PDA

View Full Version : Every time without exception....



Satanicus
07-15-2010, 01:13 PM
When a Democrat follows a Republican into the WH job creation sky rockets.

When a Republican follows a Democrat into the WH job creation falls off a cliff.

Every single time, without exception, barr none.

Not giving my opinion, just stating the facts, you can reject the facts and continue to live in a fantasy world if you want.

Just sayin.

djones520
07-15-2010, 01:15 PM
Barr none? Take a look at the past two years? How's Chicago this time of year?

Satanicus
07-15-2010, 01:17 PM
Barr none? Take a look at the past two years? How's Chicago this time of year?

Yep, the last 2 years.

under Bush we were losing 700,000 a month.

Now we are gaining jobs.

Just the facts.

Another fact, no where near Chicago.

Satanicus
07-15-2010, 01:21 PM
You will also notice that everytime a republican follows a republican into the WH, job creation falls even harder.

Why would American ever want to vote for job destruction ? ..everytime they come to the WH the job market collapses

http://www.americaforpurchase.com/wp-content/uploads/job_creation.jpg

Satanicus
07-15-2010, 01:23 PM
Barr none? Take a look at the past two years? How's Chicago this time of year?

Under bush we had massise job loses , right up to the end.

Now we have job creation. Why would you want me to look at the last two years ? ..they were a disaster.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mupm2BmIjtc/S7ZwZRn4mFI/AAAAAAAALQY/9adN70fVUAU/s1600/chart+jobs.jpg

PoliCon
07-15-2010, 01:24 PM
When a Democrat follows a Republican into the WH job creation sky rockets.

When a Republican follows a Democrat into the WH job creation falls off a cliff.

Every single time, without exception, barr none.

Not giving my opinion, just stating the facts, you can reject the facts and continue to live in a fantasy world if you want.

Just sayin.

Prove it.

Speedy
07-15-2010, 01:27 PM
So that 9.5% unemployment number is what?

Satanicus
07-15-2010, 01:28 PM
Prove it.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mHSyEv8vBt4/S6Zvl-nui8I/AAAAAAAAACQ/3j0wUSj78mk/s640/Job+growth+graph.jpg

Satanicus
07-15-2010, 01:30 PM
So that 9.5% unemployment number is what?

Did a repub ever come to the WH and not see job creation CRASH ? .....NOPE, NEVER.

Did a Dem ever come to office and not see job creation skyrocket ? ...NOPE, NEVER

Just the facts.

Satanicus
07-15-2010, 01:35 PM
So that 9.5% unemployment number is what?

So when the GOP says they have a plan to create jobs, they are talking about the same failed plan they have been working on for the last 75 years.

"but, give us one more try, we tweaked our plan a bit" - GOP

Speedy
07-15-2010, 01:35 PM
Did a repub ever come to the WH and not see job creation CRASH ? .....NOPE, NEVER.

Did a Dem ever come to office and not see job creation skyrocket ? ...NOPE, NEVER

Just the facts.

Job creation does not mean that the unemployment rate doubles, genius. Job creation dowes not mean that jobs created in one sector coverup the jobs created in another sector. Job creation means that there are more jobs available now than there were before. The rising unemployment rate proves that there is no job creation happening.

Satanicus
07-15-2010, 01:37 PM
Job creation does not mean that the unemployment rate doubles, genius. Job creation dowes not mean that jobs created in one sector coverup the jobs created in another sector. Job creation means that there are more jobs available now than there were before. The rising unemployment rate proves that there is no job creation happening.

Are you claiming the OP is not accurate ? Can you show me where a repub came to the WH and jobs creation went up ? ...ever ?

Satanicus
07-15-2010, 01:38 PM
Every time , without exception.

Speedy
07-15-2010, 01:43 PM
Are you claiming the OP is not accurate ? Can you show me where a repub came to the WH and jobs creation went up ? ...ever ?

Can you prove that more jobs equal higher unemployment?

Satanicus
07-15-2010, 01:53 PM
Can you prove that more jobs equal higher unemployment?

The nation just broke into positive ground a few months ago. It is falling.

Satanicus
07-15-2010, 02:05 PM
Kind of a bummer ey ?

The main issue of the election is job creation, and the GOP has NEVER come to the WH and seen job creation go up.

Think Obama might bring this up ? :D

Molon Labe
07-15-2010, 02:51 PM
When a Democrat follows a Republican into the WH job creation sky rockets.

When a Republican follows a Democrat into the WH job creation falls off a cliff.

Every single time, without exception, barr none.

Not giving my opinion, just stating the facts, you can reject the facts and continue to live in a fantasy world if you want.

Just sayin.

Creation of What?

Satanicus
07-15-2010, 02:52 PM
Creation of What?

Jobs.

It where all the people go everyday when you sit in you moms basement.

Someday, when you grow up, you migh have a job.

Molon Labe
07-15-2010, 03:03 PM
Jobs.

It where all the people go everyday when you sit in you moms basement.

Someday, when you grow up, you migh have a job.

Hmm...Don't know about all that, but thankfully I have a pretty good job. I'm just sad by all those that are inkblots on this map and people who don't know that unemployment increases the more the government intervenes into the economy .

It's actually quite worse if you use the u6 numbers. This map was updated in March (http://cohort11.americanobserver.net/latoyaegwuekwe/multimediafinal.html)

Satanicus
07-15-2010, 03:06 PM
[QUOTE=Molon Labe;288406] and people who don't know that unemployment increases the more the government intervenes into the economy .
[QUOTE]

Then tell me why every time a DEM comes to the WH and 'intervenes' job creation jumps

And when the GOP takes the WH and doesn't 'intervene' ..job creation falls ?

This is not a subject you can hold a opinion like that about, I am posting undisputed facts from the Labor department.

Your post is 100% false.

Satanicus
07-15-2010, 03:10 PM
Every time , without exception, barr none.

Molon Labe
07-15-2010, 03:15 PM
and people who don't know that unemployment increases the more the government intervenes into the economy .


Then tell me why every time a DEM comes to the WH and 'intervenes' job creation jumps

And when the GOP takes the WH and doesn't 'intervene' ..job creation falls ?

This is not a subject you can hold a opinion like that about, I am posting undisputed facts from the Labor department.

Your post is 100% false.

Detroit is Dying (http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article20556.html)

The unemployment rate among Black people, especially the youth, is over 30%—city officials say it is actually closer to 50%.


And from a Liberal website :p (http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/25/headlines#8)

Fed: High Unemployment Expected Through 2012
The Federal Reserve is warning it expects a high unemployment rate over the next several years. On Tuesday, a Fed report said unemployment will remain well above the 5 percent benchmark through 2012. Another report meanwhile downgraded previous estimates of national economic growth in the third quarter from 3.5 percent to 2.8 percent.

Buddy....do you not realize that this country is now entering a second great depression? And you won't find me trying to sell you that it's a Democrat thing. Bush, Obama, Republican's and Democrats ALL have a big part in bringing this to fruition.

Satanicus
07-15-2010, 03:21 PM
Buddy....do you not realize that this country is now entering a second great depression?

Really ? ..We have quarter after quarter of positive GDP growth and job creation and you think we are slipping into a depression ? Holy shit.

A recession requires back to back quarters of negative GDP growth, don't you think a depression would require at least ONE QUARTER of negative growth ?

I am done with you, you are rejecting reality.

Molon Labe
07-15-2010, 03:31 PM
Really ? ..We have quarter after quarter of positive GDP growth and job creation and you think we are slipping into a depression ? Holy shit.

A recession requires back to back quarters of negative GDP growth, don't you think a depression would require at least ONE QUARTER of negative growth ?

I am done with you, you are rejecting reality.

:rolleyes: Bureau of Labor Statistics June 2010. (http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ceshighlights.pdf)


spin it how you want. Numbers don't lie.

