is job creation a major issue? are Dems credible?

[welshTerrier2]

you on DU are among the most politically aware voters ... how many of you, without doing research, can clearly articulate the Democratic plan on how more jobs can be created? from any perspective, left, right or center, jobs are the engine that pulls our economy in the right direction ... they offer us a chance to make our lives better and more secure ...

it's easy to say bush and the republicans have done nothing but swap high-paying jobs for "Walmart greeter" jobs ... and we're right to do so ... it's fair to point out the massive job growth under Clinton compared to bush's record ... but does this really make a legitimate case for common sense policies that will create jobs?

how many can articulate what policies were used under Clinton to create jobs? perhaps some of you can clearly make the case; i can't ... i hope you can educate me ... or was it just circumstances that existed in the 90's that can't be repeated under a future Democratic administration?

if the goal is to make the case against bush and point out his failures, Democrats have a strong case to make ... but if we think it's important to provide a clear vision and common sense programs that will really make the lives of Americans better, I'm afraid I'm still waiting to hear the message ... surely we understand how many voters (and non-voters) have been turned off by all the failed campaign promises and want to hear some tangible ideas about how Democrats will create jobs ...

as Massachusetts Democratic gubernatorial candidate Deval Patrick said today: "we who are politically involved spend all our time talking about HOW TO WIN elections when everybody else is asking WHY WE DESERVE TO WIN." ... let's make sure we don't forget that ...

[Nashyra]

1. Renewable energy

Democrats are committed to renewable energy, this means at least in the state of NV jobs. Yous have thermal engergy, wind and solar. Research and development creates jobs, production etc. that is one area in whcih jobs would be created.

[stillcool]

2. Incentives to corporations that stay here...

and hire here? I seem to recall Edwards/Kerry also saying they wanted to close the loop-hole in regards to taxes, for those with off-shore acounts?

[welshTerrier2]

4. i think this applied to the formal headquarters address

the focus of the plan, as i recall, was not really a job focus but rather a tax focus ... corporations with offshore headquarters were using the law to avoid paying US taxes ...

my plan, that's gotten nowhere so far, is to eliminate the capital gains benefit for investments in corporations headquarted outside the US and reduce the "capital gains discount" pro rata based on the company's ratio of foreign employees compared to US employees ... this idea provides an incentive to hire domestic-based workers ...

[FloridaPat]

3. Someone had a chart that showed job growth during Democrat &

repub presidents. Jobs and wages go up under Democrats & down during repub administrations. Always for 200 years.

[welshTerrier2]

5. class warfare

i'm convinced this is accurate ... republicans seek to weaken workers and make them less able to negotiate for higher salaries and other benefits ... when you're desperate for a job in a weak economy, you're much more likely to settle for less ... it's a simple case of helping the rich get richer ...

still, even citing this history, Democrats need to make it clear to Americans what policies and what changes they will implement to strengthen the job outlook ... history will help but it's not specific enough ...

[Deja Q]

19. How about the info behind the numbers?

I don't like charts that have no real numbers discussed. It's information without context.

And it's context that people want.

A pattern may be there... but until it's shown along with the chart, the chart is meaningless.

What policies did Dems put into place that repubs did not? Or the reverse? THAT is the context behind the numbers.

200 years? We've been a proper country for almost 230 years. We had slavery for 90 or so of those, with segregation and other nasty things for 100. Plus we had lots of parties before the Dems and Repubs... and, quite frankly, there are a lot of phrases uttered by Abraham Lincoln that proves he valued labor and laborers (no wonder he was murdered. :tinfoilhat: )

Republicans used to be good; Eisenhower being the last good one?

Dems lost their way after Carter, but there is some controvery behind Kennedy... still, we had a partial comeback...

[blm]

6. Kerry said many times that if the US firmly led on renewable energy it

would create millions of jobs while reducing the risks to national security involved with our dependence on oil.

His plan, an Apollo Project, would commit the United States to that research, fully funded - no doubt it would create those jobs.

[welshTerrier2]

7. renewable energy

i've been increasingly in state and local politics over the past few months ...

renewable energy is being pushed very hard (in Massachusetts) as a major component of a jobs program ... while i'm 100% supportive of the idea, it's not clear how it will play politically ... i mean, if you're an auto mechanic in Peoria or a teacher in San Diego, is a narrow focus on renewable energy jobs going to appeal to you?

it's clear supporting the push for renewable energy is critically important for many reasons; it's not clear it makes an adequate jobs program however ...

