To start with bushes tax cuts created 7 million jobs in 5 years, in addition

[asterism]

Why do I need to say how? No one is proving how the Bush tax cuts created jobs.

I'm providing exactly as much substantiation as they are.

Except you are making a claim that you aren't proving. I am not making the claim that the Bush tax cuts create jobs ergo I do not have to prove it.

I am proving that the claim of the OP that the Bush taxcuts created 7 million jobs is unsupported by any evidence and therefore may be dismissed as baseless drivel.

By lying?

 

[asterism]

Can you prove the Democrats caused the recession?

Can you list actual Democratic legislation that passed in 2007 that caused the recession?

While not the sole cause, the Democrats did raise the minimum wage dramatically. I'm aware that minimum wage increases do not always cause job growth to slow but it certainly didn't help.

Not that it matters much anyway, Obama is following in Bush's footsteps by refusing to criminally prosecute shifty businessmen that hire illegal aliens so maybe it's a wash.

Clinton raised the minimum wage I think in his first term. Amid hysterical lamentations from the GOP that it would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs.

That dang Clinton!!! Argument spoiler!!

He did it twice. $4.25 to 4.75 in 1996 and $4.75 to $5.15 his second term. I agree that the hyperbole was out of proportion. However, minimum wage increases did not help in 2007.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ah, turns out you're lying:
Quote: Originally Posted by M14 Shooter
The Obama's tax cuts wil create jobs as well.
But the left will never admit it.

I see you still suffer from that basic lack of understanding of the English language.
-Do- try to fix that.

I know what the phrase 'as well' means. It means 'also'.

You said the Obama tax cuts would also create jobs, and you were referring to the Bush tax cuts creating jobs, so yes you did claim that the Bush tax cuts created 7 million jobs.

Now quit being a lying fat pussy and own up.

Sweetie-
Agreeing with a claim is not the same as making that claim.
-I- have made no claim that requires support.
-You- have.
Now, change out of your skirt, put away the lipstick, and support your claim.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why do I need to say how? No one is proving how the Bush tax cuts created jobs.

I'm providing exactly as much substantiation as they are.

Except you are making a claim that you aren't proving. I am not making the claim that the Bush tax cuts create jobs ergo I do not have to prove it.

I am proving that the claim of the OP that the Bush taxcuts created 7 million jobs is unsupported by any evidence and therefore may be dismissed as baseless drivel.

Jusrt like your claim that WJBC's tax hikes created 23 million jobs.

 

[JRK]

That is false. The economy was already growing when Clinton took office in fact the economy was out of recession in 1991.

I suppose that depends on your definition of "recovery." Are you saying the recovery started in 1991?

Recovery would be when negative GDP turns to positive GDP, when contraction is replaced by expansion.

So if we have positive GDP of 2% after a run of 10% negative GDP, thats expansion?
thats spin

 

[JRK]

Except you are making a claim that you aren't proving. I am not making the claim that the Bush tax cuts create jobs ergo I do not have to prove it.

I am proving that the claim of the OP that the Bush taxcuts created 7 million jobs is unsupported by any evidence and therefore may be dismissed as baseless drivel.

Jusrt like your claim that WJBC's tax hikes created 23 million jobs.

Baseless drivel?
Thats like stating if I buy 1 share of Apple @ .01
and today its selling at @ 7 million
that 7 million dollar profit has nothing to do with me buying apple

The term every action has a reaction is a term for pro action, or to be proactive
If we are allowed to keep more of our wealth, then when we spend that wealth it creates jobs
with me it made about a 4000 swing in 2003
thats a total of 32,000 in 8 years
I am part of the millions of people that make less than 100k a year
That wealth added to wealth those who make over 100k a year is allot of wealth that was not used to study the habits of the snow frog in the rocky mountains

 

[JRK]

I am pleased to see this thread has allot of comment to with it
Clinton?
You damn right Clinton had a great run
He had Reagan's tax cuts on the front end and his w/ GOP congress De regulation on the back end
Bill Clinton's Tax rate would have cost me close to 50- 75,000- in wealth from 1993-2011
Thats allot of money for a working person
Instead I am about even with Ws rate

Thats just information that all of us who make over 60,000 a year and less than 100, we are all in the same boat

thats allot of wealth
Thats allot of jobs

 

[rdean]

What created the 23 million jobs in the Clinton presidency?

