11 millions new jobs in four years?

90 percent of the press on t.v or news paper are democrats. So you bet.:lol:

They will bitch that a large percentage of new jobs are low paying.

So you want to work hard, and get paid less? That works for you?


Why would that bother you--as a liberal--after all that is what you have been asking successful people to do for decades? Work harder--earn more--so I can take your money and hand it out to people who don't work as hard as you do.
 
You have to wonder is there some gene in republicans when out of power that causes them to say the dumbest things? Bush Jr reduced taxes, allow me to repeat that, Bush Jr reduced taxes and do you know where that got us? it has to be genetic, no one is this dumb. Reagan raised taxes, Clinton raised taxes, FDR raised taxes - those were better times.

"In terms of promoting economic growth, the Bush tax cuts have been a miserable failure. Under George W. Bush, U.S. GDP growth averaged 2.1 percent a year. Since the end of World War II, the country has never experienced such low economic growth during an eight-year period. And if you exclude the war demobilization of 1946, when U.S. government spending fell by two-thirds and GDP fell by 10.9 percent, Bush had the worst economic record since Herbert Hoover." The Bush Tax Cuts: Failure Analysis by David Fiderer ? Failure magazine |

What was the growth if you leave out the collapse of the housing bubble?

The answer, for the people that are less inclined to think, is that the GDP increased by 41% the first 6 years of the Bush term, even with the recession after 9/11.

http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls


What is your obsession with Reagan?

The tax changes didn’t do much for Vermont, either. Job growth so far this decade is worse than any decade since the 1940s. We have fewer jobs today than we had in 2000."
Hoffman: Did tax cuts create jobs?

Maybe Vermont should have considered cutting state taxes.

Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01
Do tax cuts ever "pay for themselves"? Rarely. - By Annie Lowrey - Slate Magazine
Voodoo Economics Revisited - Simon Johnson - Project Syndicate


"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well." Tax cuts spur economic growth

The Idolatry of Ideology-Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy by Russ Beaton
.

Still obsessed with higher taxes and ignoring facts and links that are completely irrelevant to the discussion?

Do you understand that the US is not the only country on the planet? Are you aware that post WWII we had the only functional manufacturing supply chain on the entire planet? Is it remotely possible that, since we has a functional monopoly that forced the entire world to do business with us, that it might have has something to do with the economic growth we experienced?

By the way, if higher taxes are so good, what caused the stagflation during the 1970s?
 

I found this quite interesting from the link:

That would be significantly faster growth than the 3.6 percent pace predicted recently by the Congressional Budget Office for the years 2013 to 2016 (essentially the years of the next presidential term).
That reads like there is already a projected growth and all the next Prez has to do is expound on it slightly to reach that goal.

The biggest problem is that most economists thing the CBO is being overly optimistic, and predict a growth rate of less than 2%. Given the CBOs track record I think they might have a point.
 
You know what, people MIGHT take you serious if you post from legitimate sources, not a bunch of LEFT WING blogs and websites or magizines nobody has heard of... just saying.

Information is right or it is wrong. Sources don't make data right or wrong. Data exists and while it can be manipulated, if it is consistent and verifiable through other sources, or even experience then it is valid data. There are several sources in my post for the interested reader. The ideologue will always close their eyes to contrary information. Shooting the messenger is as old as history and still an invalid response. That you close your eyes to data is for you, for others they may want to learn something.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/183938-11-millions-new-jobs-in-four-years.html#post4103591
 
Quantum Windbag>>>>"The answer, for the people that are less inclined to think, is that the GDP increased by 41% the first 6 years of the Bush term, even with the recession after 9/11. "

GDP includes government spending. Since Dubya was the most prolific spender this planet has ever seen raising the GDP was the easiest of tricks.

It would have been much higher had he not carried two wars off book.
 

Anything is possible, Create the Right environment for it, and there is not Much the Private Sector can not do. Though I do think it is rather unwise of Romney to make such Bold Promises.

It's a plan - not a promise. And, if every piece in the jigsaw of fit perfectly, then yea, it's achievable.


Not even then. It is all standard Republican boiler plate campaign crap. It has been said a thousand times before and has never worked.
 

I found this quite interesting from the link:

That would be significantly faster growth than the 3.6 percent pace predicted recently by the Congressional Budget Office for the years 2013 to 2016 (essentially the years of the next presidential term).
That reads like there is already a projected growth and all the next Prez has to do is expound on it slightly to reach that goal.

The biggest problem is that most economists thing the CBO is being overly optimistic, and predict a growth rate of less than 2%. Given the CBOs track record I think they might have a point.


:cool:
 

Forum List

Back
Top