[blm]

9. Why? Seems there would be a growing market for the machines needed AND

the mechanics to fix them, just as they do for the autos in use now.

Why would it hurt them to expand their expertise to include the newer technology? Every business has its updated versions. Video didn't kill the radio star.

[welshTerrier2]

12. i wasn't suggesting it would "hurt them" to expand their expertise

i was only questioning whether the message, which i agree with, would appeal to voters with a wide array of job expertise ...

btw, another element of a good jobs program, and i think the Dems do have a good case to make here, is a strong push for education ... India and China are turning out engineers at many times the US rate ... this cannot continue ...

[blm]

14. That exact point was made at the debates and subsequently ignored by media

coverage.

[benburch]

8. Seems we did great under Bill Clinton... nt

[welshTerrier2]

10. did you read the OP?

the point made was that the "we did well once" may not be sufficient to convince voters we have a plan ... is that the only argument you think the Dems should make to establish their credibility on their ability to create jobs?

[benburch]

13. Yes I read it...

But experience is the key here. We lose jobs under Republicans and gain them under Democrats. The last 70 years have shown that clearly.

[Stinky The Clown]

23. A plan needs to be secondary to 'word pictures'

The plan is kinda important ... but really only of interest to wonks and the 'gotcha' crowd. What we ned is a word or phrase that conjures up a vision of where the plan is suposed to take us.

Sadly, these are the days of stupid, ill-informed voters. The plan is fine for the base - necessary, even. But to actually win on a national basis, we have to appeal to stupid people. Stupid people often crossdressed in the clothing of xenophobes and bigots.

[welshTerrier2]

25. i think this is very dangerous ...

i couldn't agree more when you emphasize the importance of clear, easy-to-understand communication ... not all voters take the time to dig into the issues the way many of us political junkies do ... and some really don't get much more exposure to our message than an occasional soundbite ...

but i think it's a very dangerous business to internalize the idea that most voters are stupid ... ill-informed perhaps; but not stupid ...

take someone who's seen their factory moved to Mexico while Clinton was in office ... the Democrats promise to help and that's what they see ... and then they vote republican because they are the "party of business" ... and they then lose their health insurance and their pension at their crappy minimum wage job ... are they stupid and ill-formed or do they understand exactly how the two parties have "helped" them???

many people are not being dealt very good hands by our systems and our institutions ... this is not a blame the Democrats or even a blame the republicans argument ... i just think we need to be very careful when we become insensitive to those who are very understandably alienated by the political process and its failure to deliver on its promises ...

[papau]

11. It is a bit of an art - Gov deficit is "somewhat" linked to interest rates

which in turn reflect balance of trade strain, and interest rates versus rate of return expected over of a period determine whether or not a proposer of a business investment can convince himself and others that making such an investment in the US makes more sense than keeping the money in a bank or investing overseas. A very large part of the equation is making the investor feel secure in his 10 year projections - major trade deficits and budget deficits do not accomplish this.

Trade barriers do indeed protect jobs - contrary to what is said by the GOP and a few Dems - but they are correct that worldwide total economic growth is best when there are few barriers - and that growth elsewhere can still result in some new jobs here - even some at good pay!

And studies show that a type of manufacturing can be established in a non-ideal country (any type) and that the manufacturing base thus establish (via subsidity in some form) will remain viable providing jobs for years - even though some will say that the government is in some way screwing the economy by going down a path that does not max out economis growth.

In terms of politics, "FAIR TRADE THAT PROTECTS THE PLANET AND AMERICAN JOBS" should be the slogan - environmental, worker safety, worker freedom/unions, minimum wage in our trading partner should be our touch points in making new or renewing old trade agreements. Bush country to country agreements are less useful than "world" agreements - but the corporations must let go of control of the WTO process.

Indeed ending the corporation equals a person concept in American law would be a big help here.

[Grateful for Hope]

15. I think this statement is very accurate

"Indeed ending the corporation equals a person concept in American law would be a big help here."

This would go a long way in protecting workers around the world, including here in the US.

[Stinky The Clown]

16. Good points in the OP and all through this thread .......

WelshTerrier2, I'm not sure I can answer your question directly. And a good question it is.