Supply and Demand. The foundation of capitalism.

NOT Tax cuts for rich people. Who could possibly believe that? Oops. Sorry. I keep insulting Republicans without even trying. What else can you do when just the "truth" tics them off?

 

[rdean]

No tax cuts for wealthy people ever created a single job.

Republicans don't even know the most basic of economics. Jobs are only created through "supply and demand". Without demand, there is no supply, hence, no jobs. PERIOD!

Moving the wealth of the nation to the top 1% ensures there will be no demand. Because no one has any money to spend. Yes Virginia, it's just that "simple".

The 50's was considered the "Golden Age" of the American Economy. The budget was balanced under the last Republican President to balance the budget. His name was Dwight Eisenhower. Too bad we don't go back to those rates. No one can possibly accuse President Eisenhower of being a "socialist" or a "communist". What would he think of today's rabid white wing? One wonders.

The 50s were a golden age? My parents and grandparents disagreed. How were the 50s better than even now?

The unemployment rate was very low. Compared to cost, salaries were high. The US had the biggest and most productive manufacturing base in the world. Education was highly desirable, especially in "science". The country was investing in American infrastructure.

Does that help?

 

[xsited1]

What created the 23 million jobs in the Clinton presidency?

Many things in the private sector. On the government side: lower government spending, welfare reform, farm-subsidy reform, free trade agreements.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.....so, you're saying it was The Government that created those jobs, huh??

Interesting....

​

You're a troll to the end. Troll post rating: 5/10

 

[JRK]

What created the 23 million jobs in the Clinton presidency?

Supply and Demand. The foundation of capitalism.

NOT Tax cuts for rich people. Who could possibly believe that? Oops. Sorry. I keep insulting Republicans without even trying. What else can you do when just the "truth" tics them off?

I stated the reason Clinton had such a good run earlier
Reagan's Tax cuts
GOP congress
Clinton's run on De regulation
Clinton did a good job in some areas
You cannot build the type of economy that creates 46 million jobs in 28 years in 5 years
Every president up until Obama did a very good job, Clinton cost me about 25,000 in bring home pay, But he did ok
This is what scares all of us about Obama that put country ahead of party
Obama is destroying 30 years of work in months just so he can raise peoples taxes and grow government so the UAW and th "poor" (wink wink) are taken care of
Just look at Obama care and all of the unions that are getting a free pass on it

 

[JRK]

No tax cuts for wealthy people ever created a single job.

Republicans don't even know the most basic of economics. Jobs are only created through "supply and demand". Without demand, there is no supply, hence, no jobs. PERIOD!

Moving the wealth of the nation to the top 1% ensures there will be no demand. Because no one has any money to spend. Yes Virginia, it's just that "simple".

The 50's was considered the "Golden Age" of the American Economy. The budget was balanced under the last Republican President to balance the budget. His name was Dwight Eisenhower. Too bad we don't go back to those rates. No one can possibly accuse President Eisenhower of being a "socialist" or a "communist". What would he think of today's rabid white wing? One wonders.

The 50s were a golden age? My parents and grandparents disagreed. How were the 50s better than even now?

The unemployment rate was very low. Compared to cost, salaries were high. The US had the biggest and most productive manufacturing base in the world. Education was highly desirable, especially in "science". The country was investing in American infrastructure.

Does that help?

If this is the case then with Obama's 5 trillion dollar deficit we should be @ 0% UE
That generation and the world we lived in in the 80s up until today is not even in the same hemisphere of hat wasin the 50s

Horses 1800
Horses 1900

from 1980 till today we went from the start of the cell phone to walking around with these "cell phones" we have today

I have no idea what your trying to do here but putting spam into a rational conversation about what tax cuts have done vs what 5 trillion dollar in deficit has done

 

[KissMy]

Prove that the tax cuts created the jobs.
Increased govt spending created quite a few jobs.
The Iraq war created quite a few jobs as well.

It is totally asinine to say that all jobs created under Bush were attributed to his tax cuts.

A valid point.

It seems Obama has create or saved a whole lot of government jobs. What's the net?

Again I say Obama is a third Bush term.

Bullshit, You will be voting for Obama in 2012 & Obama knows it.

 

[JRK]

Ok let us see what those tax cuts had to do with the housing bubble bursting?
any-one know?

Prove that the tax cuts created the jobs.