Rebel Yell
07-15-2010, 03:34 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v188/fascade147/troll_thread.jpg

Satanicus
07-15-2010, 03:37 PM
:rolleyes: Bureau of Labor Statistics June 2010. (http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ceshighlights.pdf)


spin it how you want. Numbers don't lie.

How about pictures ? ..can you look at a pic ? ..Obama took office and job loses turned on a dime. Nothing to spin, you posted the same thing in YOUR link from the Labor Department.

Looks likes we agree. :D

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mupm2BmIjtc/S7ZwZRn4mFI/AAAAAAAALQY/9adN70fVUAU/s1600/chart+jobs.jpg

lacarnut
07-15-2010, 03:40 PM
Every time , without exception, barr none.

Every time a bad economy and high unemployment occurs, the party in power gets slaughtered at the next election cycle. Every time, without exception, barr none. Over 60% think the Magic Negro is doing a bad job. That is the overwhelming majority. Only 13% think Congress is doing a good job. Since the Democrats have control, they get the blame, without exception.

You are going to see a massacre of Democrats and RINO's in November. You can put all the charts up your want. The facts are that Obama, his administration and Congress have spent billions and have created very few jobs. The voters are going to make them pay big time. Just watch and see, bar none.

Molon Labe
07-15-2010, 03:42 PM
How about pictures ? ..can you look at a pic ? ..Obama took office and job loses turned on a dime. Nothing to spin, you posted the same thing in YOUR link from the Labor Department.

Looks likes we agree. :D


Take a little closer gander at the details of how Jobs is defined.

Not everyone can work for the Federal government.

Satanicus
07-15-2010, 03:45 PM
Over 60% think the Magic Negro is doing a bad job. That is the overwhelming majority.

LOL, So, you are telling me there is a poll where 60% disapprove of Obama ?

I BEG YOU TO POST IT.

Satanicus
07-15-2010, 03:47 PM
Every time a bad economy and high unemployment occurs, the party in power gets slaughtered at the next election cycle.

But since Bush left office the economy has gotten better, and job loses have stopped and we now have gains.

There goes that crazy theory.

Molon Labe
07-15-2010, 03:47 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v188/fascade147/troll_thread.jpg

Yeah...it's fun like that to show how wrong some people are.

Misconceptions like

Believing a POTUS has tremendous power over "real" job creation.

Believing that Federal Government jobs is akin to what we've lost in terms of "producing" anything in an economy.

Believing that dying inner cities is progress.

Beleiving that Obama is different than Bush


Obama is an epic FAIL.

Satanicus
07-15-2010, 03:49 PM
The fact in the OP stands.

YOU even posted a link that proved it , backing up the OP's claim.

Why would you post a link with the same numbers I posted and then tell me I am wrong ?

Rebel Yell
07-15-2010, 03:52 PM
Yeah...it's fun like that to show how wrong some people are.

Misconceptions like

Believing a POTUS has tremendous power over "real" job creation.

Believing that Federal Government jobs is akin to what we've lost in terms of "producing" anything in an economy.

Believing that dying inner cities is progress.

Beleiving that Obama is different than Bush


Obama is an epic FAIL.

It's the same old rehashed bullshit from before. Between this fuckstick and the retard posting about second life all the time, my patience runs thin. It's like a frickin' looney bin in here.

Satanicus
07-15-2010, 03:55 PM
It's the same old rehashed bullshit from before. Between this fuckstick and the retard posting about second life all the time, my patience runs thin. It's like a frickin' looney bin in here.

Do you disagree with what I posted ?

Those stats are from the government, I didn't make them up.

Everytime , without exception.

Molon Labe
07-15-2010, 03:56 PM
The fact in the OP stands.

YOU even posted a link that proved it , backing up the OP's claim.

Why would you post a link with the same numbers I posted and then tell me I am wrong ?

Oh so you were just pointing out interesting stuff. I see now.
You don't really care about Cause/effect relations, cause that would mean you'd have to have a more than elementary understanding of economics.

Heck..if that's what we need to end unemployment, I could do that tomorrow. I'd just end private ownership of all private property and private business and assign all unemployed people to work :)

Rebel Yell
07-15-2010, 04:05 PM
Do you disagree with what I posted ?

Those stats are from the government, I didn't make them up.

Everytime , without exception.

I'll play along for a little bit. Who is filling all these jobs? If soooo many jobs are created, who is filling them. I haven't seen the unemployment rate going down.

Molon Labe
07-15-2010, 04:09 PM
It's the same old rehashed bullshit from before. Between this fuckstick and the retard posting about second life all the time, my patience runs thin. It's like a frickin' looney bin in here.

Maybe you're right. I still can't believe that Second Life thread is one of the most traffic of all time.:o

Rebel Yell
07-15-2010, 04:20 PM
Maybe you're right. I still can't believe that Second Life thread is one of the most traffic of all time.:o

What do you expect? It has furry elements. CU loves its furries.:D

Molon Labe
07-15-2010, 04:31 PM
The fact in the OP stands.

YOU even posted a link that proved it , backing up the OP's claim.

Why would you post a link with the same numbers I posted and then tell me I am wrong ?

maybe cause it's not so simple but the lies and propaganda rule the day.



Current Employment Statistics Highlights (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/economy/commentary-mainmenu-43/4047-still-waiting-for-the-recovery)from the BLS, however, paint a much starker picture. Non-farm payroll employment dropped in June by 125,000, which includes private employment gains of just 83,000 jobs. According to that report, “Since December, 2009, private-sector employment has risen by 593,000, or by an average of 99,000 jobs gained per month.” This is far off the pace announced by Romer, and was picked up immediately by several followers of the economy. Veronique de Rugy, an economist with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, declared, “The 3.5 million is a mystical, whimsical number that comes out of models that rest on extremely rosy projections.” She added that the real number of jobs created by the stimulus is likely to be much lower than what Romer reported. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said, “The administration’s new stimulus jobs ‘saved and created’ claim lacks a basis in reality.”


Let's fudge the numbers more and pad our "recovery" numbers:


the Census Bureau hired 700,000 workers (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/12/business/12census.html)but then laid them off a couple of months later


On page 14 of the Highlights report is a chart illustrating “employment in temporary help services,” which sector, since last September, has added 379,000 jobs. According to Thomas Sowell, this is a critical number to know as it reflects businesses that have been meeting their need for labor “by hiring temporary workers and working their existing employees overtime, instead of hiring new people … because temporary workers usually don’t get health insurance or other benefits, and working existing employees overtime doesn’t add to the cost of their benefits.”


So around $300,000.00 per job from $862 BILLION debt? You do know that Taxpayers and future unborn generations have to pick up this tab.

What's the percentage of "government" jobs?

How much future inflation and lower standard of living does this create?

Rebel Yell
07-15-2010, 04:40 PM
You do know that Taxpayers and future unborn generations have to pick up this tab.

Just abort them all, then it never has to be paid back.

lacarnut
07-15-2010, 04:44 PM
Do you disagree with what I posted ?

Those stats are from the government, I didn't make them up.

Everytime , without exception.

Only a moron (insert Democrat) would come up with a chart titled Jobs Lost. BTW, government stats are wrong, wrong, wrong on a regular basis. For example, the CBO projection that the health care bill would be revenue neutral. Wrong. The rate of unemployment from month to month is adjusted up or down along with other figures the government puts out. Fail again.

FYI, 200,000 jobs need to be created every month just to break even cause that is how many enter the job market each month. You with me so far Sparky. Last month the creation of 83k jobs left a deficit of 117,00 (200,000 - 83,000= 117,000 jobs lost). You follow the Stock Market, Junior.

The government trying to create jobs is a losing propositon. Everytime, without exception, barr none. All they do is piss a pile of money away.

Satanicus
07-15-2010, 05:25 PM
Only a moron (insert Democrat) would come up with a chart titled Jobs Lost. BTW, government stats are wrong, wrong, wrong on a regular basis. For example, the CBO projection that the health care bill would be revenue neutral. Wrong. The rate of unemployment from month to month is adjusted up or down along with other figures the government puts out. Fail again.

