Do the people who work those sound like the same workforce that the area used for 70 years to make furniture and textiles?

 

I'm sure we could go around in the circle for a while Run to State but I'll let my end, end here. :thumb:

So what? You can't stagnate, my friend. If something leaves, then you have to make your area attractive for new and better business. And why couldn't you work for those if you worked in furniture and textiles?

Just look to Texas, as I said.

Anti-Nafta rhetoric doesn't play well in El Paso, San Antonio and Houston, which have become gateway cities for commerce with Latin America and have flourished since the North American Free Trade Agreement passed Congress in 1993. Mr. Obama's claim of one million lost jobs due to trade deals is laughable in Texas, the state most affected by Nafta. Texas has gained 36,000 manufacturing jobs since 2004 and has ranked as the nation's top exporting state for six years in a row. Its $168 billion of exports in 2007 translate into tens of thousands of jobs.

You telling me these people are making $5 an hour?

Ohio is a "closed shop" state, which means workers can be forced to join a union whether they wish to or not. Many companies -- especially foreign-owned -- say they will not even consider such locations for new sites. So there is some blame to place.

 

Are you kidding? It is laughable to claim that the rest of the country could suddenly turn its economic outlook around by simply emulating Texas. Certainly Texas stands to benefit from NAFTA because it is a border state with Mexico and the cross-border transit of goods creates jobs in transportation, warehousing, logistics etc. Please explain to me how to duplicate that success in Indiana, Missouri, or Pennsylvania. And Texas is certainly benefitting from oil at $104/barrel--find me another state, save possibly Louisiana or Alaska, that stands to reap such an economic windfall.

 

This sunshiny, Pollyannaish optimism of yours that simply refuses to acknowledge facts regarding the state of the economy is not going to convince many people who live in the real world of working and providing food and shelter for their families.

Are you kidding? It is laughable to claim that the rest of the country could suddenly turn its economic outlook around by simply emulating Texas. Certainly Texas stands to benefit from NAFTA because it is a border state with Mexico and the cross-border transit of goods creates jobs in transportation, warehousing, logistics etc. Please explain to me how to duplicate that success in Indiana, Missouri, or Pennsylvania. And Texas is certainly benefitting from oil at $104/barrel--find me another state, save possibly Louisiana or Alaska, that stands to reap such an economic windfall.

 

This sunshiny, Pollyannaish optimism of yours that simply refuses to acknowledge facts regarding the state of the economy is not going to convince many people who live in the real world of working and providing food and shelter for their families.

 

 

There's no doubt that Texas is better suited to benefit from NAFTA and not all states can benefit as well as Texas does, and perhaps RTS' stance may be Pollyanish optimism somewhat; then again, the view that if we shut our borders and place penalties on companies that outsource jobs and we'll create a lot more jobs in America is just as Pollyannish and simplistic. Great rhetoric to use on the campaign stump, but simplistic and not true. And RTS's position that some states have policies that are remarkably anti business, driving business to other states and overseas, is in fact true. Having spent 6 years on the board of the economic development agency that has attracted a lot of businesses to N. Ky, I know what I'm talking about. Talk to business owners in California (or better yet, business owners that use to have their businesses in California) and you'll understand what I'm saying. Many states (including Ky) have economically benefitted from the social engineering via law and regulation that has taken place in California. States with high corporate income taxes and a lot of regulation do in fact drive businesses and job from their borders. It is an uncontrovertible fact.

There's no doubt that Texas is better suited to benefit from NAFTA and not all states can benefit as well as Texas does, and perhaps RTS' stance may be Pollyanish optimism somewhat; then again, the view that if we shut our borders and place penalties on companies that outsource jobs and we'll create a lot more jobs in America is just as Pollyannish and simplistic. Great rhetoric to use on the campaign stump, but simplistic and not true. And RTS's position that some states have policies that are remarkably anti business, driving business to other states and overseas, is in fact true. Having spent 6 years on the board of the economic development agency that has attracted a lot of businesses to N. Ky, I know what I'm talking about. Talk to business owners in California (or better yet, business owners that use to have their businesses in California) and you'll understand what I'm saying. Many states (including Ky) have economically benefitted from the social engineering via law and regulation that has taken place in California. States with high corporate income taxes and a lot of regulation do in fact drive businesses and job from their borders. It is an uncontrovertible fact.

