How do Republicans define "jobs"?

R

rdean

Guest
Now that Republicans have control of the house, seems they are saying, "We never said we could create any jobs".

First, Gov. Christie of New Jersey is being tauted because he cut 20,000 jobs. Other Republicans are joining they fray. They want to cut 200,000 jobs and the latest, for JB is 700,000. So be it.

So they are saying they have no plan for "job creation"? If they continue to cut taxes for the wealthy and cut middle class jobs, who is going to pay for the military?

Let's point out that cutting 700,000 jobs adds nearly a full percentage point to the unemployment rate. That would bring it back up to over 10%, which is where Bush left it on the last day of his final budget.

Are we only seeing part of the Republican plan? Is there more or is this as far as they've gotten? Used to be the Republican's only plan was to cut taxes. Now it's "cut taxes" and "cut jobs". That's the plan? There has to be more.
 
I think they define it by making it easier for the private sector to operate. If they are operating they are creating the jobs.

The Govt creates taxpayer funded job of which we have more than enough.
 
Now that Republicans have control of the house, seems they are saying, "We never said we could create any jobs".

First, Gov. Christie of New Jersey is being tauted because he cut 20,000 jobs. Other Republicans are joining they fray. They want to cut 200,000 jobs and the latest, for JB is 700,000. So be it.

So they are saying they have no plan for "job creation"? If they continue to cut taxes for the wealthy and cut middle class jobs, who is going to pay for the military?

Let's point out that cutting 700,000 jobs adds nearly a full percentage point to the unemployment rate. That would bring it back up to over 10%, which is where Bush left it on the last day of his final budget.

Are we only seeing part of the Republican plan? Is there more or is this as far as they've gotten? Used to be the Republican's only plan was to cut taxes. Now it's "cut taxes" and "cut jobs". That's the plan? There has to be more.
Who was paying for these jobs that he wants to cut? Or you could look at it this way it jumpoed when obama was elected. Because it did not go past 8.0 until he won the election.
 
Last edited:
If you are so concerned about creatng jobs, go out and create one.

It's amazing how you always expect someone else to do what you want done rdean. You keep doing that you will definitely be disappointed.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: Vel
Now that Republicans have control of the house, seems they are saying, "We never said we could create any jobs".

First, Gov. Christie of New Jersey is being tauted because he cut 20,000 jobs. Other Republicans are joining they fray. They want to cut 200,000 jobs and the latest, for JB is 700,000. So be it.

So they are saying they have no plan for "job creation"? If they continue to cut taxes for the wealthy and cut middle class jobs, who is going to pay for the military?

Let's point out that cutting 700,000 jobs adds nearly a full percentage point to the unemployment rate. That would bring it back up to over 10%, which is where Bush left it on the last day of his final budget.

Are we only seeing part of the Republican plan? Is there more or is this as far as they've gotten? Used to be the Republican's only plan was to cut taxes. Now it's "cut taxes" and "cut jobs". That's the plan? There has to be more.

Your math is wrong:

http://www.google.com/search?source...l=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.&fp=369c8973645261b8
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

Your timing of when government spent according to Bush's last budget is wrong:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Read The Bill: H.R. 2638 [110th] - GovTrack.us

H.R. 1105 [111th]: Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (GovTrack.us)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/133478-obama-got-a-fresh-start.html
 
Last edited:
Now that Republicans have control of the house, seems they are saying, "We never said we could create any jobs".

First, Gov. Christie of New Jersey is being tauted because he cut 20,000 jobs. Other Republicans are joining they fray. They want to cut 200,000 jobs and the latest, for JB is 700,000. So be it.

So they are saying they have no plan for "job creation"? If they continue to cut taxes for the wealthy and cut middle class jobs, who is going to pay for the military?

Let's point out that cutting 700,000 jobs adds nearly a full percentage point to the unemployment rate. That would bring it back up to over 10%, which is where Bush left it on the last day of his final budget.

Are we only seeing part of the Republican plan? Is there more or is this as far as they've gotten? Used to be the Republican's only plan was to cut taxes. Now it's "cut taxes" and "cut jobs". That's the plan? There has to be more.
Who was paying for these jobs that he wants to cut? Or you could look at it this way it jumpoed when obama was elected. Because it did not go past 8.0 until he won the election.

Obama was elected just as the disaster was happening. Much the same way Bush was elected as the dotcom bubble burst.

Clinton gets the blame for that one. Bush gets the blame for this one.
 
Now that Republicans have control of the house, seems they are saying, "We never said we could create any jobs".

First, Gov. Christie of New Jersey is being tauted because he cut 20,000 jobs. Other Republicans are joining they fray. They want to cut 200,000 jobs and the latest, for JB is 700,000. So be it.

So they are saying they have no plan for "job creation"? If they continue to cut taxes for the wealthy and cut middle class jobs, who is going to pay for the military?

Let's point out that cutting 700,000 jobs adds nearly a full percentage point to the unemployment rate. That would bring it back up to over 10%, which is where Bush left it on the last day of his final budget.