It can't be done......​

July 28, 2004​

"If one believed everything the Republican National Committee and Fox News put out, it would be easy to think that achieving economic prosperity is simple: start with a big tax cut, blend in some spending reductions, add a dash of deregulation and sit back and watch the economy cook. After all, Republican presidents use this recipe and the economy booms as a result, right?

Interestingly, a recent Forbes article and a separate American Progress Action Fund analysis show that this assumption is a myth."

Economic Prosperity And The Presidents​

Then what created those 36 million jobs if tax cuts did not?
start with Kennedy, he did the first tax cuts in 1961
The reason for this thread is simple
the spin is that the tax cuts did nothing to create jobs
OK
then what stopped the jobs lost after 9-11
The tax cuts did not start until 03
the housing bubble busted and higher taxes nor lower taxes caused it

 

[JRK]

A valid point.

It seems Obama has create or saved a whole lot of government jobs. What's the net?

Again I say Obama is a third Bush term.

Bullshit, You will be voting for Obama in 2012 & Obama knows it.

Obama is Bush 3 on steroids and any-one who denies it is at a level of denial that cannot be fixed
from tax policy to Gitmo to deficit spending (W had 150 billion in 07, Obama had 1.5 trillion in 09) to stimuluses (Obama 1.2 trillion for the UAW, Teachers, Etc... W for the tax payer about 200 billion) do I need to go on?
oh yea
Obama makes W look like a school child when it comes to droid attacks in Pakistan

 

[rdean]

The 50s were a golden age? My parents and grandparents disagreed. How were the 50s better than even now?

The unemployment rate was very low. Compared to cost, salaries were high. The US had the biggest and most productive manufacturing base in the world. Education was highly desirable, especially in "science". The country was investing in American infrastructure.

Does that help?

If this is the case then with Obama's 5 trillion dollar deficit we should be @ 0% UE
That generation and the world we lived in in the 80s up until today is not even in the same hemisphere of hat wasin the 50s

Horses 1800
Horses 1900

from 1980 till today we went from the start of the cell phone to walking around with these "cell phones" we have today

I have no idea what your trying to do here but putting spam into a rational conversation about what tax cuts have done vs what 5 trillion dollar in deficit has done

3.4 trillion of that debt WERE from "tax cuts" (2.4 from Bush, 1 from the "extension").
Add in the 3 trillion from two wars (one invented)
Add in the cost of taking care of the 50,000 wounded and the cost of the families of those that needlessly died.
The uncounted trillions in from Medicare part D.
The uncounted billions in subsidies for oil companies.

Money was made in the 90's because something was "being bought because of demand". No one has any money today. It's been moved to the top 1% (see "Tax Cuts"). Tax cuts did nothing. Why do you people keep insisting in something there is no evidence to support? This isn't "magical creation".

 

[Wry Catcher]

Maybe you should put some column headers in there so we'll know what we're looking at.


Not sure you can absolutely say that those tax increases were soley responsible for the additional jobs. Certainly didn't hurt, we needed the stimulus.

Keep in mind, "there are liars, damn liars and statistics" (Mark Twain); a bit of context with a slew of numbers would help too.

 

[M14 Shooter]

3.4 trillion of that debt WERE from "tax cuts" (2.4 from Bush, 1 from the "extension").

Prove this.
I'd especially like to see how $1T of the debt since 1-1-2011 is because of the extenstion - but if you want to blame The Obama for that, I guess that's fair.

Add in the 3 trillion from two wars (one invented)

Prove that $3T has been spent on war in Iraq/Afghanistan since 2001.

Add in the cost of taking care of the 50,000 wounded and the cost of the families of those that needlessly died.

Show that cost.

The uncounted trillions in from Medicare part D.

Show that cost.

The uncounted billions in subsidies for oil companies.

Show that cost.

If your point is sound, you should be able to show these numbers - else you're just talking out your Obama.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Money was made in the 90's because something was "being bought because of demand". No one has any money today. It's been moved to the top 1% (see "Tax Cuts").

Hooey.
Those earning < $250k/yr out-earn those making > 250k/yr by 11 to 1.

 

[8537]

I suppose that depends on your definition of "recovery." Are you saying the recovery started in 1991?

Recovery would be when negative GDP turns to positive GDP, when contraction is replaced by expansion.

So if we have positive GDP of 2% after a run of 10% negative GDP, thats expansion?
thats spin

um, yes JRK - that's expansion.

By definition.