FYI, 200,000 jobs need to be created every month just to break even cause that is how many enter the job market each month. You with me so far Sparky. Last month the creation of 83k jobs left a deficit of 117,00 (200,000 - 83,000= 117,000 jobs lost). You follow the Stock Market, Junior.

The government trying to create jobs is a losing propositon. Everytime, without exception, barr none. All they do is piss a pile of money away.

The fact remains...

When a Democrat follows a Republican into the WH job creation sky rockets.

When a Republican follows a Democrat into the WH job creation falls off a cliff.

Every single time, without exception, barr none. These are the facts.

Lager
07-15-2010, 05:37 PM
But since Bush left office the economy has gotten better, and job loses have stopped and we now have gains.

There goes that crazy theory.

Well, that stands to reason. During the campaign and right up to inauguration, Obama and his people foolishly talked the economy down, with comments about worst ever, falling off a cliff, deperate times, etc. Seems he didn't realize how much psychology plays a part in economic factors, especially a consumer economy heavily dependent on spending.

So, oh mystic one, pray tell us what brilliant actions Obama took that turned us around "on a dime"?

PoliCon
07-15-2010, 05:55 PM
The fact remains...

When a Democrat follows a Republican into the WH job creation sky rockets.

When a Republican follows a Democrat into the WH job creation falls off a cliff.

Every single time, without exception, barr none. These are the facts.

PROVE IT. Don't post made up graphs from God knows where - PROVE your claims troll.

Lager
07-15-2010, 06:07 PM
Since you refer to the "making work pay" rebate, is it permanent? Do you think it's quite genuine to call it a tax cut, if it is not? And, what's the difference between that, and just mailing out checks to people?

JB
07-15-2010, 06:09 PM
We have 10% unemployment and lost over 4 million jobs last year (the highest since WWII). Real unemployment is closer to 17%.

They brought back the misery index for cripes sake.

What is this moe-ron talking about?

Constitutionally Speaking
07-15-2010, 06:23 PM
When a Democrat follows a Republican into the WH job creation sky rockets.

When a Republican follows a Democrat into the WH job creation falls off a cliff.

Every single time, without exception, barr none.

Not giving my opinion, just stating the facts, you can reject the facts and continue to live in a fantasy world if you want.

Just sayin.


Let's look!!!! The evidence does NOT bear this out. The BLS figures go back as far as 1939 so let's see: Republican Eisenhower followed Democrat Truman. At the start of Eisenhower's term, we had a total of 43,351,000 jobs in the U.S. at the end of Eisenhower's term there were 45,119,000 jobs - a net plus of 1,768,000 Did jobs fall off a cliff here??? NO. But let's look a bit deeper. Eisenhower inherited a recession!!! In July of 1953, before ANY Eisenhower policy was in place, a recession that sapped 2.6% of our GDP took a huge toll on Eisenhower's job creation totals. A more accurate measure of what a President's job record is to measure the periods where the President's policies are in effect. If we take into consideration the period of who's policies were actually in place, you get a different story. Given a year and a half for this policy lag, we get a job creation # for Eisenhower of 4,754,000 jobs.

Kennedy succeeded Eisenhower and HE inherited a rising economy. At the start of his term he had 45,119,000 jobs and he followed a CONSERVATIVE economic policy of tax cuts - at the end of (what would have been) his term there were 49,646,000 jobs - a net gain of 4,527,000 jobs. With Policy lag taken into account Kennedy's record is a net growth of 6,607,000 jobs.

The next case where there was a party switch was LBJ to Nixon. At the start of Nixon's term, there were 57,229,000 jobs but once again, before Nixon's policies were in place, there was a recession. Still, at the end of Nixon's 1st term there were 61,930,000 jobs - a net gain of 4,701,000 jobs & a policy lag figure of 5,988,000 jobs
His second term ended with a 65,636,000 jobs for a gain of 3,706,000 jobs with policy lag figure of 6,958,000 jobs Total job gain for both terms??? 8,407,000 job gain during the term with an actual policy lag gain of 12,946,000 jobs.

Jimmy Carter started with a booming economy (5.6% growth) and 65,636,000 jobs his term ended with 74,671,000 jobs - a net gain of 9,035,000 jobs. But the economy he left was in a shambles and the policy lag figures show a gain of 2,316,000 jobs


Ronald Reagan inherited an economy FAR worse than what the current administration inherited and a total of 74,671,000 jobs and by the end of his first term there were 80,017,000 jobs a net gain of 5,346,000 jobs - and a policy lag job gain of 9,049,000 jobs Regan's second term ended with 89,359,000 jobs - a total of 9,342,000 and a 2nd term policy lag figure of 8,546,000 jobs. Reagan's two term total was 14,688,000 jobs with an actual policy lag adjusted figure of 17,595,000 jobs

Bill Clinton inherited a RISING Economy so yes - his administration did fairly well ESPECIALLY after the Republicans took over the house and after he passed NAFTA and Welfare reform. He started his first term with 90,824,000 jobs and ended it with 101,638,000 jobs - a net increase of 10,814,000 jobs and a policy lag adjusted figure of 10,842,000 jobs. His 2nd term ended with a total of 111,634,000 jobs for a gain of 20,810,000 jobs and a two term policy lag total of 13,534,000 jobs.

BUT, Clinton left his replacement a FALLING economy and once Bush's policies were in place, we had a BOOMING economy - UNTIL the Democrats took control of both houses of congress. Then, the economy faultered. Bush inherited that falling economy and 111,634,000 jobs after 9-11and the resulting economic mess that caused, he ended his first term with 110,718,000 jobs a net of -916,000 jobs - and a policy lag figure gain of 6,780,000 jobs. Bush ended his 2nd term with 110,961,000 a net loss of 673,000 jobs and a policy lag figure of -1,124,000 jobs.






The total???

Democrats 22,457,000

Republicans 34,171,000


Your thesis is simply full of crap.

Lager
07-15-2010, 06:25 PM
Here's a good point about job creation. From a source you'd know all too well and have much in common with:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8755638



truedelphi (1000+ posts) Thu Jul-15-10 10:16 PM
Response to

Clinton was lucky in that he saw the rise of the dot.com bubble on his watch. The Silicon Valleys, Alleys, and corridors all across the USA had millionaires go from their garages and basements out into the world of corporate board rooms, via venture capitalism.

This was the great "New Economy," and one of its key memes was that it was unlike any previous economy and could only continue to inflate, never to crash or burn.

Luckily for Clinton, the repercussions of that FAIL didn't occur until right before he left office.

Zathras
07-15-2010, 06:37 PM
Your thesis is simply full of crap.

What do you expect from a cultist of The Obumbler?

Constitutionally Speaking
07-15-2010, 06:38 PM
PROVE IT. Don't post made up graphs from God knows where - PROVE your claims troll.


He can't. I just posted the actual figures and in addition the figures that reflect the policy lag.

malloc
07-15-2010, 06:53 PM
What is this moe-ron talking about?

He doesn't have the slightest idea.


Really ? ..We have quarter after quarter of positive GDP growth and job creation and you think we are slipping into a depression ? Holy shit.

A recession requires back to back quarters of negative GDP growth, don't you think a depression would require at least ONE QUARTER of negative growth ?




No shit dingbat. Let's see, how does that GDP equation work again?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/3/9/9/399dfa0d4d327da87f9d0e797185bef2.png

You see that G in the equation above? Do you know what that is? It's government spending. When the government spends, which it is doing hand over fist, it causes the GDP to rise. Yes Dims like to spend everyone's money like it's going out of style, so GDP rises. But this type of GDP growth is both destruction and unsustainable, as we are learning, yet again.

So why not just have the government spend and spend and spend, and we can push the GDP through the roof right? Wrong. Public debt, which is where all of the G in the GDP equation comes from minus tax revenue, in 2009 nearly 60% of GDP. That means we are financing our current GDP bump by sacrificing future real production. That means those dollars we will actually produce by growing and expanding our economy through the practice of creating things of value will be taken out of GDP in the future.

