STUDY: Democrats create more jobs than Republicans

[cubby1223]

Depends on what you mean by better. I think he was an asshole for his affairs. He was a profound disappointment to anybody who looks for his President to have moral character and I do. I know he hated himself so much that he had to destroy his own success, but he also destroyed my trust. I was sure nobody could be so stupid and he was. Arrogant scum is how I would put it.

I am genuinely curious, is there anyone you are aware of who doesn't hate himself?

 

[cubby1223]

For the topic of this thread, the 90's was perhaps the greatest economic expansion this country had - and it was due to factors unrelated to what letter was next to the President's name.

If Ross Perot had not run in '92, and Nader had not run in '00, this "study" very likely would be flipped.

 

[CallMeJoe]

...Of course if we look at a graph of the poverty rate... We can see that it is giving Johnson credit for things that began BEFORE he was president.

Crediting Democrats for something that happened during the Kennedy administration... how nefarious!

 

[Jhhnn]

It would help if the article did not include blatant lies


Of course if we look at a graph of the poverty rate

We can see that it is giving Johnson credit for things that began BEFORE he was president.

Nitpick often? it went from ~20% to ~12% between 1963 & 1968, with the first anti poverty bill signed by LBJ in Jan 1964...

Current Repubs have no interest in doing anything other than increasing poverty & increasing the incomes of the top .01%. Just a glance at the Ryan/Romney budget tells us that.

It'll, uhh, trickledown, yeh, that's it... Honest! it really really will, just like it has for the last 30 years. Why, the only reason it looks bad atm is because it wasn't as strong an effort as it could have been... True story. really.

 

[Incorruptible]

The government cant create jobs and both the Democrats and Republicans are screwing everything up. It is foolish to believe government can create jobs

 

[Howard]

Correlation is not causation.

No, but I would like to correlate my income to ever increasing amounts!

 

[davmat787]

How can a Democrat or Republican create private jobs? By definition they would not really be private, since they are created by the government.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Depends on what you mean by better. I think he was an asshole for his affairs. He was a profound disappointment to anybody who looks for his President to have moral character and I do. I know he hated himself so much that he had to destroy his own success, but he also destroyed my trust. I was sure nobody could be so stupid and he was. Arrogant scum is how I would put it.

I don't know man, I though Lewinski was a pretty hot piece of tail for a non model type. I'm sure she was better than anything you ever had. I would have stuck a cigar in her hoo-hoo too. I don't call someone who upgrades to that extent stupid by any means, I mean have you SEEN Mrs. Clinton? Ouch.

Anyhow back to the serious topic here, yeah this is not shocking. If you vote for Romney you are voting against yourself, that is unless you are sitting in a $2+ million mansion. That is not an opinion but an obvious fact.

The Repubs sandbagged this country, and the current presidency, with their stupid deregulation bullshit that allowed the banks and big business to rob this country to the point of economic depression. If you don't know this to be true then you need to do more research and come back when you aren't spewing your middle class dad's bullshit.

In fact you should do what I am doing with mine next weekend; sitting down and explaining to him how he lost over half of his retirement, which he has spent the past 35+ years building, after deregulation. I will also go on to explain to him that if he chooses to vote Republican again he is basically saying to the 1% and the Republican party that they can come rob his house and steal his cars while they are at it.

 

[Craig234]

Well to be fair, Republicans' goal isn't to create jobs, it's to maximize income for the wealthy.

A winner!

Would you like the stuffed former welfare child, or the oil-covered gulf spill goldfish?

 

[boomerang]

Well to be fair, Republicans' goal isn't to create jobs, it's to maximize income for the wealthy.

With the $10 million he's got, you'd think Obama would be saying thank you!

With the $14.5 million Elizabeth Warren (Fauxcahontas) has you'd think she'd be saying thank you! I could go on. With multiple paragraphs on just the Kennedy's alone.

