STUDY: Democrats create more jobs than Republicans

[Anarchist420]

This must be true because we all know how pro-business the democrats have been.

Pro-business does not mean pro-market.

In any event, Republicans are more responsible for the wreckless spending than the Democrats are because the Republicans are sending the spending the bills to Obama for him to sign. They agreed to the $1.7Tn deficit last year, when they didn't have to agree to any deficit. Republicans also gave Greenspan and Bernanke their start, which has resulted in the government borrowing even more because they keep the treasury rate so low.

 

[Jhhnn]

Who knew all along that businesses never had to hire people to make money. They have been doing it wrong all these years.

*EDIT* You really need to change the channel off MSNBC once in a while to see what the real world is doing, not just a few examples Maddow or Shultz can find to make good talking points.

Flippancy & Denial, with the usual strawman bonus- why would I have expected anything else?

 

[Matt1970]

Pro-business does not mean pro-market.

In any event, Republicans are more responsible for the wreckless spending than the Democrats are because the Republicans are sending the spending the bills to Obama for him to sign. They agreed to the $1.7Tn deficit last year, when they didn't have to agree to any deficit. Republicans also gave Greenspan and Bernanke their start, which has resulted in the government borrowing even more because they keep the treasury rate so low.

Really? The last time the Republicans tried to cut a measly 66 Billion from Obama's budget it nearly brought the country to its knees.

 

[Matt1970]

Flippancy & Denial, with the usual strawman bonus- why would I have expected anything else?

Sorry pal. The vast majority of businesses are not sitting on piles of money. The ones that are will hire someone the instant they can make more money by doing so, not when you or anyone else thinks they should. Meanwhile that money can sit in banks for others to borrow or in investments for others to make money on. Welcome to Business 101.

 

[Jhhnn]

Really? The last time the Republicans tried to cut a measly 66 Billion from Obama's budget it nearly brought the country to its knees.

The last time there was a Repub in the White House, he doubled the national debt via tax cuts & increased military spending.

That $66B cut you mention would have come right out of the hides of the most vulnerable citizens, but, hey, those with wealth & power must be coddled at any cost, right?

When the proles get uppity, what they really need is a beatdown, which Repubs are more than happy to provide.

 

[Matt1970]

The last time there was a Repub in the White House, he doubled the national debt via tax cuts & increased military spending.

That $66B cut you mention would have come right out of the hides of the most vulnerable citizens, but, hey, those with wealth & power must be coddled at any cost, right?

When the proles get uppity, what they really need is a beatdown, which Repubs are more than happy to provide.

Sigh, Bush Bush Bush... Hey, 2007 called, they want their post back. Those of us that wish to move forward and not just blame the past are welcome to play along.....

That 66 Billion would have come out of a super-bloated government.

 

[Jhhnn]

Sorry pal. The vast majority of businesses are not sitting on piles of money. The ones that are will hire someone the instant they can make more money by doing so, not when you or anyone else thinks they should. Meanwhile that money can sit in banks for others to borrow or in investments for others to make money on. Welcome to Business 101.

Talk in circles often? apparently so. Business will hire when demand for their products or services exceed their current capacity to fill it. That demand won't increase until more people have jobs & money to spend.

Business today-

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903927204576574720017009568.html

Banks lending? That's why their reserves have skyrocketed- they're not lending-

Economics? You have no idea what you're talking about. Zero, zip, nada, nothing, zilch.

 

[nehalem256]

Talk in circles often? apparently so. Business will hire when demand for their products or services exceed their current capacity to fill it. That demand won't increase until more people have jobs & money to spend.

Business today-

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903927204576574720017009568.html

Banks lending? That's why their reserves have skyrocketed- they're not lending-

Economics? You have no idea what you're talking about. Zero, zip, nada, nothing, zilch.

You do realize that according to your graph bank reserves increased from zero right?

 

[Matt1970]

You do realize that according to your graph bank reserves increased from zero right?

Come on, you expect people who make shit up as they go along to catch something like that? Nice Graph.

 

[Matt1970]

Talk in circles often? apparently so. Business will hire when demand for their products or services exceed their current capacity to fill it. That demand won't increase until more people have jobs & money to spend.

Banks lending? That's why their reserves have skyrocketed- they're not lending-

Economics? You have no idea what you're talking about. Zero, zip, nada, nothing, zilch.

Right, no jobs, $5 Trillion and 3 1/2 years later the economy is still in the shitter. Time for a new plan. Stimulus spending in itself isn't bad but this whole "getting even" with the rich attitude out of Washington is never good for investing. Nobody wants to invest in an unsure market. Banks make money by lending, not hoarding cash. They only have an abundance of cash because nobody wants to invest in an unsure market. People don't even want to invest in Facebook which is the latest craze.

 

[Craig234]

The last time there was a Repub in the White House, he doubled the national debt via tax cuts & increased military spending.

That $66B cut you mention would have come right out of the hides of the most vulnerable citizens, but, hey, those with wealth & power must be coddled at any cost, right?

When the proles get uppity, what they really need is a beatdown, which Repubs are more than happy to provide.

It's funny, a Republican talking point is about Obama and the debt.

But Reagan increased the debt 200% *when he didn't have to*.

George W. Bush increased the debt 100% largely *when he didn't have to*.

Obama has increased the debt by 50%, when he has had to keep the economy from crashing further in a financial crisis not caused by him.

Democrats got rid of the 12 years of Reagan/Bush deficits and they'd do it again.

Romney's plan in these times of financial crisis?

More big tax cuts for the rich, and increase defense spending by $1 trillion over 10 years.

 

[Matt1970]

It's funny, a Republican talking point is about Obama and the debt.