Right now, I'm kinda 'faith based' on this issue. Let me explain. I'll use the Clinton era just as an example. A great many of the jobs created then were in the high tech industry ... both for the computers themselves and for the uses to which we can put computers. Things like new software, the internet, internet banking, internet commerce, etc., etc., etc.

I honestly don't think the jobs were created by plan so much as by an admix of serendipity and mindset. The computers passed some point of ability whereby they could be put to new uses and at the same time be far more affordable than they ever were. The serendipity is that it happened when we had a government that was interested in sharing that ability with the masses. The Clintonian policies encouraged the growth. To be sure, they also led, eventually to the bubble's bursting, but all of history is cyclical.

The point is, we had an opportunity and they seized it, encouraged it, and nutrured it (with policy and incentives).

Junior could have done the same thing. I posted just the other day about the squandering of 9/11 as an icon. Had a different mindset been in power when that event occured, it could have been turned toward energy independence, and that, in turn could have led to a serious and sustainable growth in the alternate energy industries. If we postulate that our goal was to be a move from oil to sustainable energy, then a huge part of our energy infrastructure woudl have to be adjusted, recalibrated, or literally replaced. And with that as the engine of growth for the larger economy, we'd have been in fat city today.

Imagine .... new research being done in new places (you can't study, say, tidal power, in the midwest) attracting new populations, new populations needing houses and dry cleaners and schools. Repeat this for other energy source research.

Find an energy source that works and then we have to build it. Again, imagine tidal power. Some one has to build them. In new places. New populations. New housing. new dry cleaners ...... etc., etc.

In short, it would be a reshuffling of our society and populations .... not in a big way, but in a way that revitalizes areas.

And then there's distribution. And new ways to use the power, and that begets whole new industries.

This has always been the case throughout history. At the core, however, is a mindset to enable policies that encourage this growth and allow for the development and growth of the middle class.

I guess what I'm saying is that Democrats have shown they have the mindset to foster egalitarian economic growth. The Republicans have shown that they have the mindset to foster, narrow economic growth that benefits only a priveleged few.

I know what I'm thinking and feeling, but I'm having a hard time articulating it ...... and maybe, in the end ..... that's what you're asking us to do!

I'm sorry .... I tried.

[welshTerrier2]

20. and a good try it was ...

i'll divide my response into two pieces: the policy and the politics ...

you apologize yet you did an excellent job painting the gestalt of Dem philosophy ... unlike the republican idiocy of letting the "free market" seek short-term profits even at the expense of any long-term vision to make the country competitive, Democrats ultimately believe in a partnership between government and commerce ... they may shy away from going as far as a "centrally planned" economy but they do believe that government has a role to play in supporting and encouraging new industries ... the party's focus on the importance of higher ed, including programs to make higher education more affordable, and the focus on getting a fledgling renewable energy industry off the ground are two good examples ...

unfortunately, talking about a partnership of government and industry sounds like fancy, inside the beltway, DC speak ... the question remains, how can Democrats craft a message and a policy with the necessary political clout?

i hope others reading this offer some tangible ideas beyond "look at all the jobs FDR created during the depression" ... does anyone really think that will help in 2008? it might help a little; it won't help a lot ...

my thinking is to tie together the Dems focus on "toughness" with their jobs program ... let's confront bush's international hawkishness with the real threat to our country ... are most Americans genuinely worried that terrorists will blow up their local mall? it's not to say we shouldn't formulate policies to address our international problems ... it's to say that there are threats much greater to the country than terrorists ...

while we're so busy taking down dictators and bankrupting the nation with ill-advised warfare and wasteful defense spending, the engine that gives us the wealth to protect ourselves and earn good livings and provide for our families is being squandered away ... the real enemy is foreign economic competition; not military attack from terrorists or other countries ... again, we as Democrats should stand for a strong national defense; waging the wrong wars, however, makes us weaker; not stronger ...

the real war is being fought in our classrooms ... it's being fought by foreign governments that put their full weight behind job creation and economic competition ... republican ideology, and it's become a bit of a cliche, has promoted "profits before people" ... the oil companies under bush have had all time record profits ... stockholders get "capital gain discounts" when they make money on their investments ... they don't get discounts for companies that create jobs; just ones that make money ... that is NOT a pro-worker policy ... the false belief that "encouraging investment" creates jobs should be replaced by one that "encourages job creation" ... let's return to an investment tax credit for those companies that create jobs in the US and eliminate pro-rata the capital gains "discount" for companies that hire workers from outside the US ...

btw, i very much believe that republicans intentionally engineer recessions and lower employment rates ... this is class warfare, plain and simple ... workers have much less bargaining power against the ruling elite when jobs are scarce ...