So, back to your point on employment. Did you forget about the economy Reagan inherited from Carter? Carter inherited an economy on the path to recovery from Ford, but by the time he left office he left with 12% inflation and 10% unemployment. Reagan inherited this, and by 1988 GDP growth had gone from -0.3% to 4.1%, inflation fell to 4% and unemployment fell to 5.5%. Not to mention the Reagan revolution kicked off a 21 year streak of steady economic growth. That is until Democrats ruined it with the housing bubble.

Bar none my ass.

Constitutionally Speaking
07-15-2010, 06:53 PM
Here's a good point about job creation. From a source you'd know all too well and have much in common with:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8755638


Clinton got the benefit of all of the businesses started because of Reagan's tax cuts AND stuck Bush with the fallout of the dot.com bubble bursting.

Constitutionally Speaking
07-15-2010, 06:56 PM
So when the GOP says they have a plan to create jobs, they are talking about the same failed plan they have been working on for the last 75 years.

"but, give us one more try, we tweaked our plan a bit" - GOP

In EVERY case, the Democrats left the Republicans with a recession and in every case EXCEPT Bush II the Democrats were left with a growing economy.

Constitutionally Speaking
07-15-2010, 07:40 PM
Did a repub ever come to the WH and not see job creation CRASH ? .....NOPE, NEVER.

Did a Dem ever come to office and not see job creation skyrocket ? ...NOPE, NEVER

Just the facts.


THis is a flat out lie.

BadCat
07-15-2010, 08:27 PM
What's this dumb shit doing back here?

He's only been banned about 900 times. Let's make it 901.

Zathras
07-15-2010, 08:39 PM
What's this dumb shit doing back here?

He's only been banned about 900 times. Let's make it 901.

Or at least change his name to something more accurate (unlike his theory) like Stupidicus.

djones520
07-15-2010, 08:41 PM
What's this dumb shit doing back here?

He's only been banned about 900 times. Let's make it 901.

Unless tough Chicago guy moved to Florida, I don't think it's him.

Rockntractor
07-15-2010, 08:48 PM
Unless tough Chicago guy moved to Florida, I don't think it's him.

If you no what your doing you can make your posts appear to come from any where in the world.

djones520
07-15-2010, 08:56 PM
If you no what your doing you can make your posts appear to come from any where in the world.

Of course you could. Satanica wasn't that smart though. Besides, this guy is to mild mannered. Haven't seen him swear once yet.

Rockntractor
07-15-2010, 09:02 PM
Of course you could. Satanica wasn't that smart though. Besides, this guy is to mild mannered. Haven't seen him swear once yet.
You are probably right, I don't know why anyone would bother just to fool a forum anyway.

PoliCon
07-15-2010, 09:12 PM
If you KNOW what your doing you can make your posts appear to come from any where in the world.


Fixed it for you . . . :p

patriot45
07-15-2010, 10:23 PM
Fixed it for you . . . :p

Wait!.... He could be right! Do not forget GREEN jobs! They only cost about 175,000 bucs apiece So the dims plan is working! Is she from Chicago?!?!
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i230/patriot45270/september/blinking_eye.gif





I'm sorry but I just had to throw this at him!

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i230/patriot45270/september/DUMMIE-1.gif

Hawkgirl
07-15-2010, 10:40 PM
Census jobs this year..the same people were hired 3 times in order to prop up the number.

Satan, as for your stupid graphs, Presidents do not make policy, Congress does...I'd be willing to bet that most of those declines were during a democratic majority in Congress (like right now). During the Clinton years, the R's held the purse strings..THAT IS WHY HE WAS ABLE TO LEAVE WITH A PROJECTED SURPLUS...not because HE was President.
Job creation is accomplished by tax cuts and keeping government out of business. Liberal cesspools like Detroit and Kalifornia...are nearly BANKRUPT. Your policies don't work.

November will be upsetting to you :D

asdf2231
07-15-2010, 11:45 PM
Do you disagree with what I posted ?

Those stats are from the government, I didn't make them up.

Everytime , without exception.

http://images.shoutwire.com/pic_full/retard_bear_jpg74726fe0-e6e7-40ff-909f-636d9385c9de.jpg

NJCardFan
07-15-2010, 11:52 PM
I'm still trying to figure out how rising unemployment = job growth and how unemployment numbers that were near full employment = job destruction. But here's my question for that R-tard:

How many of these so called created jobs were gubment jobs? How many were private sector jobs?

hampshirebrit
07-16-2010, 12:45 AM
When a Democrat follows a Republican into the WH job creation sky rockets.

When a Republican follows a Democrat into the WH job creation falls off a cliff.

Every single time, without exception, barr none.

Not giving my opinion, just stating the facts, you can reject the facts and continue to live in a fantasy world if you want.

Just sayin.

Great idea. Create a bunch more mac-jobs that don't need doing, at salaries unionized to ying-yang and at least 15pc over what the equivalent private sector employer will pay (if there even is an equivalent), and with overly generous pensions that have to be paid for for fuckin' ever by the taxpayer, and then, and then....

Where is the benefit in all of this, where is the saving?

There is no benefit. There is no saving.

The US needs to get its head out of its ass, ricky-fucking-tick. The US is heading for a cliff, lead by your idiotic form-over-function president.

The EU is having to, because it's too goddamn late not to. The UK Conservative coalition government is about to make itself very unpopular, because it has to try to undo a pile of steaming shit that NuLab has left it, based entirely on YOUR ideas as you have stated above, i.e. tax, tax, tax, spend, spend spend. and don't give a shit about the consequences.

Rockntractor
07-16-2010, 12:52 AM
Great idea. Create a bunch more mac-jobs that don't need doing, at salaries unionized to ying-yang and at least 15pc over what the equivalent private sector employer will pay (if there even is an equivalent), and with overly generous pensions that have to be paid for for fuckin' ever by the taxpayer, and then, and then....

Where is the benefit in all of this, where is the saving?

There is no benefit. There is no saving.

The US needs to get its head out of its ass, ricky-fucking-tick. The US is heading for a cliff, lead by your idiotic form-over-function president.

The EU is having to, because it's too goddamn late not to. The UK Conservative coalition government is about to make itself very unpopular, because it has to try to undo a pile of steaming shit that NuLab has left it, based entirely on YOUR ideas as you have stated above, i.e. tax, tax, tax, spend, spend spend. and don't give a shit about the consequences.

You got it all wrong Hamps. obama is the first man in history to actually know how to make socialism work, we will perfect it and show the rest of the world how.

lacarnut
07-16-2010, 01:27 AM
How about pictures ? ..can you look at a pic ? ..Obama took office and job loses turned on a dime. Nothing to spin, you posted the same thing in YOUR link from the Labor Department.

Looks likes we agree. :D

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mupm2BmIjtc/S7ZwZRn4mFI/AAAAAAAALQY/9adN70fVUAU/s1600/chart+jobs.jpg

Never in the history of the US or any other country in the world has a chart of jobs saved or created been designed. The Magic Negro and this Administration has came up with a bunch of phony baloney, gibber jabberish, rhetoric that is not fooling anyone. The job market is getting worse rather than better. Your dumb ass will see it all unfold on Nov when the Democraps get slaughtered at the polls. Suck on that dummy.

Satanicus
07-16-2010, 06:57 AM
Never in the history of the US or any other country in the world has a chart of jobs saved or created been designed.

The Bureau of labor Statistics published these numbers. the job shows jobs lost and jobs created. NOT JOBS SAVED YOU FOOL.




The Magic Negro and this Administration has came up with a bunch of phony baloney, gibber jabberish, rhetoric that is not fooling anyone.

Obama didn't come up with these numbers.


The job market is getting worse rather than better. Your dumb ass will see it all unfold on Nov when the Democraps get slaughtered at the polls. Suck on that dummy.

Under Bush we were losing 700,000 jobs a month , now we are gaining jobs every month, but in your twisted mind, things have gotten worse ?

