posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 08:31 AM
Spacedoubt, it's the kind of jobs we had that I (and many) miss. Not only the skilled manufacturing, but demand for college educated thinkers
(for lack of a better phrase) in nearly every field.
Raw numbers don't tell the story of where the jobs are "increasing" now (if that may even be said). But breakouts show it's retail, part-time and
unskilled labor and as of 2004 anyway with the most improvement among uneducated hispanics and women. Not that that's a bad thing, unless you happen
to be a college educated white male, according to the stats.
But that's the result of free trade, not any one President per se. Though it does perterb me how the Bush administration calls things like adding a
million already working manual labor immigrants to the employment stats a "rise" in employment. Or doesn't acknowledge the lost value or hard times
of a Telophony Manager (for example) that made $150K with benefits for his entire family in 1995, now working part time at WalMart with
his wife and no benefits or health insurance in 2005. According to the "numbers" that a rise in employment and cause for celebration. Except in
their house. If they still own a home.
But more on topic, that 'free trade' both with China (started in earnest by Bush Sr.) and NAFTA (championed by Clinton because he listened to
Republican "polls") and now Shrub's CAFTA extension to effectively 6 more "Mexicos..." yeah it's that bad. It really is. We're screwed.
I really don't know that Clinton, the best Republican president we ever had, really waffled on anything in trade though as much as he was just
being a "good conservative," and certainly didn't seem to waffle here saying both Bush's invasion was a "big mistake" and later that given
various scenarios "could still work" (which makes sense to this college educated white male), but to each his own brand of push polling.
I happen to be interested in the opinions of Americans myself. I'd think a good leader would be. Kings don't take polls. Good president's do. And
they tend to both do and say things for the benefit of the people they're elected to represent. Kind of a big part of democracy. But again, to each
I suppose if I were struggling to justify one of the least popular Presidents in modern times, that a sheer minority agree with on most anything, I'd
have to try and tear down one of the most popular Presidents in modern times, that most people agree with on everything. But I don't know that my
integrity could allow me to turn populism into a seemingly bad thing.