It's sometimes hard to remember that rich Republicans are evil and earned their money through nefarious, anti-societal, demeaning and exploitive means but Democrats gleaned theirs through the pot at the end of the rainbow (that they created, BTW) and killed no Unicorns in the process.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

I don't think either side is going to make many more jobs as long as corporations keep sending jobs out of this country whilst making record profits. The rich have completely gutted the middle class in this country and then the Pubs just piled onto that with their deregulation (i.e. stealing legally).

 

[nehalem256]

Nitpick often? it went from ~20% to ~12% between 1963 & 1968, with the first anti poverty bill signed by LBJ in Jan 1964...

Current Repubs have no interest in doing anything other than increasing poverty & increasing the incomes of the top .01%. Just a glance at the Ryan/Romney budget tells us that.

It'll, uhh, trickledown, yeh, that's it... Honest! it really really will, just like it has for the last 30 years. Why, the only reason it looks bad atm is because it wasn't as strong an effort as it could have been... True story. really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty

The War on Poverty is the unofficial name for legislation first introduced by United States President Lyndon B. Johnson during his State of the Union address on January 8, 1964

Are you confusing introduced for signing?

Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 -- August 20, 1964
Social Security Act of 1965 -- July 19, 1965

And it is pretty clear that the majority of the decline was between 1960 and 1966.

 

[Doppel]

Austerity doesn't work. This has been proven in Europe.

Really? Please point out which "austerity" hasn't been working. Europe has dug its grave with decades of deficit spending and now some have come along and put "austerity" in place, which I put in double-quotes because in larger nations like France it's hardly meant a thing anyway, so for you to say that austerity doesn't work (as if Europe was doing just dandy before this), is like me a guy told by his doctor to quit smoking (after 30 years of doing it) or else he'll get cancer, so he cuts down from 30 to 28 cigarettes a day and still gets it and tells his doctor that cutting back didn't help.

 

[Jhhnn]

Really? Please point out which "austerity" hasn't been working. Europe has dug its grave with decades of deficit spending and now some have come along and put "austerity" in place, which I put in double-quotes because in larger nations like France it's hardly meant a thing anyway, so for you to say that austerity doesn't work (as if Europe was doing just dandy before this), is like me a guy told by his doctor to quit smoking (after 30 years of doing it) or else he'll get cancer, so he cuts down from 30 to 28 cigarettes a day and still gets it and tells his doctor that cutting back didn't help.

Austerity in the UK hasn't been working, nor in Spain, Italy or any of the peripheral nations of the Euro. Prior to 2008, Spain was a model of fiscal integrity- their problems stem from a housing bubble worse than our own.

Austerity creates hard money, which benefits only those who have it in the first place, those who are already advantaged. Recession/depression does that all on its own, and requires no assistance from policy makers. If we want to reinforce the downward trend and to increase the already huge divide between the Rich & everybody else, austerity will accomplish that.

How about a little shared sacrifice from those most able to sacrifice painlessly? Unthinkable.

 

[dank69]

This is one of those cause-effect fallacies (forgot what they were called). There are too many variables including, congress makeup, wars, and economic cycle to be factored. Plus a lot of admins get credit for work done in prior admins. Just because the President is a D or R at a current point in time doesn't mean that the job creation is primarily the result of the president.

Correlation is not causation.

Partisans tend to pick statistics without context. Republicans are no exception. Certainly lots of jobs were created while Clinton was in office. Naturally the main reason was the tech bubble and the time was right. Clinton was smart enough to pretty much leave things alone and not screw stuff up. Thats not as easy a thing in DC as some might think, but he had smarts and sense. He was the most competent of Presidents in many years.

Didn't Clinton and the Dems RAISE taxes on jerb creators early in his first presidency? Didn't the GOP SCREAM about how this would kill jobs? Didn't the number of private sector jobs continue to increase after the tax hikes went into effect?

I'd say Clinton 'messed' with things and in doing so, showed that the GOP mantra was a load of horseshit. Here we are ~20 years later and righties still cling to failed ideology.

 

[nehalem256]

Didn't Clinton and the Dems RAISE taxes on jerb creators early in his first presidency? Didn't the GOP SCREAM about how this would kill jobs? Didn't the number of private sector jobs continue to increase after the tax hikes went into effect?

