Forever? Garbage. The Clinton's did not change the Democrat Party forever. And the thought occurs, if they had not gone for the big money could they have broken the Reagan - HW Bush procession.
Reagan's corporate culture took jobs offshore more than Clinton's trade deals.
NAFTA and other trade deals have not gutted American manufacturing — period By J. Bradford DeLong Jan 24, 2017, 8:10am EST [...] Trump and Sanders were apocalyptic in their discussions of trade, and then Clinton abandoned the truth, too [...] Adding up the effects of the much-maligned trade agreements The relative decline in employment in manufacturing since World War II is the biggest structural change, or evolution, to hit the American economy over the past half-century. Politicians, with their preference for truthiness over the facts, attribute roughly all the 22 percentage point decline since 1971 in the manufacturing employment share to NAFTA, to China's entry into the WTO, and to a few other scattered "corporately backed unfettered free trade agreements.” But — I really would like to drive this home — the worrisome part from trade is not the decline in the manufacturing job share from 30 percent to 12.2 percent, but the "excess" decline from 12.2 percent to 8.6 percent. That worrisome part of the decline of the manufacturing job share is, roughly, only one-sixth of the total decline: 3.6 percentage points. And the amount of decline attributable to the two big bad trade agreements is only one-tenth of that: 0.36 percentage points. P - In sum, we can attribute a mere one-tenth of the excess reduction relative to Germany in the manufacturing job share to NAFTA and to China joining the WTO. https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/1/24/14363148/trade-deals-nafta-wto-china-job-loss-trump
And, B402, noted you say "Then Clinton started to wave of work leaving America......." even almost immediately after you were given:
The White House is only telling you half of the sad story of what happened to American jobs [...]The problem didn't start in the 1990s, it started in the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan — a hero of the Trump administration — was president, and neoliberal economics were first making their mark on policy. Reagan and his ilk distrusted government and believed that the private sector could make the best decisions when left on its own. You've heard about this — it's called laissez faire economics. P - This ideology ultimately led to the financialization of the US corporation — the process of putting shareholders first, often at the expense of workers and consumers — and its emergence as an actor that takes resources from the economy rather than creating them. This, combined with a government zeal for lowering taxes rather than spending, means no one — not the government, and not the private sector — is investing enough in America to keep the economy strong across social classes. https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=170903523
And after others here had earlier given you evidence that your blaming Clinton for starting offshoring is just not true.
'Turned over', 'changed the dynamics', and yet the economic performance described below arguably benefited more of the middle and the working classes than did Clinton's GOP predecessors' and successors' 'dynamics'.
Ditto for Obama. So what are the 'dynamics' of the GOP? Have they not turned their Party over to election denying, nihilistic, junk science pushing, anti-intellectual nut jobs, with shit new job creation to show for it?
Among the presidents from Jimmy Carter to Donald Trump, Bill Clinton created the most jobs at 18.6 million, while Ronald Reagan had the largest cumulative percentage increase in jobs at 15.6%.
Below are the budgetary results for President Clinton's two terms in office:
He had budget surpluses for fiscal years 1998–2001, the only such years from 1970 to 2018. Clinton's final four budgets were balanced budgets with surpluses, beginning with the 1997 budget.
The ratio of debt held by the public to GDP, a primary measure of U.S. federal debt, fell from 47.8% in 1993 to 33.6% by 2000. Debt held by the public was actually paid down by $453 billion over the 1998-2001 periods, the only time this happened between 1970 and 2018.
Federal spending fell from 20.7% GDP in 1993 to 17.6% GDP in 2000, below the historical average (1966 to 2015) of 20.2% GDP.
Tax revenues rose steadily from 17.0% GDP in 1993 to 20.0% GDP in 2000, well above the historical average of 17.4% GDP.
President Obama created 8.9 million jobs by the end of December 2016, a 6.1% increase over the work force he took over after the end of the Bush administration.
But that doesn't give the total picture. The economy lost 8.7 million jobs as a result of the Great Recession, which took place from late-2007 through mid-2009. From June 2009 to December 2016, Obama created 12.2 million jobs, an 8.7% increase.
Obama attacked the Great Recession with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It created jobs through public works. Many of those jobs were in construction.
And then there's Biden. Who did this record help? The dynamics of the Dem Party remain beneficial primarily to the middle and working classes. They NEVER dick around with SS, Medicare, Medicaid nor with 'infrastructure months'. Nor did they politicize the pandemic and the Covid vaxxes. What kind of party dynamic did, tried to do, exactly the opposite of any of that, to the fatal detriment of many of their supporters?
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
