It's the economy, stupid!

[Old Rocks]

Well, the 2010 elections are shaping up more and more about perceptions of the economy. So let's compare two terms of a Democratic President, and two terms of a Republican President.

When Clinton took office, the nation was in a mild recession. During the Reagan years, and also during the Bush 1 years, the nation was running a record deficit. Right off the bat, President Clinton proposed raising the taxes on the wealthiest Americans by up to 3.6%. And raised taxes on several other areas. There were a chorus of doom from the Conservative circles. So, how did that work out?

During Clinton's terms, there were 22.7 million jobs added in the US. Average weekly wages grew by 21%. The budget was balanced. We were actually paying a little on the National Debt.

OK, how about during President Bush's terms. Well, he did a massive tax cut, in spite of the fact that we were at war at the time, and spending money like there was no tomorrow. But, of course, we all know that big tax cuts encourage business and create millions of jobs, correct?

During Bush's terms there were 1.1 million jobs created. That did not even keep up with the people graduating from school and entering the work force. Average weekly wage increased by 2%. Not even one years inflation.

The question is, do we want a Republican economy again, or do we try to get back to where we were, through the efforts of people that think that the working man and womans efforts are just as worthy of reward as that of the swindling elite.

Is there any reason at all to vote for another round of Republican incompetance?

 

[Old Rocks]

Don't like the numbers?

PolitiFact Ohio | Sherrod Brown touts job growth during Clinton presidency vs. Bush?s jobs record

 

[skookerasbil]

Don't like the numbers?

PolitiFact Ohio | Sherrod Brown touts job growth during Clinton presidency vs. Bush?s jobs record

You dummy.............nobody cares about Clinton or Bush.

THIS is what they care about these days s0n...............and ps..............its 2010!!!


Mark Levin ( Unemployment rates by county over the past 2 years )


Even my eyeballs almost popped out when I clicked on this link = jobs fAiL

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Well, the 2010 elections are shaping up more and more about perceptions of the economy. So let's compare two terms of a Democratic President, and two terms of a Republican President.

When Clinton took office, the nation was in a mild recession. During the Reagan years, and also during the Bush 1 years, the nation was running a record deficit. Right off the bat, President Clinton proposed raising the taxes on the wealthiest Americans by up to 3.6%. And raised taxes on several other areas. There were a chorus of doom from the Conservative circles. So, how did that work out?

During Clinton's terms, there were 22.7 million jobs added in the US. Average weekly wages grew by 21%. The budget was balanced. We were actually paying a little on the National Debt.

OK, how about during President Bush's terms. Well, he did a massive tax cut, in spite of the fact that we were at war at the time, and spending money like there was no tomorrow. But, of course, we all know that big tax cuts encourage business and create millions of jobs, correct?

During Bush's terms there were 1.1 million jobs created. That did not even keep up with the people graduating from school and entering the work force. Average weekly wage increased by 2%. Not even one years inflation.

The question is, do we want a Republican economy again, or do we try to get back to where we were, through the efforts of people that think that the working man and womans efforts are just as worthy of reward as that of the swindling elite.

Is there any reason at all to vote for another round of Republican incompetance?

Keep drinking the Kool Aid there buddy.... keep drinking.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah yes, the inheritance of the Bush admin. Meltdown Monday was in Bush's second term. The day after he assured the nation that we were economically fundementally sound. Tarp was done by Bush, neccessary, but painful. However, Bush arranged the bailouts so the miscreants that created the situation felt no pain, his base and all, you know. At least President Obama pointed out the injustice of these criminals continueing to rake in tens of million annually for destroying the economy.

The present job situation is bleak, but far better than it was. Had the meltdown occured in the beginning of Bush's second term, we would be at the depths of the Second Great Republican Depression right now.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, the 2010 elections are shaping up more and more about perceptions of the economy. So let's compare two terms of a Democratic President, and two terms of a Republican President.

When Clinton took office, the nation was in a mild recession. During the Reagan years, and also during the Bush 1 years, the nation was running a record deficit. Right off the bat, President Clinton proposed raising the taxes on the wealthiest Americans by up to 3.6%. And raised taxes on several other areas. There were a chorus of doom from the Conservative circles. So, how did that work out?

During Clinton's terms, there were 22.7 million jobs added in the US. Average weekly wages grew by 21%. The budget was balanced. We were actually paying a little on the National Debt.

OK, how about during President Bush's terms. Well, he did a massive tax cut, in spite of the fact that we were at war at the time, and spending money like there was no tomorrow. But, of course, we all know that big tax cuts encourage business and create millions of jobs, correct?

