|
|
On November 09 2012 15:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 15:52 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 09 2012 15:49 BluePanther wrote:On November 09 2012 15:46 BronzeKnee wrote:
Because when you are in debt and need more income you should cut your hours at work, and just pile on more debt... is that right Blue Panther?
Or maybe we should go to war, then cut taxes... which would be like saying "well I have two kids about to start college now... I guess I'll cut my income and put more on the credit card, that would be fiscally responsible..." Thanks GW Bush. Apples and Oranges, I can't really respond to that. Don't forget both parties voted for that war... That's not on him. The war wasn't on him, but the tax cut while at war, the first time this nation has ever done that, is on him and the Republican Congress of the time. The last President to balance the budget was Bill Clinton. And before that? Jimmy Carter. Check it, and learn what fiscal responsibility is about. The Bush tax cuts were a work in progress well before war broke out. Its what the country voted for when they elected Bush... and they were pretty responsible at the time.
You're wrong. Bush passed two bills that cut taxes. The first was in progress well before war broke out in Afghanistan. The second happen well after.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2001
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_and_Growth_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2003
Anyway, the point here is that if you go to war, you need money to fund it, so you should raise taxes. Or at least not cut them.
|
On November 09 2012 15:57 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 15:55 hinnolinn wrote:On November 09 2012 15:52 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 09 2012 15:49 BluePanther wrote:On November 09 2012 15:46 BronzeKnee wrote:
Because when you are in debt and need more income you should cut your hours at work, and just pile on more debt... is that right Blue Panther?
Or maybe we should go to war, then cut taxes... which would be like saying "well I have two kids about to start college now... I guess I'll cut my income and put more on the credit card, that would be fiscally responsible..." Thanks GW Bush. Apples and Oranges, I can't really respond to that. Don't forget both parties voted for that war... That's not on him. The war wasn't on him, but the tax cut while at war, the first time this nation has ever done that, is on him and the Republican Congress of the time. The last President to balance the budget was Bill Clinton. And before that? Jimmy Carter. Check it, and learn what fiscal responsibility is about. I'm curious what you're trying to imply here. Are you saying that Democrats are better for the economy? I'm saying that Democratic party is the party of fiscal responsibility.
I might not have the best source, but it seems to me that that is a specious claim.
http://thepoliticaljungle.blogspot.com/2012/09/what-do-10-poorest-cities-in-united.html
For the most part, Republicans are most likely no better, but seriously, that's just too much.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
one could argue that bush, following the banks, really did believe that money was infinite.
|
On November 09 2012 16:00 hinnolinn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 15:57 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 09 2012 15:55 hinnolinn wrote:On November 09 2012 15:52 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 09 2012 15:49 BluePanther wrote:On November 09 2012 15:46 BronzeKnee wrote:
Because when you are in debt and need more income you should cut your hours at work, and just pile on more debt... is that right Blue Panther?
Or maybe we should go to war, then cut taxes... which would be like saying "well I have two kids about to start college now... I guess I'll cut my income and put more on the credit card, that would be fiscally responsible..." Thanks GW Bush. Apples and Oranges, I can't really respond to that. Don't forget both parties voted for that war... That's not on him. The war wasn't on him, but the tax cut while at war, the first time this nation has ever done that, is on him and the Republican Congress of the time. The last President to balance the budget was Bill Clinton. And before that? Jimmy Carter. Check it, and learn what fiscal responsibility is about. I'm curious what you're trying to imply here. Are you saying that Democrats are better for the economy? I'm saying that Democratic party is the party of fiscal responsibility. I might not have the best source, but it seems to me that that is a specious claim. http://thepoliticaljungle.blogspot.com/2012/09/what-do-10-poorest-cities-in-united.htmlFor the most part, Republicans are most likely no better, but seriously, that's just too much.
Look at the 10 poorest states... all red states that have been red for a long time... but really those comparisons are just dumb for a variety of reasons.
