Stephanie Cutter Lies: More Jobs created under Obama than under Reagan

[shortylickens]

Yeah but they both let the illegals stay and helped encourage jobs to go overseas, so it really doesnt matter who created more positions.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

The last resort from the desperately humiliated is to denounce intelligence.



You just cannot help but peek at my posts can you?

You don't actually possess intelligence. Like I said your takes have almost always been denounced for being factually incorrect. For some reason you keep posting as if you are an important cog in the debate here. You're just not smart. It's ok, we weren't all mean to do something meaningful in life.

 

[Matt1970]

You don't actually possess intelligence. Like I said your takes have almost always been denounced for being factually incorrect. For some reason you keep posting as if you are an important cog in the debate here. You're just not smart. It's ok, we weren't all mean to do something meaningful in life.

You would think with someone of your vast intelligence you would at least be able to come up with some new lines. BTW, I doubt you could spot intelligence if it came up and bit you in the ass. You can keep posting your theoretical nonsense and I will continue to debunk you. If you want to see that as a lack of intelligence, then feel free.

 

[werepossum]

Excellent points. Tax cutting will not be the magic bullet. A clarified and flattened tax structure will help as much, of course.

I would like to see Romney do what he is saying he would do in regards to regulatory reform - a top to bottom review for utility and an evaluation of the economic cost vs the benefits for all regulatory regimes.

If he does this aggressively, we will see an effect well beyond that of a pure tax rate adjustment.

Romney does seem to have a special focus on leveling the playing field re outsourced manufacturing. If our industrial base continues to be outsourced we leave ourselves with real strategic vulnerabilities. I think this will be the third leg of his economic efforts.

Here's hoping he has a Congress that will go along with such a plan. :thumbsup:

I'd love to see outsourcing effectively addressed and curtailed, but although I like Romney I'm very doubtful that he (or really, any mainstream Republican) will do so. In general, the Pubbies are worse than the Dems here.

I've love to see a top-down review of all regulations as well, but again, I'm doubtful that either party will do so intelligently. I suspect that either party will go almost exclusively after the regulations its big donors find most onerous. But perhaps he'll surprise me. Either way, while in the abstract I would of course like to pay less tax, I think tax cuts are likely to be little more effective in the long term than Obama's redistributive stimulus unless they are extremely targeted to job production and reshoring.

 

[blankslate]

Look at it this way do you think that President Reagan would have been able to do as much if there had been a Sen. Bizzaro McConnel and a Representative Bizzaro Cantor determined to keep him from doing anything?

As for Presidential and Candidate Spokespeople during an election... as others have said don't expect complete honesty from them... although it would be nice if they didn't say anything unless they had facts to back them up.

Either way, while in the abstract I would of course like to pay less tax, I think tax cuts are likely to be little more effective in the long term than Obama's redistributive stimulus unless they are extremely targeted to job production and reshoring.

The thing is there are going to be no balanced budgets again unless some combination of tax hikes and spending cuts are implemented.

In the 90's it was the tax increases to about 39% on the top incomes that brought the U.S. within striking distance of achieving balanced budgets.

Clinton being a relatively centrist Democratic President agreed to Republicans in the Senate who pushed for more cuts to bring about balanced budgets for the past couple of years of his 2nd term. We did in fact more tax revenues than Federal expenditures...

Unfortunately those ended, and the way they ended has also been debated in depth in the P&N forums before.

Clinton should not have been fooled by people who pushed the Free Trade agreement and he should not have signed Graham Leech Blighly.

 

[werepossum]

Look at it this way do you think that President Reagan would have been able to do as much if there had been a Sen. Bizzaro McConnel and a Representative Bizzaro Cantor determined to keep him from doing anything?

As for Presidential and Candidate Spokespeople during an election... as others have said don't expect complete honesty from them... although it would be nice if they didn't say anything unless they had facts to back them up.





The thing is there are going to be no balanced budgets again unless some combination of tax hikes and spending cuts are implemented.

In the 90's it was the tax increases to about 39% on the top incomes that brought the U.S. within striking distance of achieving balanced budgets.

Clinton being a relatively centrist Democratic President agreed to Republicans in the Senate who pushed for more cuts to bring about balanced budgets for the past couple of years of his 2nd term. We did in fact more tax revenues than Federal expenditures...

Unfortunately those ended, and the way they ended has also been debated in depth in the P&N forums before.

Clinton should not have been fooled by people who pushed the Free Trade agreement and he should not have signed Graham Leech Blighly.