During Bush's terms there were 1.1 million jobs created. That did not even keep up with the people graduating from school and entering the work force. Average weekly wage increased by 2%. Not even one years inflation.

The question is, do we want a Republican economy again, or do we try to get back to where we were, through the efforts of people that think that the working man and womans efforts are just as worthy of reward as that of the swindling elite.

Is there any reason at all to vote for another round of Republican incompetance?

Keep drinking the Kool Aid there buddy.... keep drinking.

Those are the numbers, dumb ass. Refute them!

 

[WillowTree]

still running with that "inheritance" bullshit?

 

[Old Rocks]

Assinine Repukes are still preaching that 'cut taxes' bullshit.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Congressional Democrats are Zombies, they running but they don't know they're dead

Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh

We inherited our undead features from Boooooooooooooooooooooooosh

 

[cad]

So you are making the argument that the Clinton tax increases were the cause of the economic boom the 1990's? It had nothing to do with the technology boom or the fact that Clinton was able to slash defense spending due to the end of the Cold War? Or the fact that Clinton cut the capital gains taxes or cut welfare entitlements? Or placed a greater emphasis on free trade and deregulation? In your mind, it was the increased tax rates that caused the boom fo the 90's? Can you find one economist to back up that theory?

 

[Old Rocks]

What I stated was that we had a tax increase in 1993. No disaster followed. We had a massive tax cut in 2001, and more in 2003. And disaster did follow.

In both cases there were many, many other factors. However, the results do confirm that tax cuts do not stimulate the economy, and tax increases do not kill the economy. And confirm that Republicans cannot be trusted to understand when either is appropriate.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What I stated was that we had a tax increase in 1993. No disaster followed. We had a massive tax cut in 2001, and more in 2003. And disaster did follow.

In both cases there were many, many other factors. However, the results do confirm that tax cuts do not stimulate the economy, and tax increases do not kill the economy. And confirm that Republicans cannot be trusted to understand when either is appropriate.

The disaster that followed was Dems getting control of Congress in 06

 

[The T]

So you are making the argument that the Clinton tax increases were the cause of the economic boom the 1990's? It had nothing to do with the technology boom or the fact that Clinton was able to slash defense spending due to the end of the Cold War? Or the fact that Clinton cut the capital gains taxes or cut welfare entitlements? Or placed a greater emphasis on free trade and deregulation? In your mind, it was the increased tax rates that caused the boom fo the 90's? Can you find one economist to back up that theory?

Exactly. And we saw the result of the slahing of the DoD budget when we went into ASTAN, And IRAQ...(Remember the cries from the left that there weren't enough armoured vehicles to shield troops from IED'S?

In any case? Those on the left including Billy-Bob Liar Clinton were all too hasty in spending that peace dividend...weren't they?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Far right Repugs izz beein stoopd gin.

 

[The T]

Which repugs are those poseur?

 

[Rozman]

"The question is, do we want a Republican economy again, or do we try to get back to where we were, through the efforts of people that think that the working man and womans efforts are just as worthy of reward as that of the swindling elite."

"Is there any reason at all to vote for another round of Republican incompetance?"


Or you can vote for a Democrat President or a Democrat Congress....Oh wait you guys did that...and where are we now?

 

[boedicca]

Here's the difference:

Clinton benefited from Reaganomics, the end of the Cold War, and the Gingrich led Congress - and rode the upswing of the dotcom bubble.

Bush was hammered with the Dotcom Crash and 9/11....and then again by the inevitable Financial Crisis which had been fomenting since at least the 1970s.

In both cases, macro events outside of both of their controls made big impacts on the economy.

Luck matters.

And Obama is No Clinton, btw.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRXF4Scs0fc]Hillary Was Right[/ame]

 

[Dr.House]

Which repugs are those poseur?

JokeStarkey - He never met a Democrat he wouldn't defend...

 

[Rozman]

I am starting to see the wisdom in the Democrat's thinking....What is better for the people?....more take home money from their paycheck or less.? The Democrats position,Government should be able to take as much money as possible from the populace,or the Republicans position the people should be able to take home as much money as possible from their paycheck..

Wow it makes sense now....why should I be able to take home any money at all...I have no right to that
money,right Dems?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope, kiddos, we are not going back to the Bush days. I have been talking to conservative evangelicals in Alabama the last few days. They love their local Pubs but have no desire to vote for anyone associated with the Bushies or their policies.