How about some facts. As Clinton pointed out, in the last 52 years, Democrats have held the Presidency 24 years, Republicans 28. And Republicans created 24 million jobs, Democrats 42. You be the judge, Republicans had 4 more years in office than Democrats and created 18 million less jobs... hmm...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/06/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-says-democratic-presidents-top-republ/
Republicans
Richard Nixon: Increase of 7.1 million jobs
Gerald Ford: Increase of 1.3 million jobs
Ronald Reagan: Increase of 14.7 million jobs
George H.W. Bush: Increase of 1.5 million jobs
George W. Bush: Decline of 646,000 jobs
Total: Increase of 23.9 million jobs under Republican presidents
Democrats
John F. Kennedy: Increase of 2.7 million jobs
Lyndon B. Johnson: Increase of 9.5 million jobs
Jimmy Carter: Increase of 9.0 million jobs
Bill Clinton: Increase of 20.8 million jobs
Barack Obama: Increase of 332,000 jobs
Total: Increase of 42.3 million jobs.
Good game. There is a mountain of non-partisan facts about why Democrats handle the economy better than Republicans.
|
On November 09 2012 16:00 hinnolinn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 15:57 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 09 2012 15:55 hinnolinn wrote:On November 09 2012 15:52 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 09 2012 15:49 BluePanther wrote:On November 09 2012 15:46 BronzeKnee wrote:
Because when you are in debt and need more income you should cut your hours at work, and just pile on more debt... is that right Blue Panther?
Or maybe we should go to war, then cut taxes... which would be like saying "well I have two kids about to start college now... I guess I'll cut my income and put more on the credit card, that would be fiscally responsible..." Thanks GW Bush. Apples and Oranges, I can't really respond to that. Don't forget both parties voted for that war... That's not on him. The war wasn't on him, but the tax cut while at war, the first time this nation has ever done that, is on him and the Republican Congress of the time. The last President to balance the budget was Bill Clinton. And before that? Jimmy Carter. Check it, and learn what fiscal responsibility is about. I'm curious what you're trying to imply here. Are you saying that Democrats are better for the economy? I'm saying that Democratic party is the party of fiscal responsibility. I might not have the best source, but it seems to me that that is a specious claim. http://thepoliticaljungle.blogspot.com/2012/09/what-do-10-poorest-cities-in-united.htmlFor the most part, Republicans are most likely no better, but seriously, that's just too much.
Why not look at the top 10 poorest states? And guess how many are Republican and in the south.
Top 10 Poorest States
|
On November 09 2012 15:41 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 15:38 micronesia wrote:
Alternately, the election could have been the trigger for a bear market that was going to happen soon anyway.
In either case I wouldn't blame Obama for the past couple of days. I wouldn't blame Obama individually (although he's part of it). It dropped because we have a split Congress. There is no one-party rule this session (and likely not for the next 6 years). That's gonna cause problems, and Wall Street is pricing itself into this reality. Republicans thought they had the Senate easy, and they got TROUNCED.
It's true that the continuation of gridlock won't help us avoid things like the fiscal cliff or the next debt ceiling limit.
But, while the +2 Dems result in the Senate was a surprise, it was widely known that the Dems would keep the Senate again during all of October. While some pundits were predicting a Democratic house, anyone who looked into the results of redistricting (which I assume people with billions of dollars on the line would do) would know that these maps make a Democratic majority nearly impossible for the next decade.
|
On November 09 2012 16:03 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 16:00 hinnolinn wrote:On November 09 2012 15:57 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 09 2012 15:55 hinnolinn wrote:On November 09 2012 15:52 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 09 2012 15:49 BluePanther wrote:On November 09 2012 15:46 BronzeKnee wrote:
Because when you are in debt and need more income you should cut your hours at work, and just pile on more debt... is that right Blue Panther?
Or maybe we should go to war, then cut taxes... which would be like saying "well I have two kids about to start college now... I guess I'll cut my income and put more on the credit card, that would be fiscally responsible..." Thanks GW Bush. Apples and Oranges, I can't really respond to that. Don't forget both parties voted for that war... That's not on him. The war wasn't on him, but the tax cut while at war, the first time this nation has ever done that, is on him and the Republican Congress of the time. The last President to balance the budget was Bill Clinton. And before that? Jimmy Carter. Check it, and learn what fiscal responsibility is about. I'm curious what you're trying to imply here. Are you saying that Democrats are better for the economy? I'm saying that Democratic party is the party of fiscal responsibility. I might not have the best source, but it seems to me that that is a specious claim. http://thepoliticaljungle.blogspot.com/2012/09/what-do-10-poorest-cities-in-united.htmlFor the most part, Republicans are most likely no better, but seriously, that's just too much. Look at the 10 poorest states... all red states that have been red for a long time... but really those comparisons are just dumb for a variety of reasons. How about some facts. As Clinton pointed out, in the last 52 years, Democrats have held the Presidency 24 years, Republicans 28. And Republicans created 24 million jobs, Democrats 42. You be the judge, Republicans have 4 more years in office than Democrats and created 18 million less jobs... hmm... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/06/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-says-democratic-presidents-top-republ/Good game. There is a mountain of non-partisan facts about why Democrats handle the economy better than Republicans.