I agree that some combination of tax hikes and spending cuts must be implemented, but in the past our "combination of tax hikes and spending cuts" has been actual tax hikes and cuts to the rate of spending growth. If we graded tax hikes the same way we grade spending cuts, our tax hikes would be a 5% rate cut which is a hike because it's less than the 10% rate cut we need. Even the 1995 through 2000 Republican Congresses cut only the rate of growth and balanced the budget only by confiscating excess Social Security receipts.

I'm all for tax hikes across the board just as soon as D.C. shows it can spend less money. Not less money than it wants to spend, not less money than it says it needs to spend, but honest to G-d less money. Until then, increased taxes are merely feeding the beast, creating new programs which in turn will grow faster than the economy and thus consume ever more. Want to raise my tax rates to Clinton era rates? Fine, start spending at Clinton era levels.

 

[Farang]

I think Cutter's point (and using the 27 month mark) is that the huge losses in jobs during Obama's first 6 months shouldn't be attributed to him, and it is intellectually dishonest to claim that overall net jobs during his term is a proper way to evaluate his performance.

 

[werepossum]

I think Cutter's point (and using the 27 month mark) is that the huge losses in jobs during Obama's first 6 months shouldn't be attributed to him, and it is intellectually dishonest to claim that overall net jobs during his term is a proper way to evaluate his performance.

Which is of course different from every politician's claim that everything good that happens on his watch is 100% due to his own personal electrifying almightiness whereas everything bad that happens on his watch is 100% due to his predecessor's and opposition's pure corrosive evil.

Somehow.

 

[1prophet]

I agree that Cutter is basically dishonest - it's a requirement for her position - but I'd point out something from Reagan's time. At that point we still manufactured most of our consumer goods, construction materials, automobiles. China had only recently been opened, had very large trade barriers, and was essentially 1950s technology at best and 18th century (or older) technology in places. Mexico was much the same. Where we had competition, it was from nations with roughly comparable standards of living. Global arbitrage was in its infancy. Tax cuts on consumers would probably be spent on American-made consumer goods or saved where it would be borrowed by other Americans for wealth-creating purposes like building homes or businesses. Tax cuts on job providers would likely spur higher salaries, modernization, and/or new ventures that would in turn increase our societal wealth. Capital and infrastructure projects still went mostly to Americans and American-made products, although the worm was already turning.

In Obama's America, most consumer goods are manufactured outside of America. I just bought a hammer drill and paid a 50% premium to get one manufactured in friggin' Mexico rather than Red China; American built isn't even a fantasy for most things today. Virtually anything one can imagine building can be more profitably built somewhere besides America, with absolutely no technological penalty for locating a factory in China - or Vietnam, or Bangladesh. (Indeed, due to our loss of our commons to China there's often now a technological penalty for locating a factory in America.) Tax cuts on consumers will probably be spent on imported goods, with much if not most of the money flowing directly out of our economy to return only as loans to our government. Tax cuts on job providers would likely not spur higher salaries, as loss of our relatively well paid manufacturing job base has greatly lowered competition for labor, and in any case modernization and/or new ventures that would increase our societal wealth are often only practical to do overseas. (Shoot, we'll even give you tax money to cover the cost of relocating as long as you don't actually admit its purpose is to close an American plant.) Capital and infrastructure projects often go to non-American companies and even more often use foreign-made products.

I'm a huge fan of Reagan, and a proponent of low taxes in general, but let's not kid ourselves. Tax cuts are not going to produce another Reaganesque recovery in today's internationalized America. The best we could hope for is something a bit less anemic than is Obama's recovery, and even that isn't guaranteed.

Exactly, and much of the Government spending in the 1980's, like the Defense budget, went to American contractors and in turn American subcontractors keeping that money in the country.

 

[1prophet]

Look at it this way do you think that President Reagan would have been able to do as much if there had been a Sen. Bizzaro McConnel and a Representative Bizzaro Cantor determined to keep him from doing anything?

As for Presidential and Candidate Spokespeople during an election... as others have said don't expect complete honesty from them... although it would be nice if they didn't say anything unless they had facts to back them up.





The thing is there are going to be no balanced budgets again unless some combination of tax hikes and spending cuts are implemented.

In the 90's it was the tax increases to about 39% on the top incomes that brought the U.S. within striking distance of achieving balanced budgets.

Clinton being a relatively centrist Democratic President agreed to Republicans in the Senate who pushed for more cuts to bring about balanced budgets for the past couple of years of his 2nd term. We did in fact more tax revenues than Federal expenditures...

Unfortunately those ended, and the way they ended has also been debated in depth in the P&N forums before.

Clinton should not have been fooled by people who pushed the Free Trade agreement and he should not have signed Graham Leech Blighly.

