Not to sound like a liberal or a Bush detractor or anything, but you might want to have another look at this one...

The truth is, regardless of NAFTA and GATT, the US economy is still strong...

The US union workers just got a little too cushy, thinking their jobs were "entitlements..."

Answer 7

And who has been president for the past 6 years? Stop blaming Cllinton. I did not think NAFTA was a good idea, but Bush wants to expand it even further.

Answer 8

Oh stop, why don't you just blame Clinton for every thing in the last 100 years and get it over with, you repuglican conspiracy theorist are getting to me and I shouldn't let that happen.

Answer 9

It seems like everything's Clinton's fault nowadays.

Answer 10

They have short term memory loss. It's convenient when you have no policy to run on except raise taxes.

Kerry's wife outsources.