That's a really interesting link, but let's see, http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ceshighlights.pdf seems to indicate that the total employment in the private sector is down since Obama took office, but politifact says that Obama has a positive job total. So it looks like they don't care how many jobs are lost, they only care how many jobs are created. And that statistic seems pretty crappy to me.
Oh look, the BLS seems to indicate that the total private sector jobs increased under Bush Jr. also, but politifact says that he lost jobs.
Your serve?
|
On November 09 2012 15:46 BronzeKnee wrote:
Because when you are in debt and need more income you should cut your hours at work, and just pile on more debt... is that right Blue Panther?
Or maybe we should go to war, then cut taxes... which would be like saying "well I have two kids about to start college now... I guess I'll cut my income and put more on the credit card, that would be fiscally responsible..." Thanks GW Bush.
Do you pay income taxes? lol If not its pretty easy to make these suggestions.
How about creating a budget and stopping spending as a way to save money if I lose my job or hours. Americans all over the country have to tighten their belts why not the government? Take a 25 percent paycut as a sign of good faith and commitment.
I honestly wouldn't mind paying a bit more in taxes if they (government in general dems and repubs) could get their spending under control. It just seems like the more revenue they take in, the more they will blow. Yeah Bush sucked and got us into these wars, but why the hell are there troops still in afghanistan?
The stock market doesn't seem like it can be a coincidence lol. I mean I supported Obama when he first got elected, but I just feel like he didn't do a lot when he had control of Congress those first 2 years. Why didn't he move towards the social policies then when he had control? Why didnt he extend the tax cuts for the 99 percent while not doing it for the 1 percent then? It also seems like he never stands up to republicnas.
The amount of money that the big banks like Goldman Sachs gave to both candidates gave to both candidates scares the hell out of me too.
I hope I am wrong and Obama and the house can compromise and get shit done, but I'm not optimistic. Wow, this really turned into quite a rant.
|
The likely reason for the stock market drop is because the democratic victory means the Wall street regulation bill, Dodd-Frank, will actually be able to continue now (Romney was going to ax it if he got in). That means more consumer protection and less obscene profits and taxpayer-funded bailouts for big banks. This was the same reason Wall street contributed more money to Romney than Obama this time.
http://business.time.com/2012/11/08/with-obama-win-wall-street-cop-stays-on-the-beat/
|
On November 09 2012 16:10 hinnolinn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 16:03 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 09 2012 16:00 hinnolinn wrote:On November 09 2012 15:57 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 09 2012 15:55 hinnolinn wrote:On November 09 2012 15:52 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 09 2012 15:49 BluePanther wrote:On November 09 2012 15:46 BronzeKnee wrote:
Because when you are in debt and need more income you should cut your hours at work, and just pile on more debt... is that right Blue Panther?
Or maybe we should go to war, then cut taxes... which would be like saying "well I have two kids about to start college now... I guess I'll cut my income and put more on the credit card, that would be fiscally responsible..." Thanks GW Bush. Apples and Oranges, I can't really respond to that. Don't forget both parties voted for that war... That's not on him. The war wasn't on him, but the tax cut while at war, the first time this nation has ever done that, is on him and the Republican Congress of the time. The last President to balance the budget was Bill Clinton. And before that? Jimmy Carter. Check it, and learn what fiscal responsibility is about. I'm curious what you're trying to imply here. Are you saying that Democrats are better for the economy? I'm saying that Democratic party is the party of fiscal responsibility. I might not have the best source, but it seems to me that that is a specious claim. http://thepoliticaljungle.blogspot.com/2012/09/what-do-10-poorest-cities-in-united.htmlFor the most part, Republicans are most likely no better, but seriously, that's just too much. Look at the 10 poorest states... all red states that have been red for a long time... but really those comparisons are just dumb for a variety of reasons. How about some facts. As Clinton pointed out, in the last 52 years, Democrats have held the Presidency 24 years, Republicans 28. And Republicans created 24 million jobs, Democrats 42. You be the judge, Republicans have 4 more years in office than Democrats and created 18 million less jobs... hmm... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/06/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-says-democratic-presidents-top-republ/Good game. There is a mountain of non-partisan facts about why Democrats handle the economy better than Republicans. That's a really interesting link, but let's see, http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ceshighlights.pdf seems to indicate that the total employment in the private sector is down since Obama took office, but politifact says that Obama has a positive job total. So it looks like they don't care how many jobs are lost, they only care how many jobs are created. And that statistic seems pretty crappy to me.
