Republicans' jobs legislation

[the DRIZZLE]

LOL That the biggest bunch of bullshit I have ever seen.....

It's hearsay to ASSUME that cutting or eliminating a regulation will create a plethora of jobs. This is especially true if you understand how at the beginning of the recession businesses were shedding jobs like crazy but now when you look at the data these businesses are making profits like crazy with HALF their labor force.

Eliminating regulation won't CREATE jobs but just add to the padding that Big Biz is already enjoying.

No what's dumb is thinking that Federal Government can magically create productive jobs out of thin air. Reducing regulation isn't always good but I can give you a number of reform proposals that would significantly reduce unemployment.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Meanwhile...the jobs numbers are starting to look a lot better the past couple of months. But hey, by all means...blame the Republicans!

 

[Mursilis]

So, Republicans have had the House, where all spending bills start, for over a year.

So how come Clinton gets all the credit for those allegedly-balanced budgets in the '90's? Who ran the House when the deficits started shrinking?

 

[PeshakJang]

Craig is drowning again. I can hear the ignore list getting bigger

 

[Craig234]

The answer is clear - people can still post evidence if they have any - the Republicans TALKED 'jobs #1 2 and 3 priority', but it was talk - they did at best about nothing.

Worse, they blocked legislation that actually would help with jobs, such as opposing the stimulus being the size it should be.

Any Republican should not argue with this, unless they can provide some evidence.

Republicans ran on a platform to get elected and did not follw what they said they'd do.

So, the same should be expected of them for 2012 - claims about what their agenda is to get elected, and doing the usual of helping the rich.

Will Republicans pay attention to the facts, and not the propaganda the rich pay for?

 

[Ausm]

We do know that Obama killed 2K jobs though that the Republicans were trying to get approval on.

Who is "We"?

 

[Ausm]

And this all seemed to start once the 'party of no' took over.

Looks like the republicans have proven that they can succeed where Obama failed for 3 years. The debate is over.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA X 10 to the 100th power.

If you believe this Bullshit I have some swamp land to sell you in Florida.

 

[Ausm]

Meanwhile...the jobs numbers are starting to look a lot better the past couple of months. But hey, by all means...blame the Republicans!

How can you blame a party that has done NOTHING?

 

[Mursilis]

The answer is clear - people can still post evidence if they have any - the Republicans TALKED 'jobs #1 2 and 3 priority', but it was talk - they did at best about nothing.

Worse, they blocked legislation that actually would help with jobs, such as opposing the stimulus being the size it should be.

Any Republican should not argue with this, unless they can provide some evidence.

Republicans ran on a platform to get elected and did not follw what they said they'd do.

So, the same should be expected of them for 2012 - claims about what their agenda is to get elected, and doing the usual of helping the rich.

Yup. And so you have to ask yourself, why do the Dems keep returning the GOP to power? Clinton gets elected in '92, and 2 years later, 40 years of Dem control of the House goes out the window. Obama gets elected in '08, and he manages to return the GOP to control of the House within two years as well! Why do they keep doing that!?!?

 

[Patranus]

The house passed several pro jobs bills. They were all tabled in the Senate.

 

[cganesh75]

The house passed several pro jobs bills. They were all tabled in the Senate.

so that means you agree that the job growth that we see now is NOT because of the republicans right? :hmm:

 

[Harvey]

We do know that Obama killed 2K jobs though that the Republicans were trying to get approval on.

Facts, please. Which jobs would those be? If you're talking about the Keystone pipeline project, I call bullshit!

 

[fskimospy]

Yup. And so you have to ask yourself, why do the Dems keep returning the GOP to power? Clinton gets elected in '92, and 2 years later, 40 years of Dem control of the House goes out the window. Obama gets elected in '08, and he manages to return the GOP to control of the House within two years as well! Why do they keep doing that!?!?

Making a trend out of two data points is probably a pretty bad idea.

 

[woolfe9999]

Making a trend out of two data points is probably a pretty bad idea.

Well, there IS a trend that involves more than 2 data points, but he'd have to mention the GOP losing seats in the midterms 2 years after a GOP POTUS is elected. I don't think he wanted to mention that.

 

[Mursilis]

Well, there IS a trend that involves more than 2 data points, but he'd have to mention the GOP losing seats in the midterms 2 years after a GOP POTUS is elected. I don't think he wanted to mention that.

