Like hell he did:
Illegal immigration falls (or rises) according to cycles relevant to immigration; and it was falling years before he came onto the scene.
Cycles, you don’t pay attention to old dog, because you don’t pay attention to economics in general until its convenient.
Ergo; whenever it “happens” to cross paths with an issue you care about. Otherwise, you don’t care.
And because you don’t care over the long run, you get stats wrong, in same manner that the left gets stats on Gun Violence wrong for Australia; paying no attention to what the trend line was before the policy in question was implemented.
Unemployment? Same thing. The trend line was down and had been down for years, yet some out there only pay attention to it now, because, convenient narrative is convenient.
I mean hell, why not take credit for good things that happen to be happening when you’re in charge?
Bill Clinton did it, so why the hell should we not copy it? It’s not like our fortunes or our dialog suffer when we fail to discriminate the effects of politics from economics.
He quite literally did nothing; the “cost reductions”, were an automatic part of the Bloc-buy plan Lockheed already had negotiated.
… yeah… to make it more chock full of good, wholesome cronyism for American businesses.
If anyone wants to know why this is a bad idea, go look at France, its relationship to the EEA, and their growing economic irrelevance.
You don’t “save” any economy, by turning it into a necrotocracy, propping up businesses that should change or die.
Meritocracy, that’s what an economy should be. Not “anyone” first, merit first. “Affirmative action” for minorities or American businesses is BS, for the exact same reason.
Of all the reasons to be against the TPP, and I admit that they exist; that isn’t one of them.
People wax loudly for job protectionism, yet, whenever you look at an impact study for protectionist measures we’ve taken for industries in the past…
You find out that jobs were simply destroyed. In sugar for instance…