That is wrong. Check it again. It calculates it by subtracting jobs lost from jobs gained, which is why GW Bush had a decline in his presidency. If it calculated the way you wanted it to them, then I'm sure jobs were created during this term, but he lost more than he created. The politifact statement above references Bill Clinton who references the BLF.
The private sector isn't the only place where people can be employed. Stop cherry picking facts. A job is a job.
And my serve was an ace.
|
On November 09 2012 16:13 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 16:10 hinnolinn wrote:On November 09 2012 16:03 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 09 2012 16:00 hinnolinn wrote:On November 09 2012 15:57 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 09 2012 15:55 hinnolinn wrote:On November 09 2012 15:52 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 09 2012 15:49 BluePanther wrote:On November 09 2012 15:46 BronzeKnee wrote:
Because when you are in debt and need more income you should cut your hours at work, and just pile on more debt... is that right Blue Panther?
Or maybe we should go to war, then cut taxes... which would be like saying "well I have two kids about to start college now... I guess I'll cut my income and put more on the credit card, that would be fiscally responsible..." Thanks GW Bush. Apples and Oranges, I can't really respond to that. Don't forget both parties voted for that war... That's not on him. The war wasn't on him, but the tax cut while at war, the first time this nation has ever done that, is on him and the Republican Congress of the time. The last President to balance the budget was Bill Clinton. And before that? Jimmy Carter. Check it, and learn what fiscal responsibility is about. I'm curious what you're trying to imply here. Are you saying that Democrats are better for the economy? I'm saying that Democratic party is the party of fiscal responsibility. I might not have the best source, but it seems to me that that is a specious claim. http://thepoliticaljungle.blogspot.com/2012/09/what-do-10-poorest-cities-in-united.htmlFor the most part, Republicans are most likely no better, but seriously, that's just too much. Look at the 10 poorest states... all red states that have been red for a long time... but really those comparisons are just dumb for a variety of reasons. How about some facts. As Clinton pointed out, in the last 52 years, Democrats have held the Presidency 24 years, Republicans 28. And Republicans created 24 million jobs, Democrats 42. You be the judge, Republicans have 4 more years in office than Democrats and created 18 million less jobs... hmm... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/06/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-says-democratic-presidents-top-republ/Good game. There is a mountain of non-partisan facts about why Democrats handle the economy better than Republicans. That's a really interesting link, but let's see, http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ceshighlights.pdf seems to indicate that the total employment in the private sector is down since Obama took office, but politifact says that Obama has a positive job total. So it looks like they don't care how many jobs are lost, they only care how many jobs are created. And that statistic seems pretty crappy to me. That is wrong. Check it again. It calculates it by subtracting jobs lost from jobs gained, which is why GW Bush had a decline in his presidency. I'm sure jobs were created during this term, but he lost more than he created. The private sector isn't the only place where people can be employed. Stop cherry picking facts. A job is a job. And my serve was an ace.
Cherry picking facts? Read your own link there genius. They say they're talking about the private sector. Double fault on you.
|
On November 09 2012 16:14 hinnolinn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 16:13 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 09 2012 16:10 hinnolinn wrote:On November 09 2012 16:03 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 09 2012 16:00 hinnolinn wrote:On November 09 2012 15:57 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 09 2012 15:55 hinnolinn wrote:On November 09 2012 15:52 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 09 2012 15:49 BluePanther wrote:On November 09 2012 15:46 BronzeKnee wrote:
Because when you are in debt and need more income you should cut your hours at work, and just pile on more debt... is that right Blue Panther?