Democrats have to find a way to break through the "free market hypnosis" that republicans have successfully spun since Reagan ... it's a bankrupt policy that's taken a horrible toll on the American people ... it's time to start reintroducing the important themes of the role government can play in working with industry to return the country to a real internationally competitive status ... frankly, i think we're doing a very poor job getting out the message ... if we don't consistently advocate for our "background themes", our specific policies don't sell very well ...

[Stinky The Clown]

22. I think we're pretty much on the same page here .....

.... and probably so are most Democrats.

But you're very right. Our message is, at best, weak, and likely worse than that.

I like the idea of hooking economic issues to security. It is something, again, I am sure all Democrats also see, but never quite get to articulating.

Remember when Kerry (I think it was) said, back in the 04 primaries, how terrorism will always be with us and needs to be seen as a 'nuisance' and a 'police matter'? That was absolutely correct .... but said so inartfully it was made a caricature of what he meant. So we need to be careful of how it gets framed. He also, as I recall, hinted at the notion that our **economic** security was a bigger issue ..... but, sadly, that whole meme dropped when the Three Monkey Media accused him of seeing the War on Terror© as a police matter ... "hahahahahaha". And since that happened we've not heard much about this from our leaders .... at least I haven't.

I really like the notion of 'strength' being tied to 'jobs' and 'economic growth' and 'reducing the deficit' and a host of other economic and jobs issues.

But here's the rub. Whenever we try that, we're painted as wanting to take profits away from the investment class and giving it to the 'welfare queens'. And in some measure, I would say, with pride, 'guilty as charged'. But that's horrible politically. Not so much with the investment class, but with the sheeple and the deluded and the investment class wannabes - in other words, the broader Republican base.

We need to acknowlege that profits are good. To be encouraged. And **that's** the rub. We have been painted as communists and collectivists, not capitalists. Clinton did a prety good job of straddling that fence. For better or worse, his keeping Greenspan on was part of that success. Our job now is to do what Clinton did, but in an even more progressive way. A way that plays well to **our** base, yet makes the squishy middle and even most Republicans say "yanno, that's not a bad position."

Paging George Lakoff ....... Message for Mr. Lakoff ......

[welshTerrier2]

24. "profits are good"

what is good is a strong economy that creates jobs and promotes industries that contribute to the public good rather than detract from it ...

this is the essence of the Democratic Party's failure imho ... it seems we disagree on this important point ...

i have no opposition to creating wealth ... it's a bogus argument that republicans often make against Democrats to say that we are "anti-business" (or anti-profits) ... it would be nice, i suppose, if we were all millionaires ... wealth and profit are not inherently evil ...

but accepting this premise does NOT mean that the pursuit of profits, regardless of the implications to our society, is always appropriate ... for example, the oil companies, in pursuit of profits, have stifled the renewable energy industry ... like drug dealers, their clout in Washington has held the nation captive to our oil addiction ... thousands have died in Iraq and tens of thousands have been badly wounded as the oil companies close deals to exploit Iraqi oil and realize all time record PROFITS ... this putting profits ahead of national priorities is an evil force ...

Democrats should promote pro-business policies that encourage industry to align with our national priorites ... these priorities should not be controversial ... Americans want good paying jobs ... we want to be competitive with our foreign competition ... we want stable industries that don't abandon whole towns or even regions of the country to move their plants (and jobs) overseas to make more PROFITS ...

we want clean, sustainable sources of energy ... not industries that pass their pollution costs on to consumers ... not industries that dump radioactive materials into our land and water and pump their pollutants into our air ...

Democrats have run and have hidden since Reagan was able to peddle his "free market" nonsense to the American people ... our economy is growing weaker and weaker internationally while the stock market remains high ... the Democratic message should NOT be "anti-profits"; it should be pro-American ... we need to understand that the two goals are not always compatible ...

[Stinky The Clown]

26. Actually, we **don't** disagree at all .....

.... at least I don't think so.

There are fair profits (no doubt you remember the old, pre-corporatized Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream as a shining example) and there are profits-uber-alles companies ... the oil companies in your example.

To be clear. Profits are good. Predatory profits are bad.

