McCain's Chances Grow Dimmer - Unemployment Skyrockets

Sir, with all due respect, I just disagree completely with your conclusions.

Also, it doesn't matter who is at fault as far as the economy is concerned. If the economy is still getting worse in November, there is a strong likelihood that the republicans will lose the election. If the President were a democrat under the same circumstances the republicans would win, in my opinion. Now, if the economy should improve or even stabilize, it would benefit McCain.

 

I agree, but BOTH Democrats and Republicans are to blame. There were millions of illegal aliens when Clinton was in office, too. You can't blame the illegal alien situation solely on Bush, although I agree, the unemployment situation is exacerbated by all these free world trade deals. If you remember correctly, NAFTA was passed when Clinton was in the oval office. That was the beginning downfall. Nobody in Congress in either party has cared about protecting American jobs.

 

You mean the gulf war or the current war?

 

I agree, NAFTA was a huge mistake by Clinton and has lead to a lot of what is happening today. We seem to be the only ones who honered the agreement. In regards to Illegal Aliens, I would have liked to see Bush do more to secure the borders. He says he's tough on terror and big on defending the citizens of this country, well the truth is a terrorist can walk right in from Mexico and we'd never know it. For proof, look at all the illegal aliens that now go back and forth.

 

Josiah, sorry you missed my attempt at irony. Should have concluded with a disclaimer. Now, feel free to respond in Christian love. lol

 

You are absolutely correct!

And, if I remember correctly, NAFTA talk was going on before Clinton, especially during the Bush Sr. administration. Now, I'm not saying this to blame a republican because I don't remember much opposition in the Congress from either party. In fact, I remember both republican and democratic Senators and Representatives being for NAFTA for the most part.

 

Yes they were. That is why we need a change, a Maverick and Barracuda - both who have records of bucking the system, even their own party.

As an aside, Rush Limbaugh used to have a TV show and I was watching him. When NAFTA came up, he was all for it. I was thoroughly disgusted then (as I am now) and was simply incredulous that Republicans could be for such a thing and agree with Democrats on this issue. And I know very little about economics, but I knew enough to know that NAFTA was bad for American workers and that it would lead to other giving away of American jobs and products, and it has. :tear:

I truly believe McCain-Palin will be the change Americans are clamoring for, in more ways than one. Sarah Palin has not been poisoned by the Hill. McCain has a record of bucking the Hill, thus the nickname Maverick.

 

Yes, I agree. Bush has talked out of both sides of his mouth on this issue and the so-called war on terror. I even made several web sites about it. But you see, he needed the Hispanic vote and he catered to the muslim vote as well - all things I found out after I voted for him once. I did not make the same mistake and vote for him again once I found out he really does not have American interests and security at heart, but that is the subject for another thread. If you have been on the board for any length of time at all, I have little use for GW as my president and feel I have been presidentless for many years. At least now, I have hope again with the McCain-Palin ticket.

 

I wouldn't be so overly trusting of the Maverick bucking this one . Being anti-NAFTA would be disasterous for McCain as he is taking great pains as not to upset the hispanic voters. We have as much hope for McCain making changes to NAFTA as we have for him to turn from being pro-amnesty for the illegals in our country.

 

It's the president's fault when he passes legislations that pays our corporations to send American jobs overseas in the form of tax breaks. How could he not know a law like that would raise unemployment but he appearently only cared for the pockets of the CEO's...

 

What tax break do corporations receive for sending American jobs overseas?

Is it by the job?

Or for sending job to a particular country overseas?

Can someone tell about this supposed paying corporations to send jobs overseas?

 

I have to admit I voted for GW also which is why I am not falling for any promises of McBush... I mean BushCain... I mean McCain...

 

It was a very deceptive ploy and one of the greatest acts of treason ever perpetrated on the unknowing American public. Read here to see how it works

 

I appreciate your withdrawl. Makes the rest of your statement more reasonable, even though I still disagree.

 

Whoever the next president is I hope we lose some illegal aliens and secure the borders.

 

As someone who works in the financial industry and has quite a bit of experience in this, I can tell you that the financial services industry is one of the most regulated on the planet. It's no panacea. It's likely helped create this monster rather than stop it or keep it in check. Coupled with Greenspan's Keynesian policies (which seem to be continued by Bernanke) and here we are.

 

I don't agree that McCain wants to continue all of Bush's economic policies. He has finally wised up to some of the good taxation policies that Bush had (yes, Bush has done one or two things right) although how much McCain wants to do remains to be seen.

And as for liking your reps but not Congress as a whole...why is that? I'll admit I'm not one of them. I do not care much for Lincoln Davis though he could be worse, and Bob Corker has recently sponsored some very iffy environmental legislation lately. Lamar Alexander is IMHO a star and would've been a great president. Very LibertyGOP kind of guy.

 

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]UNITED STATES BACK THROUGH 1980[/FONT] YEAR.............LABOR FORCE.......EMPLOYED......UNEMPLOYED......UNEMP RATE
2008 YTD Average 153,937,000 145,661,286 8,275,714 5.4%
2007 153,167,750 146,093,917 7,073,833 4.6%
2006 151,427,583 144,427,000 7,000,583 4.6%
2005 149,297,833 141,707,250 7,590,583 5.1%
2004 147,401,000 139,252,000 8,149,000 5.5%
2003 146,510,000 137,736,000 8,774,000 6.0%
2002 144,863,000 136,485,000 8,378,000 5.8%
2001 143,734,000 136,933,000 6,801,000 4.7%
2000 142,583,000 136,891,000 5,692,000 4.0%
1999 139,368,000 133,488,000 5,880,000 4.2%
1998 137,673,000 131,463,000 6,210,000 4.5%
1997 136,297,000 129,558,000 6,739,000 4.9%
1996 133,943,000 126,708,000 7,236,000 5.4%
1995 132,304,000 124,900,000 7,404,000 5.6%
1994 131,056,000 123,060,000 7,996,000 6.1%
1993 129,200,000 120,259,000 8,940,000 6.9%
1992 128,105,000 118,492,000 9,613,000 7.5%
1991 126,346,000 117,718,000 8,628,000 6.8%
1990 125,840,000 118,793,000 7,047,000 5.6%
1989 123,869,000 117,342,000 6,528,000 5.3%
1988 121,669,000 114,968,000 6,701,000 5.5%
1987 119,865,000 112,440,000 7,425,000 6.2%
1986 117,834,000 109,597,000 8,237,000 7.0%
1985 115,462,000 107,150,000 8,312,000 7.2%
1984 113,544,000 105,005,000 8,539,000 7.5%
1983 111,551,000 100,834,000 10,717,000 9.6%
1982 110,204,000 99,526,000 10,678,000 9.7%
1981 108,670,000 100,397,000 8,273,000 7.6%
1980 106,940,000 99,303,000 7,637,000 7.1%
Source: http://www.nidataplus.com/lfeus1.htm