Or maybe we should go to war, then cut taxes... which would be like saying "well I have two kids about to start college now... I guess I'll cut my income and put more on the credit card, that would be fiscally responsible..." Thanks GW Bush. Apples and Oranges, I can't really respond to that. Don't forget both parties voted for that war... That's not on him. The war wasn't on him, but the tax cut while at war, the first time this nation has ever done that, is on him and the Republican Congress of the time. The last President to balance the budget was Bill Clinton. And before that? Jimmy Carter. Check it, and learn what fiscal responsibility is about. I'm curious what you're trying to imply here. Are you saying that Democrats are better for the economy? I'm saying that Democratic party is the party of fiscal responsibility. I might not have the best source, but it seems to me that that is a specious claim. http://thepoliticaljungle.blogspot.com/2012/09/what-do-10-poorest-cities-in-united.htmlFor the most part, Republicans are most likely no better, but seriously, that's just too much. Look at the 10 poorest states... all red states that have been red for a long time... but really those comparisons are just dumb for a variety of reasons. How about some facts. As Clinton pointed out, in the last 52 years, Democrats have held the Presidency 24 years, Republicans 28. And Republicans created 24 million jobs, Democrats 42. You be the judge, Republicans have 4 more years in office than Democrats and created 18 million less jobs... hmm... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/06/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-says-democratic-presidents-top-republ/Good game. There is a mountain of non-partisan facts about why Democrats handle the economy better than Republicans. That's a really interesting link, but let's see, http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ceshighlights.pdf seems to indicate that the total employment in the private sector is down since Obama took office, but politifact says that Obama has a positive job total. So it looks like they don't care how many jobs are lost, they only care how many jobs are created. And that statistic seems pretty crappy to me. That is wrong. Check it again. It calculates it by subtracting jobs lost from jobs gained, which is why GW Bush had a decline in his presidency. I'm sure jobs were created during this term, but he lost more than he created. The private sector isn't the only place where people can be employed. Stop cherry picking facts. A job is a job. And my serve was an ace. Cherry picking facts? Read your own link there genius. They say they're talking about the private sector. Double fault on you.
You're right. We should both read it again:
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, here are the net increases in private-sector employment under each president, chronologically by party:
Republicans
Richard Nixon: Increase of 7.1 million jobs
Gerald Ford: Increase of 1.3 million jobs
Ronald Reagan: Increase of 14.7 million jobs
George H.W. Bush: Increase of 1.5 million jobs
George W. Bush: Decline of 646,000 jobs
Total: Increase of 23.9 million jobs under Republican presidents
Democrats
John F. Kennedy: Increase of 2.7 million jobs
Lyndon B. Johnson: Increase of 9.5 million jobs
Jimmy Carter: Increase of 9.0 million jobs
Bill Clinton: Increase of 20.8 million jobs
Barack Obama: Increase of 332,000 jobs
Total: Increase of 42.3 million jobs.
|
On November 09 2012 16:00 hinnolinn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 15:57 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 09 2012 15:55 hinnolinn wrote:On November 09 2012 15:52 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 09 2012 15:49 BluePanther wrote:On November 09 2012 15:46 BronzeKnee wrote:
Because when you are in debt and need more income you should cut your hours at work, and just pile on more debt... is that right Blue Panther?
Or maybe we should go to war, then cut taxes... which would be like saying "well I have two kids about to start college now... I guess I'll cut my income and put more on the credit card, that would be fiscally responsible..." Thanks GW Bush. Apples and Oranges, I can't really respond to that. Don't forget both parties voted for that war... That's not on him. The war wasn't on him, but the tax cut while at war, the first time this nation has ever done that, is on him and the Republican Congress of the time. The last President to balance the budget was Bill Clinton. And before that? Jimmy Carter. Check it, and learn what fiscal responsibility is about. I'm curious what you're trying to imply here. Are you saying that Democrats are better for the economy? I'm saying that Democratic party is the party of fiscal responsibility. I might not have the best source, but it seems to me that that is a specious claim. http://thepoliticaljungle.blogspot.com/2012/09/what-do-10-poorest-cities-in-united.htmlFor the most part, Republicans are most likely no better, but seriously, that's just too much.