But Reagan increased the debt 200% *when he didn't have to*.
That was to topple the USSR, but hey, they were a peaceful nation

George W. Bush increased the debt 100% largely *when he didn't have to*.
Some true, but we did have the war on terror


Obama has increased the debt by 50%, when he has had to keep the economy from crashing further in a financial crisis not caused by him.
BS specualtion. They didn't get the numbers right back then but we are supposed to believe the numbers from if we didn't do anything?

Democrats got rid of the 12 years of Reagan/Bush deficits and they'd do it again.
That was the internet bubble and borrowing against SS, Federal revenue fell inline with the trend when the bubble burst. Taxes were raised in 1993 but revenue didn't increase till 1997

Romney's plan in these times of financial crisis?
Anything is better than the un-sustainable debt we are racking up now

More big tax cuts for the rich, and increase defense spending by $1 trillion over 10 years.

Craig has me blocked so he won't even see any of this

 

[Steeplerot]

Since my thread a year or so ago, my simple question still remains unanswered by Republicans.

What has the GOP (or Conservatism) EVER done positive for the average person in this country in the past 30+ years?

Besides of course being total douches who think they have all of it figured out while actually falling flat on their face when it comes to real-world results. Oh well, if you listen to the bullshit *you* want to hear enough sooner or later the crap isnt so bad smelling, huh righties?

No one else is fooled. Not even for a second. This is why the right is laughed at in this country, they dont even realize what morons they are thanks to their safe echo chamber of corporate media. Sad so many Americans live in such a disconnect with their fellow countrymen (and act so arrogant about it also)

 

[Jhhnn]

You do realize that according to your graph bank reserves increased from zero right?

Come on, you expect people who make shit up as they go along to catch something like that? Nice Graph.

It's the FRB's graph, so go figure...

 

[Jhhnn]

Right, no jobs, $5 Trillion and 3 1/2 years later the economy is still in the shitter. Time for a new plan. Stimulus spending in itself isn't bad but this whole "getting even" with the rich attitude out of Washington is never good for investing. Nobody wants to invest in an unsure market. Banks make money by lending, not hoarding cash. They only have an abundance of cash because nobody wants to invest in an unsure market. People don't even want to invest in Facebook which is the latest craze.

So, uhh, the Ownership Society carved out a bigger hole in the economy than anybody imagined it could, huh?

The whole song & dance about "uncertainty" is hogwash, a propaganda construct. Business is making handsome profits against reduced demand, cannibalizing excess capacity to make even more. What the economy lacks, and what private enterprise can't & won't provide in a debt deflation scenario like today is demand. Jobs & employment create demand- the last time something like this happened was in 1929, and only action by the FRB & Treasury has prevented it from getting worse. The notion that cutting spending further will do anything other than make it worse is absurd, a contradiction in terms. It's like bleeding the patient, and when that doesn't work, bleed them some more. Witness the UK.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The whole song & dance about "uncertainty" is hogwash, a propaganda construct.

I consider it a basic economic/political IQ test. If you fall for the Republican "uncertainty" line, then you're easily had.

The same people who talked about the "perils of uncertainty" with respect to the expiring Bush tax cuts held the entire country ransom over the debt ceiling last summer, and now want to do it again. They don't give a damn about "uncertainty", only their own agenda.

 

[Matt1970]

So, uhh, the Ownership Society carved out a bigger hole in the economy than anybody imagined it could, huh?

The whole song & dance about "uncertainty" is hogwash, a propaganda construct. Business is making handsome profits against reduced demand, cannibalizing excess capacity to make even more. What the economy lacks, and what private enterprise can't & won't provide in a debt deflation scenario like today is demand. Jobs & employment create demand- the last time something like this happened was in 1929, and only action by the FRB & Treasury has prevented it from getting worse. The notion that cutting spending further will do anything other than make it worse is absurd, a contradiction in terms. It's like bleeding the patient, and when that doesn't work, bleed them some more. Witness the UK.

The uncertainty is not hogwash or businesses would be hiring up workers and investing in the future left and right to make even more money. You get it and you know you get it, you just have a couple of nice cherry picked statistics to back up your desire to pick the pockets of the rich. And just keep racking up the debt because it may be a little painful right now to cut spending. Never mind that we will all pay the price down the road.

 

[CallMeJoe]

The uncertainty is not hogwash or businesses would be hiring up workers and investing in the future left and right to make even more money...

Help me understand.

Conservatives believe one of the greatest impediments to job creation is uncertainty in regulation, taxes and fiscal policy.
Conservatives' solution is to pledge to overturn everything the Obama administration has implemented in regulation, taxes and fiscal policy.

The solution to uncertainty is to breed more uncertainty?

 

[Jhhnn]

The uncertainty is not hogwash or businesses would be hiring up workers and investing in the future left and right to make even more money. You get it and you know you get it, you just have a couple of nice cherry picked statistics to back up your desire to pick the pockets of the rich. And just keep racking up the debt because it may be a little painful right now to cut spending. Never mind that we will all pay the price down the road.

In all the time you've posted on this forum, you've never failed to employ every mechanism of denial planted in your head by carefully crafted propaganda.

As the gentleman pointed out, above, and you've ignored completely, is that threatening to prevent the govt from paying its bills is a truly contrived form of uncertainty. Threatening to deny extended unemployment benefits to preserve tax cuts for people who don't need them was another occasion of contrived uncertainty. Refusing to confirm presidential appointees is contrived uncertainty, and refusal to properly fund the CFTC just stretches out the rule making process, creating more uncertainty.

If Repubs really thought that uncertainty was an issue, they might not be deliberately creating it every change they get, don't you think?