Clinton wasn't fooled by NAFTA, because only a Democrat could keep the Unions at bay,

the Unions would have shut this country down if there was a republican in office trying to push NAFTA.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25256

For decades unions have unwaveringly supported the Democratic Party, sticking with them through thick and thin. However, in recent years, the Democratic Party has repaid union loyalty by pushing through pro-corporate legislation at the expense of the working class. It very well may be time for the unions to break from the Democrats and form their own party.

The betrayal of labor by Democrats began with NAFTA, which would allow free trade between the US, Mexico, and Canada. It was touted as a great deal to expand and grow American’s economy, even though there was resistance to it not only from labor unions but from ordinary people.

Fear was part of the arsenal used to get the bill passed. Then-President Bill Clinton predicted that “international competitors [would] themselves forge free trade agreements with Mexico if Congress fail[ed] to approve the North American Free Trade Agreement, giving nations such as Japan an economic windfall at U.S. expense.” [1] However, he was quite incorrect. A New York Times article published at the time stated that “most European and Japanese companies [would] be much more interested in investing in Mexico if NAFTA is passed, so they can gain free access to the U.S. market.” [2] (emphasis added) There were also elitists such as Andrew Tobias pushing for NAFTA. In a Time Magazine article on the subject, he stated:
The problem with NAFTA is that, like almost any change, it will disrupt the lives of some Canadian workers, some American workers and some Mexican workers. They are a tiny minority, but anyone who thinks he or she might wind up in that tiny minority is understandably fearful and upset. And vocal. Compounding this, there are those who would play to those fears with demagoguery, rather than minister to them with reassurance and support. [3]
One can see his contempt for the working class, acting as if the lives of Canadian, Mexican, and American workers aren’t really that big of a deal, that what occurs to them is negligible. In that same article he states that “over the long run, NAFTA will employ more of everybody,” however, just as with Bill Clinton, he was quite incorrect. A while after NAFTA was signed into law by Bill Clinton in the name of the “free market,” The US Department of Labor “certified that well over half a million U.S. workers lost their jobs due to NAFTA” [4] and the Economic Policy Institute stated that “The resulting $30 billion U.S. net export deficit with these countries [Mexico and Canada] in 1993 increased by 281% to $85 billion in 2002” [5] and that NAFTA has resulted in job losses in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Under President Obama, things have only gotten worse as multi-billion dollar corporations are given handouts and labor is left to suffer. Just last month, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner revealed that the Obama administration wants to lower “the top corporate tax rate from the current 35 percent to less than 30 percent and as low as 26 percent.” [6] The Democrats have now gone the route of the right-wing by allowing “the super rich to recklessly dominate the economy while giving them massive handouts.” [7]


All the while this is going on; unions are running a fool’s errand as they continue to support the Democratic Party when they are blatantly looking out for the interests of corporations instead of the worker.

Since unions can’t match the money that the super rich are able to give out to the political elite, the best thing for them to do as of now would be to cut their losses and break away from the Democratic Party in order to form a labor political party, funded and supported by unions to look out for union interests.


Only then will unions be able truly look out for their interests.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

That is pretty clear, just more disgusting lies that the left is using to try to cover up the utter failure of this administration. Of course, with a few exceptions, the adoring throng of followers (aka, the media) will not call them on it.

Yes, economy inflation works EVERY TIME for a short period of time, the end result is always worse than the starting point though. What you have today is the result of the Reagan and Clinton administrations along with GW's failed policies that were just daft all around.

After every BOOM there comes a CRASH and the bigger the BOOM the bigger the CRASH.

It's real fucking simple but retards who want to idolize people (on all sides) tend to ignore reality as it suits them.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

1. Government spending increase by President - Reagan 10.2, Obama 2.6

2. Government hiring by President - Reagan +3.1%, Obama -2.7%

3. Government Purchases (goods services) - Reagan +11.6%, Obama -2.7%

So Reagan used Keynasian policies to help employement and the economy, but unfortunately combined them with non revenue neutral tax cuts, a disastrous combination.

 

[mshan]

To the above, I would add Morningstar economist Bob Johnson said that recoveries are normally led by 1) housing, and 2) government spending.




Slightly off topic, but regarding wage growth (not sure if nominal or real (i. e. after inflation):

http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/SubmissionsArticle.aspx?submissionid=152550.xml&part=2

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/growing-paychecks-boost-americans-purchasing-142407952.html





(kind of feel that Japanification is path Germans might be choosing for Europe, as least worst option in terms of cost for them. http://www.testosteronepit.com/home/2011/9/21/how-long-can-japan-play-the-endgame.html and http://brontecapital.blogspot.com/2008/07/deflation-and-bank-bailouts-in-japan.html Bernanke appears to be pursuing a much more expansionary vision of quantitative easing).