It's true though: saying you support Republicans because you're anti-debt is like saying you support the Republicans because you support gay marriage. Think about it: Clinton promulgated the DADT policy and signed DOMA, Obama has gone on the record saying he opposes gay marriage, the Log Cabin Republicans were the primary force behind allowing gays to openly serve in the mililtary: it's clear: Democrats are the party of gay-bashing, and the Republicans are the pro-gay rights party! Of course, this ignores that Democrats actually advocate for gay rights more than Republicans, but that's the same as ignoring that Republicans are the anti-surplus party.
|
Martina Navratilova says "Stop with the ill-conceived tennis analogy."
|
On November 09 2012 16:16 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 16:14 hinnolinn wrote:On November 09 2012 16:13 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 09 2012 16:10 hinnolinn wrote:On November 09 2012 16:03 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 09 2012 16:00 hinnolinn wrote:On November 09 2012 15:57 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 09 2012 15:55 hinnolinn wrote:On November 09 2012 15:52 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 09 2012 15:49 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
Apples and Oranges, I can't really respond to that.
Don't forget both parties voted for that war... That's not on him. The war wasn't on him, but the tax cut while at war, the first time this nation has ever done that, is on him and the Republican Congress of the time. The last President to balance the budget was Bill Clinton. And before that? Jimmy Carter. Check it, and learn what fiscal responsibility is about. I'm curious what you're trying to imply here. Are you saying that Democrats are better for the economy? I'm saying that Democratic party is the party of fiscal responsibility. I might not have the best source, but it seems to me that that is a specious claim. http://thepoliticaljungle.blogspot.com/2012/09/what-do-10-poorest-cities-in-united.htmlFor the most part, Republicans are most likely no better, but seriously, that's just too much. Look at the 10 poorest states... all red states that have been red for a long time... but really those comparisons are just dumb for a variety of reasons. How about some facts. As Clinton pointed out, in the last 52 years, Democrats have held the Presidency 24 years, Republicans 28. And Republicans created 24 million jobs, Democrats 42. You be the judge, Republicans have 4 more years in office than Democrats and created 18 million less jobs... hmm... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/06/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-says-democratic-presidents-top-republ/Good game. There is a mountain of non-partisan facts about why Democrats handle the economy better than Republicans. That's a really interesting link, but let's see, http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ceshighlights.pdf seems to indicate that the total employment in the private sector is down since Obama took office, but politifact says that Obama has a positive job total. So it looks like they don't care how many jobs are lost, they only care how many jobs are created. And that statistic seems pretty crappy to me. That is wrong. Check it again. It calculates it by subtracting jobs lost from jobs gained, which is why GW Bush had a decline in his presidency. I'm sure jobs were created during this term, but he lost more than he created. The private sector isn't the only place where people can be employed. Stop cherry picking facts. A job is a job. And my serve was an ace. Cherry picking facts? Read your own link there genius. They say they're talking about the private sector. Double fault on you. You're right. We should both read it again: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, here are the net increases in private-sector employment under each president, chronologically by party: Republicans Richard Nixon: Increase of 7.1 million jobs Gerald Ford: Increase of 1.3 million jobs Ronald Reagan: Increase of 14.7 million jobs George H.W. Bush: Increase of 1.5 million jobs George W. Bush: Decline of 646,000 jobs Total: Increase of 23.9 million jobs under Republican presidents Democrats John F. Kennedy: Increase of 2.7 million jobs Lyndon B. Johnson: Increase of 9.5 million jobs Jimmy Carter: Increase of 9.0 million jobs Bill Clinton: Increase of 20.8 million jobs Barack Obama: Increase of 332,000 jobs Total: Increase of 42.3 million jobs.
I'm sorry, but if you're going to ignore Bureau of Labor Statistics that I linked that PolitiFact claims they used, which directly contradict the results of what they say, then we're definitely not going to agree on things.
|
On November 09 2012 16:17 farvacola wrote:
Martina Navratilova says "Stop with the ill-conceived tennis analogy."
Thanks for the laugh.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
to be fair a couple tens years of randomly interspersed (maybe not so random?) presidential data with no regard to underlying policy or economic situation is not very informative. it's at most debunking mythology.
look at correlation of top marginal tax rate with economic growth or something for at least a substantial point
edit: no shit private employment is down wtf do you think is the reason for all the call for govt spending?
|
On November 09 2012 16:17 hinnolinn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 16:16 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 09 2012 16:14 hinnolinn wrote:On November 09 2012 16:13 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 09 2012 16:10 hinnolinn wrote:On November 09 2012 16:03 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 09 2012 16:00 hinnolinn wrote:On November 09 2012 15:57 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 09 2012 15:55 hinnolinn wrote:On November 09 2012 15:52 BronzeKnee wrote:
[quote]
The war wasn't on him, but the tax cut while at war, the first time this nation has ever done that, is on him and the Republican Congress of the time.