I'd say Clinton 'messed' with things and in doing so, showed that the GOP mantra was a load of horseshit. Here we are ~20 years later and righties still cling to failed ideology.

I think that we can conclude that raising taxes on "job creators" by ~10% while a massively new industry (think computers/Internet) is expanding that jobs will increase.

What new industry is currently taking off that will offset increasing taxes on job creators?

Not to mention that a 10% increase will achieve very little deficit reduction.

EDIT: Within reason a small increase in tax on the rich is not the dominant determiner of job creation. Seems logical.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

I think that we can conclude that raising taxes on "job creators" by ~10% while a massively new industry (think computers/Internet) is expanding that jobs will increase.

You should proofread before you post.

 

[nehalem256]

You should proofread before you post.

Why, what is difficult for you to understand?

A small increase in taxes + Creation of a Massive NEW industry => Net increase in jobs.

The dominant factor in that case is not taxes, within reason.

The problem is that currently our industries are largely mature, and so you are not likely to see massive job growth from that avenue.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Why, what is difficult for you to understand?

A small increase in taxes + Creation of a Massive NEW industry => Net increase in jobs.

The dominant factor in that case is not taxes, within reason.

The problem is that currently our industries are largely mature, and so you are not likely to see massive job growth from that avenue.

The problem was your grammar and lack of proofreading to see if it was an actual sentence in the form of the English language. I know you are a genius, lol, but rest assured people in this forum have no problem following your folly of grammar even if it reads like a middle schooler wrote it.

 

[kage69]

Yes but according to Republicans, Democrats destroy jobs and stifle the economy. Clearly that's not true.

Economy and job creation, abstinence, state welfare, sanctity of marriage, shit - the GOP faithful are really running out of stereotypes to lean on!

 

[shira]

Correlation is not causation.

True. But Republicans continually claim to be job creators and tell us the Dems are job destroyers. What's the basis of those claims? And if there's no basis for those claims, why aren't you and other presumably objective ATPN posters jumping all over those claims, just like you're criticizing the current claim in the OP?

 

[fskimospy]

Didn't Clinton and the Dems RAISE taxes on jerb creators early in his first presidency? Didn't the GOP SCREAM about how this would kill jobs? Didn't the number of private sector jobs continue to increase after the tax hikes went into effect?

I'd say Clinton 'messed' with things and in doing so, showed that the GOP mantra was a load of horseshit. Here we are ~20 years later and righties still cling to failed ideology.

There is basically no correlation between marginal tax rates on the rich and job creation. People repeat the mantra that taxing 'job creators' will somehow inhibit job growth so often that a lot of people don't realize that there's no evidence to support it.

 

[Ausm]

Well to be fair, Republicans' goal isn't to create jobs, it's to maximize income for the wealthy.

And make the poor carry the Tax burden for their sugar Daddy's....

 

[Craig234]

Didn't Clinton and the Dems RAISE taxes on jerb creators early in his first presidency? Didn't the GOP SCREAM about how this would kill jobs? Didn't the number of private sector jobs continue to increase after the tax hikes went into effect?

I'd say Clinton 'messed' with things and in doing so, showed that the GOP mantra was a load of horseshit. Here we are ~20 years later and righties still cling to failed ideology.

Clinton did raise taxes on the top 2% or so.

Now there's some valuable history.

Every right-wing leader and commentator I can find - every one - predicted doom for the economy if it passed. Plummeting growth, high unemployment, and so on.

As I recall every Republican voted against his budget. It barely passed - IIRC by one vote in the Senate, and only two votes would have defeated it in the House.

His neck was on the line for passing an economic theory - and it not only did the opposite of what Republicans said, the economy did far better than Clinton expected.

This was a test of right-wing economic propaganda and ideology against a then-liberal policy (Clinton did cut some spending as well - without Republicans supporting it).

And the left was right, the right was wrong. In this massive test in which Republicans were totally commited to saying it would cause disaster.

They shoudl have no credibility with their propaganda after the facts proved them wrong.

 

[BoberFett]

And the corollary is that Republicans cause nothing but death, poverty, and suffering in general.

Wanna know how I know you're nuts?