Sonnabend
07-16-2010, 06:58 AM
The U.S. has lost 2.2 million jobs since President Barack Obama took office. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm) (BLS), the total number of jobs nationwide fell from 134.3 million at the end of January to 132.2 million at the end of May.
The unemployment rate now stands at 9.4 percent, up from 7.6 percent at the end of January.

“I think my initial measure of success is creating or saving 4 million jobs,” said President Obama on February 9.

Monthly job losses reported by the BLS are as follows:

Feb: 651,000
Mar: 663,000
Apr: 539,000
May: 345,000
Total: 2,198,000

“President Obama demanded that Congress spend hundreds of billions of dollars to stimulate the economy,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. "On Friday, February 13 Congress approved a disgraceful trillion-dollar spending and debt package under the guise of economic stimulus. Since that date at least 1.5 million jobs have been lost in America.”

“Spend more money. Have fewer jobs,” continued Norquist. “Let's stop this madness.”


Read more: http://www.atr.org/point-million-jobs-lost-under-obama-a3342##ixzz0tqG14ybI

Add two more when Obuggereditupagain and the First Sasquatch leave the WH

Sonnabend
07-16-2010, 07:00 AM
1. That's PRESIDENT Bush to you , Shitanica.

2. Obama has presided over some of the biggest economic screwups of all time.

3. Don't you ever get tired of being a useless troll?

djones520
07-16-2010, 07:06 AM
1. That's PRESIDENT Bush to you , Shitanica.

2. Obama has presided over some of the biggest economic screwups of all time.

3. Don't you ever get tired of being a useless troll?

Sonna... you don't see anything hypocritical about telling a lib to refer to him as Pres Bush, and in the exact same post you don't refer to our current one as Pres? Just curious.

Sonnabend
07-16-2010, 07:14 AM
Sonna... you don't see anything hypocritical about telling a lib to refer to him as Pres Bush, and in the exact same post you don't refer to our current one as Pres? Just curious.

Noted and agreed.. I accept that, and thank you for the correction. My opinion of the man, however, stands.

djones520
07-16-2010, 07:17 AM
Noted and agreed.. I accept that, and thank you for the correction. My opinion of the man, however, stands.

Oh I doubt your opinion will ever change on that, don't see a reason for it. Was just curious. ;):p

Sonnabend
07-16-2010, 07:21 AM
I also note that Pres. Obama has trashed the manned space programme, has stamped inti the ground the tremendous strides that could have been made in space exploration. More unemployed as the staff of JPL Pasadena, the MSC and other companies involved in the programme are laid off, owing to his disgusting lack of vision.

Grissom, White and Chaffee, as well as the others who died in the pursuit of a greater destiny for Mankind, are rolling in their graves.

lacarnut
07-16-2010, 07:34 AM
The Bureau of labor Statistics published these numbers. the job shows jobs lost and jobs created. NOT JOBS SAVED YOU FOOL.





Obama didn't come up with these numbers.



Under Bush we were losing 700,000 jobs a month , now we are gaining jobs every month, but in your twisted mind, things have gotten worse ?

I will rephrase it for an idiot like you. The Labor Dept under the Magic Negro's direction has published an assanine chart showing showing a decrease in the jobs lost. All that means is companies have quit laying off employees and hiring is feeble at best. For every job opening, you have 6 applicants. You want to tell those millions out of work things are getting better, dumb ass. Also, Jobs saved is just a bunch of hogwash that Democraps have invented out of thin air. The public is not buying it.

We will see who has a twisted mind when Democrats get their Donkey asses kicked in November. Fool.

Sonnabend
07-16-2010, 08:17 AM
When Pres. Bush's tax cuts aren't renewed, taxes will go up. So will business costs, taxes and fees and charges. Less profits mean more businesses wont be able to employ more people or will start laying staff off as the cost of wages will be higher than they can afford, so sooner or later cutbacks will start.

Higher taxes = less jobs. Businesses have to show a profit or they cant afford to pay staff salaries.

More unemployment on the way.

lacarnut
07-16-2010, 09:04 AM
The US is on a roll for 1 million foreclosures to take place this year. That will probably cause a double dip recession. Even with the lowest interest rates in history, buyers are few and far between because of the uncertainty of the job market, higher taxes and a fucking moron in the W.H. along with his socialistic dummkopfs in the Congress. The job market is in the shitter and Democraps will pay dearly in Nov.

Zafod
07-16-2010, 12:58 PM
[/COLOR]

Add two more when Obuggereditupagain and the First Sasquatch leave the WH
[/LEFT]


the first Sasquatch?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Satanicus
07-16-2010, 01:02 PM
When Pres. Bush's tax cuts aren't renewed, taxes will go up.

For the rich.


So will business costs, taxes and fees and charges. Less profits mean more businesses wont be able to employ more people or will start laying staff off as the cost of wages will be higher than they can afford, so sooner or later cutbacks will start.

LOL, letting the tax cut expire for the rich doesn't do ANYTHING to business costs, it has NOTHING to do with it.


Higher taxes = less jobs. Businesses have to show a profit or they cant afford to pay staff salaries.
.

This thread, and our history tell us you are wrong. When the repubs come to the WH job creation always crashes.

If lower taxes mean more jobs then you will need to explain why the Bush tax cuts didn't spur job growth, and instead gave us massive job loses.

Satanicus
07-16-2010, 01:03 PM
The US is on a roll for 1 million foreclosures to take place this year. That will probably cause a double dip recession. Even with the lowest interest rates in history, buyers are few and far between because of the uncertainty of the job market, higher taxes and a fucking moron in the W.H. along with his socialistic dummkopfs in the Congress. The job market is in the shitter and Democraps will pay dearly in Nov.

Why didn't the bush tax cuts spur job growth ?

If lower taxes mean more jobs , then what happened ?

O'Malley
07-16-2010, 01:05 PM
Taxes will go up across the board. All brackets will be affected.

Clinton had the luxury of low unemployment and a robust economy when he raised taxes. This economy is flat on its back.

How about some source material plotting the timing of Bush's tax cuts and unemployment?

O'Malley
07-16-2010, 01:06 PM
With the country still reeling rom 9/11, Bush's tax cuts "saved jobs."

Satanicus
07-16-2010, 01:07 PM
Taxes will go up across the board. All brackets will be affected.

Not true, only the cuts for the rich will expire.

Obama already gave the middle class their tax cut.

Rebel Yell
07-16-2010, 01:08 PM
You have a quarter pound of dope and invite me in to oversee your dope. I then smoke half of it while your not around, but I put an ounce back in the bag. Should you really be kissing my ass for bringing in more dope?

Satanicus
07-16-2010, 01:10 PM
You have a quarter pound of dope and invite me in to oversee your dope. I then smoke half of it while your not around, but I put an ounce back in the bag. Should you really be kissing my ass for bringing in more dope?

Are you telling me that the OP is wrong ?

Are you telling me that a repub came to office and job creation went up ?

Link please. YOU are wrong.

O'Malley
07-16-2010, 01:13 PM
Not true, only the cuts for the rich will expire.

Obama already gave the middle class their tax cut.

No, he gave them $13/week. No rates changed.

They will all expire. There is no legislation passed yet to exempt anyone.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_30/b4188036338182.htm


Until recently, it was a given that President Barack Obama would make good on his campaign pledge to let the Bush-era tax cuts that benefited wealthy Americans expire at the end of this year. Ditto for his promise to maintain the tax cuts for households earning up to $250,000 a year.

This being an election year and the economic recovery looking shaky, Washington is having a rethink. While lawmakers from both parties want to keep the tax reductions for families earning less than $250,000, Republicans say this is no time to raise taxes and insist on continuing the cuts for high-income families, too. Now a game of political chicken is unfolding, and wealthy Americans could benefit.