 

I agree with what you are saying about states adopting economic policies that don't run businesses off. I don't support killing NAFTA or adopting protectionism. However, the original question related to how the economy is doing and whether it has started to collapse. It was not "what states are doing better than others and why". Yesterday it was reported that the U.S. economy lost 63,000 jobs in February (a larger figure than expected). Given the steady stream of unfavorable economic data over the past several months (hard, quantifiable metrics, not mere opinions), I just don't know how one can choose to ignore reality.

I agree with what you are saying about states adopting economic policies that don't run businesses off. I don't support killing NAFTA or adopting protectionism. However, the original question related to how the economy is doing and whether it has started to collapse. It was not "what states are doing better than others and why". Yesterday it was reported that the U.S. economy lost 63,000 jobs in February (a larger figure than expected). Given the steady stream of unfavorable economic data over the past several months (hard, quantifiable metrics, not mere opinions), I just don't know how one can choose to ignore reality.

Unemployment rate is currently 4.8%. In Jan. it was 4.9%. In Dec. it was 5.0%. Shouldn't that be going the other way if things are as bleak as you seem to think?

My problem with you is the use of the word "collapse". Decline, slowing, yes. Collapsing, no. What's laughable to me is guys like you seem to want a recession so you can say, "see, told ya so, look what W did".

^ I won't apologize for calling things as I see them. I simply weigh the facts and render a conclusion, and that conclusion does not get tempered by a desire to avoid casting GWB (who can apparently do no wrong in the eyes of some) in an unfavorable light.

Dubya: Hey Slim, we're looking to add an additional state to the Union. What say ya about that?

Slim: I don't speak English, Dubya.

Dubya: What I mean is, Slim, these "illegal" immigrants you keep exporting into my country are starting to cause a problem. I mean, heck, I already granted them SS because my idiot House members promised to vote it down and lied (darned Democrats), but wanting to vote for Hillary is just ridiculous. I have to draw the line somewhere!!!

Slim: We support Hillary down here, Dubya. Seriously, if you won't make the armed forces control the borders, who will?

IQ above 60 Dubya: Think I'm bluffin' do ya, chico? Well, I tell ya what. Here's how we fix the problem, Slim. Either you keep out all Hillary's future voters or my last act as President makes Mexico the 51st state, capiche'.

Slim: Can I keep my wireless access????

^ I won't apologize for calling things as I see them. I simply weigh the facts and render a conclusion, and that conclusion does not get tempered by a desire to avoid casting GWB (who can apparently do no wrong in the eyes of some) in an unfavorable light.

Its fine calling things as you see them, just allow others to do the same.

A lot of states govern poorly, such is the case with Ohio, that's not Bush’s fault.

Unemployment rate is currently 4.8%. In Jan. it was 4.9%. In Dec. it was 5.0%. Shouldn't that be going the other way if things are as bleak as you seem to think?

My problem with you is the use of the word "collapse". Decline, slowing, yes. Collapsing, no. What's laughable to me is guys like you seem to want a recession so you can say, "see, told ya so, look what W did".

 

Unemployment figures tell only part of the story. I would venture to say that the unemployment rate went down only b/c many people quit actively pursuing jobs b/c the job climate was so bad and they no longer get counted in unemployment figures.

Unemployment figures tell only part of the story. I would venture to say that the unemployment rate went down only b/c many people quit actively pursuing jobs b/c the job climate was so bad and they no longer get counted in unemployment figures.

This argument gets old. Liberals never made the argument when the unemployment rate was the same during the Clinton years. There are always a large number of people who are not looking for work, so relative unemployment numbers are an accurate indicator of the economy.

This argument gets old. Liberals never made the argument when the unemployment rate was the same during the Clinton years. There are always a large number of people who are not looking for work, so relative unemployment numbers are an accurate indicator of the economy.

 

Not when there was JOB LOSS in February and yet the unemployment rate went down.

 

We didn't have to talk about those figures with Clinton b/c the economy was booming - no recession in 8 years under Clinton and 2 in 7 years under Bush.

Not when there was JOB LOSS in February and yet the unemployment rate went down.

 

We didn't have to talk about those figures with Clinton b/c the economy was booming - no recession in 8 years under Clinton and 2 in 7 years under Bush.