Are we only seeing part of the Republican plan? Is there more or is this as far as they've gotten? Used to be the Republican's only plan was to cut taxes. Now it's "cut taxes" and "cut jobs". That's the plan? There has to be more.
Who was paying for these jobs that he wants to cut? Or you could look at it this way it jumpoed when obama was elected. Because it did not go past 8.0 until he won the election.

Obama was elected just as the disaster was happening. Much the same way Bush was elected as the dotcom bubble burst.

Clinton gets the blame for that one. Bush gets the blame for this one.

The disaster as you put it started in 2007, and steadily got worse. Yes it really took off after obama was elected. You see election do have there consequences.
 
Last edited:
Now that Republicans have control of the house, seems they are saying, "We never said we could create any jobs".

First, Gov. Christie of New Jersey is being tauted because he cut 20,000 jobs. Other Republicans are joining they fray. They want to cut 200,000 jobs and the latest, for JB is 700,000. So be it.

So they are saying they have no plan for "job creation"? If they continue to cut taxes for the wealthy and cut middle class jobs, who is going to pay for the military?

Let's point out that cutting 700,000 jobs adds nearly a full percentage point to the unemployment rate. That would bring it back up to over 10%, which is where Bush left it on the last day of his final budget.

Are we only seeing part of the Republican plan? Is there more or is this as far as they've gotten? Used to be the Republican's only plan was to cut taxes. Now it's "cut taxes" and "cut jobs". That's the plan? There has to be more.

Your math is wrong:

700000/153000000 - Google Search
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

Your timing of when government spent according to Bush's last budget is wrong:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Read The Bill: H.R. 2638 [110th] - GovTrack.us

H.R. 1105 [111th]: Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (GovTrack.us)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/133478-obama-got-a-fresh-start.html

What the fuck else is new?
 
Clinton gets the blame for that one. Bush gets the blame for this one.
:blahblah:
The only reason there's any consideration whatsoever for blaming Clinton for the 2001 recession is that it creates a condition that lets The Obama off the hook.

At some point, the partisan bigots will have to admit, if only to themsleves, that this mess belongs to The Obama.
 
obviously differently than you do considering the adjective you chose to leave off when talking about these job cuts, which would be PUBLIC jobs.
 
Now that Republicans have control of the house, seems they are saying, "We never said we could create any jobs".

First, Gov. Christie of New Jersey is being tauted because he cut 20,000 jobs. Other Republicans are joining they fray. They want to cut 200,000 jobs and the latest, for JB is 700,000. So be it.

So they are saying they have no plan for "job creation"? If they continue to cut taxes for the wealthy and cut middle class jobs, who is going to pay for the military?

Let's point out that cutting 700,000 jobs adds nearly a full percentage point to the unemployment rate. That would bring it back up to over 10%, which is where Bush left it on the last day of his final budget.

Are we only seeing part of the Republican plan? Is there more or is this as far as they've gotten? Used to be the Republican's only plan was to cut taxes. Now it's "cut taxes" and "cut jobs". That's the plan? There has to be more.

I'm not quite understanding why you have forgotten to mention that the Dems have had the house up until recently. It seems, just by your post, that you are still blaming Bush and the Republicans...

IMO, I think by cutting jobs they mean government paid jobs. Jobs that you and I will have to pay for. It's idiotic for the democrats to have touted that they created so many government jobs. Why on Earth would you make taxpayers pay for more government employees when the taxpayers can't and haven't paid off the multi-trillion dollar deficit? We need to be cutting government jobs, cutting salaries for politicians, cutting the BS spending on stupid pork projects, etc...
 
Now that Republicans have control of the house, seems they are saying, "We never said we could create any jobs".

First, Gov. Christie of New Jersey is being tauted because he cut 20,000 jobs. Other Republicans are joining they fray. They want to cut 200,000 jobs and the latest, for JB is 700,000. So be it.

So they are saying they have no plan for "job creation"? If they continue to cut taxes for the wealthy and cut middle class jobs, who is going to pay for the military?

Let's point out that cutting 700,000 jobs adds nearly a full percentage point to the unemployment rate. That would bring it back up to over 10%, which is where Bush left it on the last day of his final budget.

Are we only seeing part of the Republican plan? Is there more or is this as far as they've gotten? Used to be the Republican's only plan was to cut taxes. Now it's "cut taxes" and "cut jobs". That's the plan? There has to be more.

Your math is wrong:

700000/153000000 - Google Search
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

Your timing of when government spent according to Bush's last budget is wrong:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Read The Bill: H.R. 2638 [110th] - GovTrack.us

H.R. 1105 [111th]: Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (GovTrack.us)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/133478-obama-got-a-fresh-start.html

You are publishing a bunch of links without explaining anything.

Remember, Bush left out the cost of both wars and the cost in real terms of his trillions in tax cuts and "drugs for votes" bill. That's 3 to 7 trillion right there. Obama actually published the first honest budget in 8 years.