The last President to balance the budget was Bill Clinton. And before that? Jimmy Carter. Check it, and learn what fiscal responsibility is about. I'm curious what you're trying to imply here. Are you saying that Democrats are better for the economy? I'm saying that Democratic party is the party of fiscal responsibility. I might not have the best source, but it seems to me that that is a specious claim. http://thepoliticaljungle.blogspot.com/2012/09/what-do-10-poorest-cities-in-united.htmlFor the most part, Republicans are most likely no better, but seriously, that's just too much. Look at the 10 poorest states... all red states that have been red for a long time... but really those comparisons are just dumb for a variety of reasons. How about some facts. As Clinton pointed out, in the last 52 years, Democrats have held the Presidency 24 years, Republicans 28. And Republicans created 24 million jobs, Democrats 42. You be the judge, Republicans have 4 more years in office than Democrats and created 18 million less jobs... hmm... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/06/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-says-democratic-presidents-top-republ/Good game. There is a mountain of non-partisan facts about why Democrats handle the economy better than Republicans. That's a really interesting link, but let's see, http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ceshighlights.pdf seems to indicate that the total employment in the private sector is down since Obama took office, but politifact says that Obama has a positive job total. So it looks like they don't care how many jobs are lost, they only care how many jobs are created. And that statistic seems pretty crappy to me. That is wrong. Check it again. It calculates it by subtracting jobs lost from jobs gained, which is why GW Bush had a decline in his presidency. I'm sure jobs were created during this term, but he lost more than he created. The private sector isn't the only place where people can be employed. Stop cherry picking facts. A job is a job. And my serve was an ace. Cherry picking facts? Read your own link there genius. They say they're talking about the private sector. Double fault on you. You're right. We should both read it again: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, here are the net increases in private-sector employment under each president, chronologically by party: Republicans Richard Nixon: Increase of 7.1 million jobs Gerald Ford: Increase of 1.3 million jobs Ronald Reagan: Increase of 14.7 million jobs George H.W. Bush: Increase of 1.5 million jobs George W. Bush: Decline of 646,000 jobs Total: Increase of 23.9 million jobs under Republican presidents Democrats John F. Kennedy: Increase of 2.7 million jobs Lyndon B. Johnson: Increase of 9.5 million jobs Jimmy Carter: Increase of 9.0 million jobs Bill Clinton: Increase of 20.8 million jobs Barack Obama: Increase of 332,000 jobs Total: Increase of 42.3 million jobs. I'm sorry, but if you're going to ignore Bureau of Labor Statistics that I linked that PolitiFact claims they used, which directly contradict the results of what they say, then we're definitely not going to agree on things.
You link doesn't say anything regarding what I linked. Facts are facts man. Politifact used the BLS and you linked an apparently random BLS article that talk about jobs created in October 2012. Nothing in the article you linked shows (or seems to indicate) that during Obama's presidency more jobs were lost than created. Quote the exact line if I missed it, I just read the whole thing.