No, actually, that plays into my idea. Dems win because they promise the sun, the moon, and the stars, and stupid voters fall for that, and vote Dem. Of course the Dems can't deliver, and voters become disillusioned, leaving Repubs to run on a platform of being not-Dems. Sure, they throw out a bunch of ideas few really remember and fewer still endorse, but no one really votes for a Repub (Newt Gingrich!?! Seriously?!?); they just vote against the Dems who failed to give them the great jobs and free mortgages they were promised. Eventually, the fickle voters get tired of the GOP as well, but usually not as fast (hence, the fact that Congress did not revert back to the Dems 2 years into W's first term), because the Repubs are staying true to being not-Dems (for the most part), which is why people elected them in the first place. Nevertheless, after a while voters turn away from reality TV long enough to realize that in replacing the Dems with the GOP's not-Dems, they've put into power nutjobs like the aforementioned Gringrich, Michelle Bachman, and (nearly) Christine O'Donnell. That's usually when they start falling for Dem's lies all over again.

 

[Craig234]

so that means you agree that the job growth that we see now is NOT because of the republicans right? :hmm:

Republicans deserve credit for bills they passed IF there's a credible case they were good jobs bills. Just saying that about any arbitrary deregulation bill isn't any evidence.

 

[fskimospy]

No, actually, that plays into my idea. Dems win because they promise the sun, the moon, and the stars, and stupid voters fall for that, and vote Dem. Of course the Dems can't deliver, and voters become disillusioned, leaving Repubs to run on a platform of being not-Dems. Sure, they throw out a bunch of ideas few really remember and fewer still endorse, but no one really votes for a Repub (Newt Gingrich!?! Seriously?!?); they just vote against the Dems who failed to give them the great jobs and free mortgages they were promised. Eventually, the fickle voters get tired of the GOP as well, but usually not as fast (hence, the fact that Congress did not revert back to the Dems 2 years into W's first term), because the Repubs are staying true to being not-Dems (for the most part), which is why people elected them in the first place. Nevertheless, after a while voters turn away from reality TV long enough to realize that in replacing the Dems with the GOP's not-Dems, they've put into power nutjobs like the aforementioned Gringrich, Michelle Bachman, and (nearly) Christine O'Donnell. That's usually when they start falling for Dem's lies all over again.

The actual trend in midterm elections is far simpler, and far more robust as it actually comprises more than 2 data points. The party that holds the presidency almost always loses congressional seats in the midterm elections. There have been a few exceptions to this (like after 9/11 and the Lewinsky debacle), but it generally holds true. The Lewinsky one is self explanatory, and GWB's 2002 gains took place a year after 9/11 and a few months before a major war.

 

[Ausm]

No what's dumb is thinking that Federal Government can magically create productive jobs out of thin air. Reducing regulation isn't always good but I can give you a number of reform proposals that would significantly reduce unemployment.

Where did I say this?

 

[cubby1223]

Republicans deserve credit for bills they passed IF there's a credible case they were good jobs bills. Just saying that about any arbitrary deregulation bill isn't any evidence.

We can play this game of superficial "one-ups" all day long

 

[fskimospy]

We can play this game of superficial "one-ups" all day long

That would be evidence that their projections were wrong, not that their policy was wrong. You realize that, right?

 

[cubby1223]

Making a trend out of two data points is probably a pretty bad idea.

So...

If I looked back at all the "forum lefties" back in 2010 responding to the GOP resurgence noting the trend that the opposing party of the President wins in the following election - I won't see your name amongst those commenting?

I know it was commented a lot. And so do you.

 

[cubby1223]

That would be evidence that their projections were wrong, not that their policy was wrong. You realize that, right?

And you do know how to actually read and comprehend the English language, right?

Craig was demanding proof that Republican legislation is good at creating jobs. So, let me ask you to answer this question: What is the credible proof the stimulus was good at creating jobs?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by Patranus
The house passed several pro jobs bills. They were all tabled in the Senate.

so that means you agree that the job growth that we see now is NOT because of the republicans right? :hmm:

You don't possibly expect him to answer do you?

Him and none of the Republicans on here would admit the truth.

 

[BoberFett]

That would be evidence that their projections were wrong, not that their policy was wrong. You realize that, right?

Does that apply when Republicans say that dergulation will create jobs?

Hey, if it doesn't, the policy was right, just the projection was wrong,

 

[CPA]

There is a fundamental misunderstanding of how things work. One can write any number of bills, however unless substantial effort is put forward to create an environment which favors domestic job creation based on economic factors there will be no substantial change. Government can facilitate such a climate but no amount of money given away will result in a positive and long lasting job creation any more than giving away a medicaid check will create employment.

Neither party is applying much effort along these lines. Doing the wrong stuff harder doesn't work.

I absolutely cringe when people believe that federal government does or should create jobs. The fact that a bill even needs to be discussed to assist in creating jobs should only go to show people that there is too much government regulations and involvement in business.