Phoenix1
Heliman
Location: Bonita Springs, FL
| | Quote |
| President Clinton had also done a great deal to help open up foreign markets to United States products. On December 8, 1993, he signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA),
|
Since NAFTA the Florida tomato industry has lost about one-third of its value from a $600-$700 million industry a year to between $400-$500 million currently.
During the first 7 years of NAFTA non-corporate Florida Orange Farm operations fell 74.4% between 1993 and 1999 from $51.4 million to $13.4 million.
US Farmers are lovin' NAFTA, all the way to the unemployment line.
NAFTA also sent thousand of manufacturing jobs south of the border. I though that you were against this?
| Quote |
| President Clinton also reached a landmark agreement with Japan which will open its automobile market to billions of dollars worth of American cars and parts.
|
Do you really think that the Japs are going to buy auto parts from the US when its cheaper to make them in Japan (Not to mention how cheap to make them in Korea or another country?
| Quote |
| Since he took office, the unemployment rate had fallen from 7 percent to less than 6 percent.
|
Unemployment in the US for December of 2003 was 5.7% and continues to decrease!!! Where are all the unemployed people that the Democrats are talking about?
| Quote |
| And in 1994 the country experienced the highest rate of real gross domestic product growth in a decade.
|
And what was that rate in 1994 one might ask? 4.0364%
Want to know that the average real gross domestic product growth was for the first 3 quarters of 2003??? anyone anyone??? 4.3057% BEATING Clinton's 1994 rate.
| Quote |
| Our government had also become much more efficient when President Clinton took office. Clinton has reduced the federal work force by over 200,000 workers. This puts the country on its way to having the smallest federal work force in over a quarter century.
|
Of the 157,000 jobs that he cut from 1993 to 1996, 131,000 of them were civilian defense jobs. Now, I guess that is a cut, but is that really where we should have been cutting jobs? I don't think so.
| Quote |
| he has proposed cutting federal spending by over $250 billion over five years.
|
Republicans were pushing for a $800 billion cut in spending.
Did I miss anything?
Here are some excerpts from an interesting article about liberal lies:
| Quote |
| This is a tax break for the rich-This is class warfare at it's finest. If a person earning $40,000 a year gets a 10% tax reduction and a person earning $1,000,000 per year gets a 1% tax reduction- the person earning $1,000,000 will get a much greater tax break. Tom Daschle and Richard Gebhardt once stood next to a car in front of the Capital Building holding up a muffler. They made a statement that a proposed George Bush tax cut would allow the rich to buy a new car and the average American to buy a muffler. This is a strategy Democrats use on every Republican proposed tax cut. They stop everyone from getting a reduction in their taxes by using class warfare. Please note, tax reductions are not an entitlement program.
Trickle down economics does not work- Money in the hands of people stimulates the economy, whether they are rich or poor. The problem- how to you put money in the hands of the poor? Transfer of more wealth from the rich to the poor each year? This would only create greater dependency on entitlements and give lessen the incentive to achieve. Give the poor greater tax cuts? You can only cut the taxes for the poor by so much, because they don't pay much in taxes. When Tom Daschle said that the result of a proposed Bush tax cut would mean that a rich person would be able to buy a new car, without realizing it, he proved the theory of Trickle Down Economics. The person selling that car would generate income that he would otherwise not have had. Please note that if that person sells enough cars, he will gain wealth. If tax rates in this county were at 75% what would happen to the economy? The answer is that no one would have money to spend on anything except housing and food. The result would be that businesses everywhere would fail, because no one would have money to buy clothes, electronics, entertainment, repairs for their homes or cars, go on vacation..... If they did buy such things, they would have to go in to debt to do so. How would this help the working class or the poor? Please note the average taxpayer, pays roughly 50% of their income in taxes. After the attack on September 11th, Hillary Clinton said, "come to New York and spend money." She knew if people stopped coming to New York and spending money, businesses would fail and the economy in New York would suffer a great downturn, which would hurt the average working family. This is interesting considering that liberals are for tax hikes and against tax cuts. The only thing that helps the working class is a strong economy. It gives the average worker more freedom and more bargaining power. When the financial sector was booming from 1987 through 1989, workers were getting bonuses, overtime and stock options. When the financial sector suffered a downturn in 1990, it trickled down. There were no more bonuses, overtime, stock options and their were layoffs.
This is a Bush recession- Liberals blame George Bush for the weak economy and say his tax cut has only made the economy worse. They point to jobs lost, the level of unemployment, the level of the financial markets and slow growth since he took office. The economy was beginning to turn around leading up to September 11, 2001. After the attack on September 11, everything changed. People did stop flying, hurting the airline industry, which in turn hurt hotels, restaurants, theme parks and tourism. There were some businesses that closed for an entire week and some in New York that never reopened. The financial markets were closed for more than a week and the financial services industry was devastated. September 11th hurt all sectors of the economy, which resulted in tens of thousands of layoffs. So how is George Bush is responsible for the poor economy? Liberals would have you forget that the attack on September 11th took place and we must never forget. George Bush is trying to revive the economy by lowering taxes. The irony here, the liberals who accuse him of hurting the economy oppose his tax cuts.
Democrats are for working class families- As Democrats are opposed to every tax reduction this statement is almost ludicrous. The largest obstacle to gaining wealth is taxes. The single biggest issue affecting middle class families on a daily basis is taxes. The middle class taxpayer pays close to 50% of their income in taxes. Please consider the following: federal income tax, state income tax, state sales tax, property tax, gas tax, tolls, taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, utility taxes, automobile registration fees, county surtaxes. Democrats are not for the middle class and break down their support into groups. They get funds and count on votes from women by being pro-choice, minorities for supporting affirmative action, gays for supporting gay rights, unions for not supporting school vouchers, and environmentalists supporting things such as not drilling for oil in Alaska. On the those who don't pay close attention to the issues they use spin- reference the top ten liberal lies!
Bill Clinton created millions of jobs- What policy did Bill Clinton implement to create millions of jobs? The majority of jobs that were created under the Clinton Administration were Internet related. The great boom of the Internet led to the creation of millions of jobs, which Clinton had nothing to do with. As a result of so many people working and paying taxes, there were large government surpluses. However, instead of attacking terrorism, Bill Clinton decided to use the Justice Department to attack Microsoft. There is a direct time line link between the decline of the NASDAQ and the ruling to break up Microsoft. As the NASDAQ declined many Internet companies failed or downsized. As a result, millions of jobs were lost and government revenues declined. Bill Clinton was handed a great economy and with his actions only served to undermine it.
We don't need to drill for oil in Alaska, because we could save the same amount of oil by increasing the standards for miles per gallon on cars and SUV's- What liberals are really saying is that they care more about contributions from environmentalists than they do about your family. What they are saying is they care more about the caribou than your children. When you lower the standards of miles per gallon, in effect you lower the safety of cars. Please note, America is about freedom of choice. If someone wants to drive an SUV, so be it. I guess liberals would have us all driving around in a Yugo if they had their choice. It wasn't that long ago when liberals were trying to reduce the speed limits on highways, because they said it would save lives. Do you see a contradiction here? Also please note, no one knows how much oil is in Alaska. I know liberals will charge that Republicans are for drilling in Alaska, because oil companies are a big contributor to their party. I am not even going to go into the National Security implication and benefits of being energy dependent from the Middle East. Lastly, and most importantly, we need to develop affordable alternative sources of energy such as hydrogen fuel cells.
|
Something to think about |
)
