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.
For 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...
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.
That's a meaningless analysis. For example, Clinton inherited an economy just starting to recover and left when the cycle was peaking. Bush on the other hand inherited an economy at the peak and left right before a trough.
For 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...
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.
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.
Look again. Obama took office in January 2009, not 2008. Get your ruler
For 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...
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.
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.
Look again. Obama took office in January 2009, not 2008. Get your ruler
Good call there, don't I look like an idiot. Sorry for the hassle.
Nevermind, you didn't read the chart correctly... it is 4814 created vs 4620 lost when you add them all up for the months Obama has been in office. The media outlets and Bill Clinton were correct.
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.
For 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...
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.
That's a meaningless analysis. For example, Clinton inherited an economy just starting to recover and left when the cycle was peaking. Bush on the other hand inherited an economy at the peak and left right before a trough.
Not to mention that congress plays a role too.
There are many, many factors and variables. Is it an end all be all argument? No. But is it meaningless? No.
So let's look at what the president can control, which is what started this discussion, maybe that will speak to you more. The fact remains that President Clinton was the last president to balance the budget, and Jimmy Carter was the last before him. Reagan, Bush and Bush never balanced the budget, yet Republicans cling to the fiscal conservative tag. And the fact that Bush lowered taxes in a time of war (when spending increases) combined with the unbalanced budgets shows that Republicans have a history of not being fiscally responsible recently.
So the facts say that if you want someone in office who will act in a fiscally responsible way, you should elect a Democratic president. President Obama has a balanced budget in mind and the plan is out there. Mitt Romney said he did, but he never released the plan.
If Republicans will work with Democrats and slash spending while increasing taxes, we can balance the budget. Democrats are willing to do just that, Republicans want to only slash spending, and only slash non-defense spending.
For 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...
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.
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.
Here is the St Louis' Feds very handy data graph of all private sector employees. From 2000 to today: I dont know why the html wont link the entire address but enter everything in the quotes below to see it
Or alternatively go to google and type in FRED All Employees Total Private Industries and it should come up. Then you can adjust for the year.
Notice how under Obama, the recovery in private sector employment is significantly quicker than it was under George W Bush. It took the Republicans under Bush 6 years to reach the private sector employment numbers Obama reached in 4. And he did it with average economic growth at 2% instead of the 5% Bush enjoyed.
But its true, that after 8 years, Bush did have more private sector employees than Obama did after 4. He only 'broke' even in 2006 and the biggest addition to private sector employment occurred between 2006 and 2008.
Unfortunately, unlike Bush, Obama wasnt able to unleash credit consumption. So, whereas under the 8 years of Bush the total outstanding credit outstanding [debts] of American households went from 8,000 billion dollars to almost 14,000 billion dollars under Obama that has declined down to 13,000 billion. "http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?chart_type=line&s[1][id]=CMDEBT&s[1][range]=10yrs"
Quick question because I'm not finding the answer quickly enough:
Why do we have direct representation in the house? The constitution requires that the people elect representations, but what's to stop a state from having "joint" reps? I'm assuming this is an act of congress?
For 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...
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.
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.
You don't even know when Obama took office.
Hint, it's Jan 2009, not Jan 2008 (the peak of the graph).
In fact, if you increased the time range on that graph out to now, then it will show that employment has increased since Obama took office. See the FRED graph linked by Sub40APM.
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.
This morning, all supporters of the Obama campaign recieved a thank you e-mail as well as a link to this video:
I realize that this is not relevant to the discussion you are having right now, but maybe some of you will find it inspirering (I, for one, have never seen an american president cry in public before).
I realize that this is not relevant to the discussion you are having right now, but maybe some of you will find it inspirering (I, for one, have never seen an american president cry in public before).
Great vid. Amid all the requisite bs and media hoopla it's nice to know there's a real person just beneath, or perhaps overlapping with america's number 1 public figure. That speech felt like 100% sincerity... Too bad there's only so much of that a public figure can indulge in. Politics is kind of a rough game, man. It must be hard, knowing what actual good policies would be and then having to trudge out in front of cameras every day and spout a bunch of dumb watered down shit in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
While I do concur that gerrymandering is a problem, it's used by both Democrats and Republicans. If you look at New England states like Rhode Island, it's been used by the Democrats to nullify any attempt of electing Republicans. I really wouldn't post articles from Huffington--in the same way that I wouldn't post an article from National Review--without stating to take everything written there with a grain of salt, but that is an interesting perspective of the election. I wonder how much that difference can be placed on gerrymandering as opposed to just having more one-sided elections in blue states. If in every blue state a Democratic candidate wins by 10-20 points, and in every red state a candidate wins by only 1-2 points, then you would probably end up with the Republicans having more seats with having less total votes; however, the representatives are still based upon the group of people they are elected to represent. Just food for thought, I wouldn't take the article you posted too seriously without doing a bit more digging and research on your own, but that is an interesting perspective.
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.
For 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...
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.
That's a meaningless analysis. For example, Clinton inherited an economy just starting to recover and left when the cycle was peaking. Bush on the other hand inherited an economy at the peak and left right before a trough.
Not to mention that congress plays a role too.
But see if it's not the president's fault what shape the economy is in, that means the president can't strongly affect the economy right? Meaning that it doesn't actually matter if there is Republican president right?
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1S7ji.png)