All the tax cuts (passed under President George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003) will expire on Dec. 31 if Congress fails to act, an outcome neither party desires. The middle-class reductions gave couples a 10 percent rate on their first $14,000 in income, subsidies for college expenses, a higher child credit, and relief from the marriage penalty.


Another interesting graphic.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_U-2ZAA2Lr2k/SRr5qYxpDCI/AAAAAAAAANQ/csGUOlzbXLA/s400/Rich+Pay+More.gif

Satanicus
07-16-2010, 01:14 PM
No, he gave them $13/week. No rates changed.

They will all expire. There is no legislation passed yet to exempt anyone.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_30/b4188036338182.htm



Another interesting graphic.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_U-2ZAA2Lr2k/SRr5qYxpDCI/AAAAAAAAANQ/csGUOlzbXLA/s400/Rich+Pay+More.gif

And yet the facts stand.

Every time, without exception, barr none.

Your whining and crying don't change the facts.

Rebel Yell
07-16-2010, 01:14 PM
Are you telling me that the OP is wrong ?

Are you telling me that a repub came to office and job creation went up ?

Link please. YOU are wrong.

What about the scenario I just gave? How would that play out?

Satanicus
07-16-2010, 01:16 PM
What about the scenario I just gave? How would that play out?

Listen up.

The Dems will take action. The cuts don't expire till Dec.

The cuts on the rich will expire.

O'Malley
07-16-2010, 01:17 PM
And yet the facts stand.

Every time, without exception, barr none.

Your whining and crying don't change the facts.

Give us some source material on that or don't waste my time.

O'Malley
07-16-2010, 01:18 PM
Not true, only the cuts for the rich will expire.




Listen up.

The Dems will take action.



Which is it?

Satanicus
07-16-2010, 01:19 PM
Give us some source material on that or don't waste my time.

It's called the bureau of labor stats, perhaps you have heard of it.

Are you rejecting their numbers ?

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=29844

Wei Wu Wei
07-16-2010, 01:19 PM
No, he gave them $13/week. No rates changed.

They will all expire. There is no legislation passed yet to exempt anyone.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_30/b4188036338182.htm



Another interesting graphic.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_U-2ZAA2Lr2k/SRr5qYxpDCI/AAAAAAAAANQ/csGUOlzbXLA/s400/Rich+Pay+More.gif

Except income doesn't include capital gains, which is a major source of wealth for the wealthy, and which is taxed at a low rate.

In terms of net worth, middle and working class people pay more of their net worth in taxes than do the wealthy.

O'Malley
07-16-2010, 01:21 PM
Except income doesn't include capital gains, which is a major source of wealth for the wealthy, and which is taxed at a low rate.

In terms of net worth, middle and working class people pay more of their net worth in taxes than do the wealthy.

Junk stat. There is no tax on net worth. They pay a greater percent of their income in consumption, too. So what?

PoliCon
07-16-2010, 01:22 PM
Except income doesn't include capital gains, which is a major source of wealth for the wealthy, and which is taxed at a low rate.

In terms of net worth, middle and working class people pay more of their net worth in taxes than do the wealthy.

FOR FUCKS SAKES WEE WEE! Will you stop with your attempts at spin. You are not happy unless you are trying the fan the flames of class envy and strife. :rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
07-16-2010, 01:23 PM
Right, isolating "income" as a means to analyze tax rates is disengenuous because income is only a small portion of the net worth of the wealthy. They have many other sources of income that are not counted as "income".

There's no net worth tax, true, but we can look at all the taxes on all forms of income and see how that compares.

Satanicus
07-16-2010, 01:26 PM
FOR FUCKS SAKES WEE WEE! Will you stop with your attempts at spin. You are not happy unless you are trying the fan the flames of class envy and strife. :rolleyes:

Coming from a person who rejects the Bureau of labor Statistics and the US Treasury numbers.

Just cause they clash with her twisted form of reality

O'Malley
07-16-2010, 01:28 PM
Right, isolating "income" as a means to analyze tax rates is disengenuous because income is only a small portion of the net worth of the wealthy. They have many other sources of income that are not counted as "income".

There's no net worth tax, true, but we can look at all the taxes on all forms of income and see how that compares.

It's still lopsided toward the rich, because, by definition, the lower and middle class have far less other income.

O'Malley
07-16-2010, 01:29 PM
This stat speaks volumes.

Barack Obama has lost more jobs in 16 months than Bush did for his entire 2nd term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

PoliCon
07-16-2010, 01:30 PM
Coming from a person who rejects the Bureau of labor Statistics and the US Treasury numbers.

Just cause they clash with her twisted form of reality

Is making ad hominems the best you can do?

Wei Wu Wei
07-16-2010, 01:32 PM
It's still lopsided toward the rich, because, by definition, the lower and middle class have far less other income.

Right, and those other kinds of income are taxed at lower rates.

O'Malley
07-16-2010, 01:35 PM
Right, and those other kinds of income are taxed at lower rates.

So what?

PoliCon
07-16-2010, 01:35 PM
Right, and those other kinds of income are taxed at lower rates.

prove it.

Satanicus
07-16-2010, 01:36 PM
prove it.

Oh , I already proved my claims with Bureau of Labor numbers and US treasury numbers.

You think they are lying.

Nubs
07-16-2010, 01:37 PM
The fact that there is disparity in income and lifestlye allows the world th support 7-10 billion persons. If all persons had the same lifestyle, the world could only support 1-2 Billion. So what must take place for Socialism to attain its ultimate goal?

O'Malley
07-16-2010, 01:39 PM
The fact that there is disparity in income and lifestlye allows the world th support 7-10 billion persons. If all persons had the same lifestyle, the world could only support 1-2 Billion. So what must take place for Socialism to attain its ultimate goal?

Correct. The producers carry the non-producers on their backs, increasingly so over time.

PoliCon
07-16-2010, 01:39 PM
Oh , I already proved my claims with Bureau of Labor numbers and US treasury numbers.

You think they are lying.

where?

Lager
07-16-2010, 03:11 PM
Right, and those other kinds of income are taxed at lower rates.

Other kinds of income are taxed at lower rates to spur investment. The fact is, that it is not an exlusive club. If a middle class person works hard and saves money to invest, then they can take advantage of the lower rates on dividends etc. So your constant diatribe that it only benefits the wealthy is disingenous, at the least.

Lager
07-16-2010, 03:16 PM
A one time tax rebate of a few hundred dollars is no different than a one time check mailing of a few hundred dollars. Citing it constantly as a middle class tax cut is the same tactic as calling the insurance mandate penalty a tax! You libs are forced to defend your positions by twisting and misleading statements. It's intellectual dishonesty, and is usually only successful with the easily gullible. Who unfortunately, do tend to vote your way more and more.

Nubs
07-16-2010, 03:25 PM
A tax cut or increase is neither if the marginal tax rate does not change. A rebate check is simply a payment not a tax cut.

Lager
07-16-2010, 03:28 PM
Exactly. Everyone seems to know that except for those of below average intelligence, i.e the very people the dems are hoping will carry them to permanent majorities :D

Constitutionally Speaking
07-16-2010, 04:07 PM
Except income doesn't include capital gains, which is a major source of wealth for the wealthy, and which is taxed at a low rate.

In terms of net worth, middle and working class people pay more of their net worth in taxes than do the wealthy.


Is your goal equal taxation or a better economy with increased revenues to the government and more jobs??

malloc
07-16-2010, 04:12 PM
This thread, and our history tell us you are wrong. When the repubs come to the WH job creation always crashes.


Are you telling me that the OP is wrong ?

Are you telling me that a repub came to office and job creation went up ?

Link please. YOU are wrong.

Yes I'm saying your entire arrogant, unfounded position has been thoroughly refuted in the following quoted post snippet which you have yet to address:

Click the blue right arrow & respond to the post, you worthless idiot of a troll.