Ours is a culture that often deals in absolutes, but life and reality is a matter of nuance and distinctions. In fact, your immediate perception of what I said is an example of that.

The problem is that we all tend to equate 'profit' and 'corporate' with the big 'suit' companies (Exxon, GM, Haliburton, etc.). There are probably tens of thousands of small companies that are, in fact, corporations, and not all of them are evil. But I'm sure you that, too. I own a small business and I'm a capitalist. But I'm also a Democrat and the common good is also good for me and mine. As I suspect you do. I'm in business to make a profit. And I usually do. In fact, other than the first year we were in business, we have. By hard work, fair competition, and taking care of those on whom we depend for our success (our customers, our employees, and ourselves).

I'd love to see some serious reregualtion of certain industries and some serious limits on the size of corporations. Even limits of corporate pay scales for the boys on the top floor. We need to create a corporate culture where the **corporations** are encourgaed to have a moral compass in line with that of our citizens. A carrot snd stick approach to this is fine with me.

We can also sell the idea of single payer health care with a corporate theme. It is good for business. In my tiny company, our health care costs are second only to salaries. But we soldier on. I'd love to have those costs diverted taxes to pay for a single payer system. In the end, we'd pay less and get more ... individually and as a country.

So to go back to my point .... that we need to be seen as pro business and pro profits. I'm not a 'mesaging' expert, so I don't know how to frame this .... but it seems to me we need to sell this idea with word pictures .... an image of the goal ... our vision. Free enterprize .... within reason ... and good paying jobs for all ... with a national safety net. I think if we show the little guy that he has a chance again ... not just for a job, but to actually be **in charge** of his job as a business owner if he so chooses ..... that we're the people that can make that happen.

[welshTerrier2]

27. nope, i think you're dead on here ...

it's interest that you label yourself a capitalist and label myself a socialist ... your description of your views is not at all different from my own ...

it always comes down to definitions ... i would say that our government should do all that it can, to ensure the best life for our citizens and the global community as well ... if this necessitates restrictions on business, or on maximizing business profits, or on "free" enterprise, so be it ... ultimately, the ideal should be to allow as much wealth to be created as possible as long as they don't interfere with societal objectives ...

i was very surprised to see your call for selective income restrictions on certain corporate execs ... my idea is that no just income, but wealth, must be capped until such time as it no longer corrupts the political process ... that's a whole other thread though ... i'm very supportive of your idea on this issue ...

your essential point seems to be that the party should be "pro business" and "pro profits" ... i'm 100% in favor of both as long as the country's priorities and the needs of all our citizens remains (or becomes i should say) the top priority ... i define this as socialism though many have their own definitions; if we agree on the fundamental priorities, then i would be happy to call myself a capitalist as well ...

[Stinky The Clown]

28. And beauty is in the eye of the beholder .....

I knew from the start we agreed .... neither your take nor mine are outside the mainstream. Where it comes in for disconnect is when we make broad assumptions based on labels and then fail to explore.

I'm a self-described capitalist. I believe we all have a right to start our own enterprise and succeed at it. Government's role is to create a climate where that can happen. I would, for example, **need** protection from WalMart if I wanted to open a small microwave oven and toaster shop in some small town. A good government will give me that.

You're a self-described socialist. Yet you believe we all have a right to start our own enterprise and succeed at it. Government's role is to create a climate where that can happen. You would, for example, **need** protection from WalMart if you wanted to open a small microwave oven and toaster shop in some small town. A good government will give you that.

I have to think about that limit on wealth thing, though ........

Maybe consider this ..... if we had a better way to control runaway corporations, then we'd also have less wealth *disparity*, which is the real issue - not wealth in and of itself. To call for a limit on wealth, per se, would never fly, imho. But to create a world where wealth is, by culture and by systemic construct, more equitably distributed, would negate the need to actually place any limits on wealth.

Anyway ... thanks for an actual intelligent, intellectually honest debate. It has been fun ... and all too rare of late.