Besides, the 2.4 million jobs Republicans moved to China from 2001 to 2008 was trending employment downward. Which peaked in Oct of 2009. See your own link at:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Because Obama passed some bills, we know that once it's passed, it takes months and even years before it affects anything. Because it takes time to put a "structure" in place. Republicans want to make Obama the "instant president". Because if he weren't the "instant president", then the damage has to come from their disastrous policies, which, obviously, it does.
 
Who was paying for these jobs that he wants to cut? Or you could look at it this way it jumpoed when obama was elected. Because it did not go past 8.0 until he won the election.

Obama was elected just as the disaster was happening. Much the same way Bush was elected as the dotcom bubble burst.

Clinton gets the blame for that one. Bush gets the blame for this one.

The disaster as you put it started in 2007, and steadily got worse. Yes it really took off after obama was elected. You see election do have there consequences.

Plus the dot com bubble burst in early 2000.
 
they created jobs, and then moved into those new jobs from their old ones and gave themselves a pay raise while eliminating the old job. Then they gave themselves a 141,000 bonus.

It's called economic fairness to the conservative right as long as they got their tax breaks to go along with it. hell it's only fair, they had to give up their old position to get the new one and the rest of us pay the toll.
 
Obama was elected just as the disaster was happening. Much the same way Bush was elected as the dotcom bubble burst.

Clinton gets the blame for that one. Bush gets the blame for this one.

The disaster as you put it started in 2007, and steadily got worse. Yes it really took off after obama was elected. You see election do have there consequences.

Plus the dot com bubble burst in early 2000.

Bush was the disaster. Two wars not included in any budget. Trillions in tax breaks that didn't do jack for the economy. Moving 2.4 million jobs to China. I just don't understand why Republicans ignore these fundamental causes.
 
Now that Republicans have control of the house, seems they are saying, "We never said we could create any jobs".

First, Gov. Christie of New Jersey is being tauted because he cut 20,000 jobs. Other Republicans are joining they fray. They want to cut 200,000 jobs and the latest, for JB is 700,000. So be it.

So they are saying they have no plan for "job creation"? If they continue to cut taxes for the wealthy and cut middle class jobs, who is going to pay for the military?

Let's point out that cutting 700,000 jobs adds nearly a full percentage point to the unemployment rate. That would bring it back up to over 10%, which is where Bush left it on the last day of his final budget.

Are we only seeing part of the Republican plan? Is there more or is this as far as they've gotten? Used to be the Republican's only plan was to cut taxes. Now it's "cut taxes" and "cut jobs". That's the plan? There has to be more.

Your math is wrong:

700000/153000000 - Google Search
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

Your timing of when government spent according to Bush's last budget is wrong:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Read The Bill: H.R. 2638 [110th] - GovTrack.us

H.R. 1105 [111th]: Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (GovTrack.us)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/133478-obama-got-a-fresh-start.html

You are publishing a bunch of links without explaining anything.

Too lazy to check your own math?

Remember, Bush left out the cost of both wars and the cost in real terms of his trillions in tax cuts and "drugs for votes" bill. That's 3 to 7 trillion right there. Obama actually published the first honest budget in 8 years.

Too lazy to read I see.

Bush spending stopped in March 2009. His last budget was never appropriated. FY 2009 was passed in two appropriations, one continuing 2008 spending until March 2009 and one with the agenda set by Obama and the Democrats in Congress.

Besides, the 2.4 million jobs Republicans moved to China from 2001 to 2008 was trending employment downward. Which peaked in Oct of 2009. See your own link at:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

So Bush left office in January 2009, unemployment continued to go up and stayed and it's Bush's fault?

WOW!

Because Obama passed some bills, we know that once it's passed, it takes months and even years before it affects anything. Because it takes time to put a "structure" in place. Republicans want to make Obama the "instant president". Because if he weren't the "instant president", then the damage has to come from their disastrous policies, which, obviously, it does.

He promised results, and even set a timeline for them. Don't you remember?

kthrp.jpg
 
Last edited:
Now that Republicans have control of the house, seems they are saying, "We never said we could create any jobs".

First, Gov. Christie of New Jersey is being tauted because he cut 20,000 jobs. Other Republicans are joining they fray. They want to cut 200,000 jobs and the latest, for JB is 700,000. So be it.

So they are saying they have no plan for "job creation"? If they continue to cut taxes for the wealthy and cut middle class jobs, who is going to pay for the military?

Let's point out that cutting 700,000 jobs adds nearly a full percentage point to the unemployment rate. That would bring it back up to over 10%, which is where Bush left it on the last day of his final budget.

Are we only seeing part of the Republican plan? Is there more or is this as far as they've gotten? Used to be the Republican's only plan was to cut taxes. Now it's "cut taxes" and "cut jobs". That's the plan? There has to be more.

what jobs are being cut?
If you're referring to public sector government jobs, I'm fine with that. Federal government payrolls are bloated anyway.
BTW, the best way for government to create jobs is to get the hell out of the way of the economy. The only way we get out of this recession is to permit private sector job growth.
 

Forum List

Back
Top