The economy was declining the final quarter of Clinton's presidency. Bush inherited the bursting dotcom bubble and then had to deal with the after effects of the destruction of the Twin Towers.

 

The unemployment rates under Clinton and Bush have been very comparable, yet Democrats boast about the "booming" economy under Clinton and act as if we have been in a 7-year recession under Bush. The truth is the economy has been booming for most of the past 15 years but spiraling oil prices and government debt, for which both parties are responsible, threatens to plunge the economy into a recession and maybe even into a depression.

 

Until the American people acknowledge that our government is responsible for the impending economic mess and not one of the two political parties, then neither party is going to get serious about solving the serious problems that both parties have caused.

The economy was declining the final quarter of Clinton's presidency. Bush inherited the bursting dotcom bubble and then had to deal with the after effects of the destruction of the Twin Towers.

 

The unemployment rates under Clinton and Bush have been very comparable, yet Democrats boast about the "booming" economy under Clinton and act as if we have been in a 7-year recession under Bush. The truth is the economy has been booming for most of the past 15 years but spiraling oil prices and government debt, for which both parties are responsible, threatens to plunge the economy into a recession and maybe even into a depression.

 

Until the American people acknowledge that our government is responsible for the impending economic mess and not one of the two political parties, then neither party is going to get serious about solving the serious problems that both parties have caused.

 

 

A booming economy is not just about employment rates. Middle class incomes are down over the past 7 years while they were way up in the previous 8. Gov't revenue was up and Clinton was actually paying down the federal debt and had yearly government surpluses. Has there been one surplus in the past 8 years?

 

I guess the problem is all of the people coming from the southern border who are working. (just to stay on the thread topic)

A booming economy is not just about employment rates. Middle class incomes are down over the past 7 years while they were way up in the previous 8. Gov't revenue was up and Clinton was actually paying down the federal debt and had yearly government surpluses. Has there been one surplus in the past 8 years?

 

I guess the problem is all of the people coming from the southern border who are working. (just to stay on the thread topic)

Would you mind posting some statistics to back up your assertions that the economy was great under Clinton and is terrible under Bush? I know that I could dig up the stats myself, but you should really back your claims up since they are your claims. I lived and worked under both administrations and I do not recall things being better under Clinton for either myself or for my middle class coworkers.

 

As for "paying down the debt," please do not lose sight of the fact that the Republican House deserves at least as much credit for bringing spending under control toward the end of Clinton's second term as he did. Regardless, the budget surplus was not projected to be a permanent condition without additional spending cuts.

Back on topic people "Illegal Immigration"

 

I bought a bird feeder.

 

I hung it on my back porch and filled it with seed.

 

What a beauty of a bird feeder it is as I filled it lovingly with seed.

 

Within a week we had hundreds of birds taking advantage of the continuous flow of free and easily accessible food.

 

But then the birds started building nests in the boards of the patio, above the table, and next to the barbecue.

 

Then came the poop. It was everywhere: on the patio tile, the chairs, the table...everywhere!

 

Then some of the birds turned mean.

 

They would dive bomb me and try to peck me even though I had fed them out of my own pocket.

 

And other birds were boisterous and loud.

 

They sat on the feeder and squawked and screamed at all hours of

 

the day and night and demanded that I fill it when it got low on food.

 

After a while, I couldn't even sit on my own back porch anymore.

 

So I took down the bird feeder and in three days the birds were gone.

 

I cleaned up their mess and took down the many nests they had built all over the patio.

 

Soon, the back yard was like it used to be...quiet, serene and no one demanding their rights to a free meal.

 

Now let's see..... our government gives out free food,

 

subsidized housing,

 

free medical care, and free education and allows anyone born here to be an automatic citizen.

 

 

Then the illegals came by the tens of thousands.

 

 

 

Suddenly our taxes went up to pay for free services; small apartments are housing 5 families; you have to wait 6 hours to be seen by an emergency room doctor; your child's 2nd grade class is behind other schools because over half the class doesn't speak English.

 

Corn Flakes now come in a bilingual box; I have to 'press one' to hear my bank talk to me in English, and people waving flags other than 'Old Glory' are squawking and screaming in the streets, demanding more rights and free liberties.

 

Just my opinion, but maybe it's time for the government to take down the bird feeder. If you agree, pass it on; if not, continue cleaning up the poop