Let's look!!!! The evidence does NOT bear this out. The BLS figures go back as far as 1939 so let's see: Republican Eisenhower followed Democrat Truman. At the start of Eisenhower's term, we had a total of 43,351,000 jobs in the U.S. at the end of Eisenhower's term there were 45,119,000 jobs - a net plus of 1,768,000 Did jobs fall off a cliff here??? NO. But let's look a bit deeper. Eisenhower inherited a recession!!! In July of 1953, before ANY Eisenhower policy was in place, a recession that sapped 2.6% of our GDP took a huge toll on Eisenhower's job creation totals. A more accurate measure of what a President's job record is to measure the periods where the President's policies are in effect. If we take into consideration the period of who's policies were actually in place, you get a different story. Given a year and a half for this policy lag, we get a job creation # for Eisenhower of 4,754,000 jobs.

.....
The total???

Democrats 22,457,000

Republicans 34,171,000


Your thesis is simply full of crap.




If lower taxes mean more jobs then you will need to explain why the Bush tax cuts didn't spur job growth, and instead gave us massive job loses.

Apparently you can't read otherwise you'd see that this statement is a flat out lie.




Real GDP Growth
From the first quarter of 2001 through the fourth quarter of 2005, the U.S. economy expanded at an average annualized rate of 2.6 percent. The United States ranked first among its peer group in real GDP growth.


Investment in Fixed Assets
From 2001 to 2005, gross investment in fixed assets as a percent of GDP rose in Canada and the United States, but fell in the European Union and Japan. Overall, the United States ranked second in the increase in gross investment in fixed assets as a percent of GDP. In the United States, gross investment in fixed assets as percent of GDP was trending down through the first quarter of 2003. However, this trend reversed after policymakers lowered the maximum federal tax rate on capital gains and dividends to 15 percent in May 2003.


Employment and Unemployment
From January 2001 through December 2005, the United States ranked second in employment growth in both absolute and percentage terms. In the United States, employment grew by 5.165 million or 3.8 percent. Canada ranked first in percentage growth at 9.3 percent (total increase 1.383 million) while the European Union-15 ranked first in total increase at 5.715 million (3.4 percent). In Japan, however, total employment fell by 1.210 million or 1.9 percent.
In December 2005, the U.S. had an unemployment rate of 4.9 percent, the second lowest among its peer group. Japan’s unemployment rate was slightly lower at 4.4 percent, but the European Union-25’s unemployment rate was significantly higher at 8.5 percent.

The Full Report. (http://www.house.gov/jec/studies/rr109-32.pdf)


Clearly you don't know what the hell you are talking about at any given moment. You are a typical leftard idiot, clueless but loud about it. That's the problem with the mental illness known as modern liberalism, one of the side effects is absolute narcissism. This narcissism forces you to make up a position, and believe with all your mind that it is true, even though the evidence doesn't support it. Any evidence offered to your that runs contrary to your preconceived position will be ignored, because your delicate ego prevents the proper processing of the information. In other words, you are too narcissistic to be wrong about anything, even when you are wrong.

Let me let you in on a little secret people like me who actually study, read, and understand economics have known for years.



The fact that 10 million more people work for government than work in manufacturing highlights an important point. When government officials talk about "creating jobs," they usually mean creating government jobs. The trouble is that those in "public service" expect to be paid well, and their perks are fabulous. Unfortunately, any method of paying salaries and benefits in the government sector has to destroy jobs in the private sector.

Governments have only three ways of paying employees — taxes, borrowing and printing money. Each of those reduces income and wealth among those paying taxes, servicing debts or stuck with shrinking greenbacks. In short, governments can't "create jobs." Adding government jobs is never a net addition to employment opportunities, because it means a heavier burden on private employers and employees.

I have a feeling Mr. Bush understands, almost intuitively, that the best any government can ever do to "create jobs" is to minimize the burden of taxes and regulations. As Henry David Thoreau once explained, "Government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way."

Molon Labe
07-16-2010, 04:14 PM
A tax cut or increase is neither if the marginal tax rate does not change. A rebate check is simply a payment not a tax cut.

Exactly...
The rebate checks that were given out under Bush and Obama were borrowed or printed money from the Fed or Asian lenders. How many libs can't figure out that this get's paid back by others eventually is the sad part.

Constitutionally Speaking
07-16-2010, 04:22 PM
Coming from a person who rejects the Bureau of labor Statistics and the US Treasury numbers.

Just cause they clash with her twisted form of reality


Posting a graph and understanding it are two different things. Just a little tip for you there.

Satanicus
07-16-2010, 04:41 PM
Posting a graph and understanding it are two different things. Just a little tip for you there.

Are you implying that the OP is not accurate ?

malloc
07-16-2010, 04:45 PM
Are you implying that the OP is not accurate ?

I'm am saying in no unequivocal terms that the OP is inaccurate.

See post: http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=288887&postcount=114 and http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=288498&postcount=47

BadCat
07-16-2010, 04:45 PM
Unless tough Chicago guy moved to Florida, I don't think it's him.

Please recall that the Chicago Commie was planning a move to Florida when he was here last.

Rockntractor
07-16-2010, 04:52 PM
Please recall that the Chicago Commie was planning a move to Florida when he was here last.
But shannon lives there, that's a lot of evil for one state!
:eek:

BadCat
07-16-2010, 04:55 PM
But shannon lives there, that's a lot of evil for one state!
:eek:

Let's hope they don't breed.

Zafod
07-16-2010, 05:41 PM
oh my goodness boys and girls.
This one is learnin us good.....

Zafod
07-16-2010, 05:42 PM
swoop and poop.

Satanicus
07-16-2010, 06:15 PM
Yep, that tricky Bureau of Labor Statistics pulled a stupid liberal trick on you guys

Those silly liars.

Holy fuck are you guys idiots.

asdf2231
07-16-2010, 06:18 PM
Yep, that tricky Bureau of Labor Statistics pulled a stupid liberal trick on you guys

Those silly liars.

Holy fuck are you guys idiots.

http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z44/c15k0/wharrgarbl.jpg

Zafod
07-16-2010, 06:39 PM
http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z44/c15k0/wharrgarbl.jpg

hjahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

malloc
07-16-2010, 06:40 PM
Holy fuck are you guys idiots.

Well, I certainly don't see you coming up with any intelligent responses to counterpoints offered by myself and others. How liberally narcissistic of you to just ignore posts that don't support your opinion in the hopes that they will go away.

Constitutionally Speaking
07-16-2010, 06:47 PM
Are you implying that the OP is not accurate ?


No I am NOT implying it. I am flat out stating it as fact.

Constitutionally Speaking
07-16-2010, 06:48 PM
Yep, that tricky Bureau of Labor Statistics pulled a stupid liberal trick on you guys

Those silly liars.

Holy fuck are you guys idiots.

It's not the BLS, it is the interpretation.

asdf2231
07-16-2010, 07:27 PM
http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Stimulus_Worked.gif

Sonnabend
07-16-2010, 07:35 PM
Except income doesn't include capital gains, which is a major source of wealth for the wealthy, and which is taxed at a low rate.This will affect small and large investors alike, all who are taxed at as higher rate when the cuts expire. That will mean a disincentive to invest, which will lead to people not buying shares in companies meaning less profits meaning less jobs.

Let's say I own $5000 of Microsoft stock which I bought at a net worth of $3000 two years ago. I leave the stock because I want it to appreciate in value, the company succeeds, and this is part of my retirement nest egg when I retire. An increase in capital gains means I will be taxed MORE when i sell them.,..so I sell them NOW and invest elsewhere...in a smaller co having small investors pull out means less capital for the company...and that in turn leads to less jobs.

The cuts in question are ACROSS the board and will you FOR FUCKS SAKE cut it with this envy? Why should those who worked their asses off to gain what they have hand it to some unemployable pot smoker who wouldnt work in an iron lung?

All you are Wei, is about wealth redistribution, and you want what others have because you dont have the brains to get it yourself. it's called GREED.

Go ask the Kennedies. Or John Kerry. Or Pelosi. Or Reid. Or Soros. They're all worth millions...they're all Leftists too. Soros has shares in Halliburton, did you know that? That he funds MoveOn from stocks in a company he claims he despises?