[welshTerrier2]

29. limiting wealth ...

i'll spare you my 10,000 word ramble on limiting wealth ...

see if this fits: our goal should be to ensure that each and every citizen has equal, or as equal as possible, access to petition the government ... our goal should be a system of jurisprudence that treats both rich man and poor man in the same way ... our goal should allow no citizen, or commercial venture representing a "congress of citizens", a disproportionate degree of access to or influence on legislation or government policy ...

there is nothing implicitly rigid or absolutist about these ideas as goals ... we should not become so fanatical or doctrinaire that we over regulate our lives and constrict our humanity ... perfection, while a nice ideal, can at times become an abusive mistress ...

but still, i fear that "moderate", bureaucratic effort to limit the abuses of massive wealth and the corruption it enables within our democratic institutions has always failed ... indeed, even efforts to restrict wealth itself may be defeated by the power that massive wealth enables ... again, the view here is NOT that great wealth is inherently evil or that its pursuit is somehow inherently undesirable ... i'm for allowing limitless acquisition of wealth AS LONG AS we are able to adequately buffer our most cherished institutions from those who abuse it ...

historically, efforts at lobby reform and campaign finance regulation, the "darlings" of "liberals", have failed miserably ... i am 100% supportive of promoting these liberal policies but, and it's a very big but, we have to commit ourselves to the idea that failure in the arena of protecting our democracy is NOT an option ...

you show me a government that really is NOT for sale, and i'm 100% for limitless wealth ... you show me a government that succumbs to the power and influence of massive wealth, and the access and preferential legislation and policy that it purchases, and i will start capping the greatest wealth and i won't stop until the problem is solved ...

this is consistent with the idea that the goals and values of the society, when they conflict with the goals of any individual, must take precedence ...

i would make special note that this, of course, does not conflict with the idea of respecting the rights and liberties of the individual ... the Bill of Rights must be adhered to ... calling for restrictions on wealth accumulation where it continues to "buy the government" is very different than depriving individuals of their civil liberties, for example the current NSA spying crimes of the bush administration, for a "so called" national objective ... that distinction must not be lost ...

i, too, have very much enjoyed our exchange ... your insights and appreciation of nuance are a rare gift ...

[Stinky The Clown]

30. I read that not once, but twice

I can't disagree with any of it (said the capitalist) :)

[Solo_in_MD]

17. They are not perceived as such

"Historical gains are no indication of future performance" is the disclaimer on all the investment pitches you see with good reason. Same applies in politics, just look at the repuke budget debacle.

Dems are not perceived as being able to run the business side of the nation well, such as jobs creation. They are also considered to be in bed with unions, which have come to symbolize corruption and the problems associated with the big three automakers. True or not, that is how many I see every day perceive them.

This is not an issue to win with at this time.

[Master Mahon]

18. Clinton supported NAFTA

and would probably continue to support free trade agreements and 'globalization'.
I think the reality was that the impact of this policy was not fully felt until the Bush years. I am not by any means taking blame away from Bush.
Although we always had jobs moving oversees for cheaper labor, It just seems to me that it has been in far greater numbers in the last 5 years or so, and it's now including many mid and high level jobs, where before it was mostly labor and manufacturing.
Democrats have historically supported labor and the GOP has not.
I would like to think that had the Dems had control of Gov't more would be done to shore up the working class in the US rather then destroy it like is happening now.
The dems need to address this issue and create a policy that, while understanding the realities of 'globalization', many things can be done to protect the working people in the US, keep good jobs here, and reinstate the ideal that 'Made in America' means a high quality, well made product, worth shelling out a few bucks more for.

Just my 2 cents, with 5 cents tax! :+

[Deja Q]

21. And while high jobs are vanishing, the media tells us only low-end jobs

are the ones going.

Dunno what the Dems are doing these days... but you have to admit, they're not in power and it's those in power who invariably assist to kick the opponents when they're down. Happens by people on both sides. So, this time, it's the Repubs who should be answering your questions. Though I can't deny your claim on the Dems at times... I've been vocal against NAFTA myself.

Oh, what is the reality of globalization? Jobs going offshore to countries who may or may not like us. By axing our infrastructure at home and if (or when? :tinfoilhat: ) they opt to turn on us, we're in a deep hole. That won't do us any good, does it?

[papau]

31. 6 yr delay in loss of jobs responce to NAFTA? - Hard to come up with

an economic theory that predicts or even allows that delay.

Indeed when Clinton left office the cumulative NAFTA effect on the job situation was it was a wash - it had no effect on the increase in jobs under Clinton.

I think "competance in responding to the changes in the economy so as to generate new jobs" is the only jobs related slogan we can sell - because it is the truth, and getting more complicated in our explanation on why we increase jobs and the GOP has only small gains in total jobs will lose the voter.