Check it:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/09/06/bill_clinton_s_jobs_score_from_his_dnc_speech_fact_checked_.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-08/private-jobs-increase-more-with-democrats-in-white-house.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/colin-gordon/job-creation-political-parties-_b_1901015.html
|
On November 09 2012 16:24 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 16:17 hinnolinn wrote:On November 09 2012 16:16 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 09 2012 16:14 hinnolinn wrote:On November 09 2012 16:13 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 09 2012 16:10 hinnolinn wrote:On November 09 2012 16:03 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 09 2012 16:00 hinnolinn wrote:On November 09 2012 15:57 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 09 2012 15:55 hinnolinn wrote:
[quote]
I'm curious what you're trying to imply here. Are you saying that Democrats are better for the economy? I'm saying that Democratic party is the party of fiscal responsibility. I might not have the best source, but it seems to me that that is a specious claim. http://thepoliticaljungle.blogspot.com/2012/09/what-do-10-poorest-cities-in-united.htmlFor the most part, Republicans are most likely no better, but seriously, that's just too much. Look at the 10 poorest states... all red states that have been red for a long time... but really those comparisons are just dumb for a variety of reasons. How about some facts. As Clinton pointed out, in the last 52 years, Democrats have held the Presidency 24 years, Republicans 28. And Republicans created 24 million jobs, Democrats 42. You be the judge, Republicans have 4 more years in office than Democrats and created 18 million less jobs... hmm... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/06/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-says-democratic-presidents-top-republ/Good game. There is a mountain of non-partisan facts about why Democrats handle the economy better than Republicans. That's a really interesting link, but let's see, http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ceshighlights.pdf seems to indicate that the total employment in the private sector is down since Obama took office, but politifact says that Obama has a positive job total. So it looks like they don't care how many jobs are lost, they only care how many jobs are created. And that statistic seems pretty crappy to me. That is wrong. Check it again. It calculates it by subtracting jobs lost from jobs gained, which is why GW Bush had a decline in his presidency. I'm sure jobs were created during this term, but he lost more than he created. The private sector isn't the only place where people can be employed. Stop cherry picking facts. A job is a job. And my serve was an ace. Cherry picking facts? Read your own link there genius. They say they're talking about the private sector. Double fault on you. You're right. We should both read it again: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, here are the net increases in private-sector employment under each president, chronologically by party: Republicans Richard Nixon: Increase of 7.1 million jobs Gerald Ford: Increase of 1.3 million jobs Ronald Reagan: Increase of 14.7 million jobs George H.W. Bush: Increase of 1.5 million jobs George W. Bush: Decline of 646,000 jobs Total: Increase of 23.9 million jobs under Republican presidents Democrats John F. Kennedy: Increase of 2.7 million jobs Lyndon B. Johnson: Increase of 9.5 million jobs Jimmy Carter: Increase of 9.0 million jobs Bill Clinton: Increase of 20.8 million jobs Barack Obama: Increase of 332,000 jobs Total: Increase of 42.3 million jobs. I'm sorry, but if you're going to ignore Bureau of Labor Statistics that I linked that PolitiFact claims they used, which directly contradict the results of what they say, then we're definitely not going to agree on things. You link doesn't say anything regarding what I linked. Facts are facts man. Politifact used the BLS and you linked an apparently random BLS article that talk about jobs created in October 2012. Check it: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/09/06/bill_clinton_s_jobs_score_from_his_dnc_speech_fact_checked_.htmlhttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-08/private-jobs-increase-more-with-democrats-in-white-house.htmlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/colin-gordon/job-creation-political-parties-_b_1901015.html
You mean the graph on page 2 of the what I linked doesn't show private sector employment from Jan '00 to Oct '12? and that is the bls.gov report. And that is the where the data you quoted came from supposedly.
That report indicates that under Bush, after 8 years, there were more privately employed people then when he took office. And under Obama, there are fewer private employees then when he took office. These 2 facts throw the rest of the data from the article under scrutiny. I'm not going to take the time to debunk every president they list, or confirm them either. It's on them to have correct data.
|
On November 09 2012 15:59 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2012 15:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 09 2012 15:52 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 09 2012 15:49 BluePanther wrote:On November 09 2012 15:46 BronzeKnee wrote:
Because when you are in debt and need more income you should cut your hours at work, and just pile on more debt... is that right Blue Panther?
Or maybe we should go to war, then cut taxes... which would be like saying "well I have two kids about to start college now... I guess I'll cut my income and put more on the credit card, that would be fiscally responsible..." Thanks GW Bush. Apples and Oranges, I can't really respond to that. Don't forget both parties voted for that war... That's not on him. The war wasn't on him, but the tax cut while at war, the first time this nation has ever done that, is on him and the Republican Congress of the time. The last President to balance the budget was Bill Clinton. And before that? Jimmy Carter. Check it, and learn what fiscal responsibility is about. The Bush tax cuts were a work in progress well before war broke out. Its what the country voted for when they elected Bush... and they were pretty responsible at the time. You're wrong. Bush passed two bills that cut taxes. The first was in progress well before war broke out in Afghanistan. The second happen well after. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2001http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_and_Growth_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2003Anyway, the point here is that if you go to war, you need money to fund it, so you should raise taxes. Or at least not cut them.
Depends on your priorities. If you want the budget balanced, then yes. There was a risk of another recession if you did that though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