Forbes lists Soros as the 29th-richest person in the world, with a net worth estimated at US$7.2 billion.
In terms of net worth, middle and working class people pay more of their net worth in taxes than do the wealthy...and when the tax cuts expire they will pay MORE.

BadCat
07-17-2010, 08:55 AM
Funny thing is, ya know, our moonbat ...Blarch, Satinboy, whatever, DOESN'T EVEN PAY TAXES.

Put up or shut up, asswipe.

Apocalypse
07-17-2010, 10:04 AM
Unlike stupid, I can come up with hard numbers to back up what I say. Nixion had the best job growth, followed by Clinton.

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b211/Dispel_Illusions/jobcreation.jpg

Read and weep stupid.

Constitutionally Speaking
07-17-2010, 11:01 AM
Unlike stupid, I can come up with hard numbers to back up what I say. Nixion had the best job growth, followed by Clinton.

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b211/Dispel_Illusions/jobcreation.jpg

Read and weep stupid.


Not sure where you got Nixon as having the best and Clinton 2nd.


:confused:

PoliCon
07-17-2010, 11:13 AM
Not sure where you got Nixon as having the best and Clinton 2nd.


:confused:

I think he meant Reagan rather than Nixon . . . .

Apocalypse
07-17-2010, 11:37 AM
I was looking at annual average change.

Wei Wu Wei
07-17-2010, 04:04 PM
policy lag.

policy lag? no such thing.

proof: obama.

Apocalypse
07-17-2010, 05:51 PM
Mwhaha!!!

I back tracked his first graph image to the BLOG where he got it. It also had this little chart;

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b211/Dispel_Illusions/Chart.jpg

You can find the original blog spot here.
http://www.americaforpurchase.com/about/job-creation-by-presidents/

Now pay attention to the "Statistics" in his chart.

Then run them against the BLS hard numbers. You can do that here.
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls

For example, for Carter his chart says at the start of his term, 80.4 million jobs.
But BLS hard numbers say it was 90.342 Million jobs.

It also by his chart says Carter had 90.9 million when he left office.
But the BLS hard numbers say it was 99.692 million.

Santania, care to explain the difference?

PoliCon
07-17-2010, 07:29 PM
Mwhaha!!!

I back tracked his first graph image to the BLOG where he got it. It also had this little chart;

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b211/Dispel_Illusions/Chart.jpg

You can find the original blog spot here.
http://www.americaforpurchase.com/about/job-creation-by-presidents/

Now pay attention to the "Statistics" in his chart.

Then run them against the BLS hard numbers. You can do that here.
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls

For example, for Carter his chart says at the start of his term, 80.4 million jobs.
But BLS hard numbers say it was 90.342 Million jobs.

It also by his chart says Carter had 90.9 million when he left office.
But the BLS hard numbers say it was 99.692 million.

Santania, care to explain the difference?


And he wonders why I wanna know the sources for his graphs. :rolleyes:

Cobra
07-17-2010, 08:00 PM
IMO, Presidents do not create jobs.

Perhaps they create the perception - but not the jobs.

If the President says things are all huncky-dory, life is great - we respond.

If the president says things are bad as bad can be - we respond.

Obama of course, is a different animal all together; It's all bad, but I'm gonna make it good.

We are being played.

Apocalypse
07-17-2010, 08:24 PM
And he wonders why I wanna know the sources for his graphs. :rolleyes:

All of the graphs were from liberal blogs. None were from any federal web site.

The second, look at the last bar. March '00. Says over 10,000 jobs were created that month. Really? Any one remember this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC211h9AY-4

This was Reid talking about the 36000 jobs lost in the month of March. Not a gain but a loss. So that chart is bull right there.

His third graph from the same blog, makes no sense. Its far short for every president by at-least 60% or more. Some look to be 90% short. So looks like more numbers pulled from their ass with no proof to back them up.

PoliCon
07-17-2010, 08:34 PM
All of the graphs were from liberal blogs. None were from any federal web site.

The second, look at the last bar. March '00. Says over 10,000 jobs were created that month. Really? Any one remember this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC211h9AY-4

This was Reid talking about the 36000 jobs lost in the month of March. Not a gain but a loss. So that chart is bull right there.

His third graph from the same blog, makes no sense. Its far short for every president by at-least 60% or more. Some look to be 90% short. So looks like more numbers pulled from their ass with no proof to back them up.

As anyone with a brain already knew. He figures that because the graph claims to be based on stats from the BLS we should accept what the graph says because it says it without knowing where the graph came from. Funny how Reliable organizations always put their name on their charts and graphs. Heritage always does. :) http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/03/in-pictures-the-obama-and-pelosi-job-gaps/ and they have easily countered the claims of the retards graphs.

Constitutionally Speaking
07-18-2010, 01:01 PM
policy lag? no such thing.

proof: obama.



There is a policy lag. Obama's Presidential policies - depending on which ones you are speaking of, were NOT at fault for the economy for most of 2009. Those bad economic months were only his fault to the degree he voted with the majority (Dems) in congress to prevent good policy and to enact bad policy. He shares blame with the past President, and the past Congress for that. However, those that likely sapped money from private businesses DID effect the economy negatively and the lag on those is much less.

Wei Wu Wei
07-18-2010, 01:25 PM
Which policies did sap money from private business and why is the lag on those much less?

NJCardFan
07-18-2010, 02:24 PM
As anyone with a brain already knew. He figures that because the graph claims to be based on stats from the BLS we should accept what the graph says because it says it without knowing where the graph came from. Funny how Reliable organizations always put their name on their charts and graphs. Heritage always does. :) http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/03/in-pictures-the-obama-and-pelosi-job-gaps/ and they have easily countered the claims of the retards graphs.

The comedic thing is, I actually posted from the BLS yet this rump ranger completely ignores it. Typical.

PoliCon
07-18-2010, 02:43 PM
The comedic thing is, I actually posted from the BLS yet this rump ranger completely ignores it. Typical.

Like all progressives - they ignore anything and EVERYTHING that does not fit their narrative.

Apocalypse
07-18-2010, 02:58 PM
The comedic thing is, I actually posted from the BLS yet this rump ranger completely ignores it. Typical.

Welcome to the club. I've blasted his graphs and numbers out of the water using BLS stats, even linked to his source sites and the BLS numbers sites, and I'm ignored.

Constitutionally Speaking
07-18-2010, 04:21 PM
Which policies did sap money from private business and why is the lag on those much less?

Actually all government spending bills do. That was a poorly worded post.

warpig
07-18-2010, 09:16 PM
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jun/04/nancy-pelosi/pelosi-touts-democratic-record-job-creation/


-- These statistics stand in "stark contrast to the Bush Administration record of losing an average of nearly 750,000 jobs per month in its last three months." The numbers are correct as Pelosi phrased them, but she is cherry-picking. Her selection of time periods for the comparison produces a picture that's as flattering as possible to the Democrats. We think a listener hearing this would assume that President Barack Obama's job creation record stood in "stark contrast" to Bush's, when in fact the time periods Pelosi uses put Obama's record in the best possible light -- because it skips all of 2009 -- and puts Bush's in the worst possible light.

She conveniently left out all of 2009, when the nation lost 4.7 million jobs, or 395,000 per month. That's a monthly rate nearly twice as large as the increases recorded in 2010. Looked at another way, the job gains in 2010 that Pelosi touts have only replaced one-fifth of all the jobs that were lost in calendar 2009. Meanwhile, the final three months of the Bush presidency accounted for the worst job loss totals of his presidency.

In all, then, the Speaker's portrayal of the numbers is technically accurate, but the general impression she gives -- that the record under a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress stands in "stark contrast" to the record under Bush -- is political spin based on selective choices about what data to use. We rate Pelosi's statement Half True.

stsinner
07-18-2010, 10:01 PM
Government jobs or Census jobs are NOT jobs created.. They actually detract from the GDP....