Why does the left think the government can create jobs?

[JRK]

What ever you say, if your happy with the world you live, toke on dude
bottom line is all of means nothing sense your boy took office

 

[toxicmedia]

What ever you say, if your happy with the world you live, toke on dude
bottom line is all of means nothing sense your boy took office

Who are you talking to JRK?

 

[JRK]

What ever you say, if your happy with the world you live, toke on dude
bottom line is all of means nothing sense your boy took office

Who are you talking to JRK?

8537 keeps on about job creation
I have no intent of trying to explain what it is he is trying to convince us of
You have to read his threads, I stopped chasing him down the rabbit hole along time ago

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No, I'm not. It would help if you would read my posts once in awhile instead of knee jerking.

You hopped into a thread about government creating jobs and every post seemed sound like Frankie Pentangeli, "Big Government said it created jobs, so I said Yeah! Sure!"

All I've done is point to facts. Facts such as this: The rate of job creation in the 1960's and 1970's was higher than the rate of job creation in any decade since.

Of course, you interpreted that to mean I was obviously advocating for Keynes, that government is the only answer to tepid growth, that the prime rate was 21% under Cart...err, I mean Reagan etc....

You would be better served to read my posts instead of what you wish my posts said. As an earlier poster said, "Blind partisan dogma can be confusing to the objective non-believer."

OK. let me put it in a way easier for you to understand, if the thread were "Sex with gerbil is just wrong!" and you started posting facts and statistics indicating something other than sex with gerbils is wrong, people would get the idea that you're defending gerbil sex.

That clear it up any?

 

[8537]

You hopped into a thread about government creating jobs and every post seemed sound like Frankie Pentangeli, "Big Government said it created jobs, so I said Yeah! Sure!"

All I've done is point to facts. Facts such as this: The rate of job creation in the 1960's and 1970's was higher than the rate of job creation in any decade since.

Of course, you interpreted that to mean I was obviously advocating for Keynes, that government is the only answer to tepid growth, that the prime rate was 21% under Cart...err, I mean Reagan etc....

You would be better served to read my posts instead of what you wish my posts said. As an earlier poster said, "Blind partisan dogma can be confusing to the objective non-believer."

OK. let me put it in a way easier for you to understand, if the thread were "Sex with gerbil is just wrong!" and you started posting facts and statistics indicating something other than sex with gerbils is wrong, people would get the idea that you're defending gerbil sex.

That clear it up any?

No, that doesn't clear it up - your fetish with gerbil sex aside.

In a thread where the OP is claiming that we have experienced excellent job growth ever since Reagan (up until Obama was elected), it's relevant and on-topic to point out that we have not experienced excellent (or even exceptional) job growth ever since Reagan.

What's not on topic are random attempts at dismissing those facts by responding to claims that weren't made and ideas that weren't stated.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

All I've done is point to facts. Facts such as this: The rate of job creation in the 1960's and 1970's was higher than the rate of job creation in any decade since.

Of course, you interpreted that to mean I was obviously advocating for Keynes, that government is the only answer to tepid growth, that the prime rate was 21% under Cart...err, I mean Reagan etc....

You would be better served to read my posts instead of what you wish my posts said. As an earlier poster said, "Blind partisan dogma can be confusing to the objective non-believer."

OK. let me put it in a way easier for you to understand, if the thread were "Sex with gerbil is just wrong!" and you started posting facts and statistics indicating something other than sex with gerbils is wrong, people would get the idea that you're defending gerbil sex.

That clear it up any?

No, that doesn't clear it up - your fetish with gerbil sex aside.

In a thread where the OP is claiming that we have experienced excellent job growth ever since Reagan (up until Obama was elected), it's relevant and on-topic to point out that we have not experienced excellent (or even exceptional) job growth ever since Reagan.

What's not on topic are random attempts at dismissing those facts by responding to claims that weren't made and ideas that weren't stated.

Because you choose optics that make Reagan's record look less than the transformation Presidency that is was.

 

[JRK]

1961...... 54,105 45,399

1979...... 89,932 73,864

1980...... 90,528 74,154

1990...... 109,487 91,072
Year Total Private sector

lets do the math
JOB CREATION
36 million 61-79 = 19 years = 1.89 million total on avg per year TOTAL
28.5 million 61-79 = 19 years = 1.5 million per year PRIVATE SECTOR

19 million 80-90 = 11 years = 1.73 million total on avg per year total
17 million 80-90 = 11 years = 1.55 million total on avg per year private sector

lets not forget that real job creation did not begin until 1984. The interest rate RR inherited in conjunction with the inflation problems we faced during those first 3 years held back job growth as you can see here
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

This is just information, not sure what 8537 is trying to prove here, dont really care
this is what matters today

2008...... 136,790 114,281
2009...... 130,807 108,252
2010...... 129,818 107,337

 

[8537]

OK. let me put it in a way easier for you to understand, if the thread were "Sex with gerbil is just wrong!" and you started posting facts and statistics indicating something other than sex with gerbils is wrong, people would get the idea that you're defending gerbil sex.

That clear it up any?

No, that doesn't clear it up - your fetish with gerbil sex aside.

In a thread where the OP is claiming that we have experienced excellent job growth ever since Reagan (up until Obama was elected), it's relevant and on-topic to point out that we have not experienced excellent (or even exceptional) job growth ever since Reagan.

What's not on topic are random attempts at dismissing those facts by responding to claims that weren't made and ideas that weren't stated.

Because you choose optics that make Reagan's record look less than the transformation Presidency that is was.

"less than the transformation"? JRK was using the metric of job creation. If the metric chose by JRK is job creation, it follows that the relevant metric for comparison would be...job creation.

Crazy, I know!

 

[Jarhead]

No, that doesn't clear it up - your fetish with gerbil sex aside.

In a thread where the OP is claiming that we have experienced excellent job growth ever since Reagan (up until Obama was elected), it's relevant and on-topic to point out that we have not experienced excellent (or even exceptional) job growth ever since Reagan.

What's not on topic are random attempts at dismissing those facts by responding to claims that weren't made and ideas that weren't stated.

Because you choose optics that make Reagan's record look less than the transformation Presidency that is was.

"less than the transformation"? JRK was using the metric of job creation. If the metric chose by JRK is job creation, it follows that the relevant metric for comparison would be...job creation.

Crazy, I know!

Chosen.
Not chose.
Were you brought up in a barn?

 

[8537]

1961...... 54,105 45,399

1979...... 89,932 73,864

1980...... 90,528 74,154

1990...... 109,487 91,072
Year Total Private sector

lets do the math
JOB CREATION
36 million 61-79 = 19 years = 1.89 million total on avg per year TOTAL
28.5 million 61-79 = 19 years = 1.5 million per year PRIVATE SECTOR

19 million 80-90 = 11 years = 1.73 million total on avg per year total
17 million 80-90 = 11 years = 1.55 million total on avg per year private sector

lets not forget that real job creation did not begin until 1984. The interest rate RR inherited in conjunction with the inflation problems we faced during those first 3 years held back job growth as you can see here
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

This is just information, not sure what 8537 is trying to prove here, dont really care
this is what matters today

2008...... 136,790 114,281
2009...... 130,807 108,252
2010...... 129,818 107,337

You prove, once again, that you don't understand the relevancy of rate, percentage change or the importance of the denominator. If you don't see "what I'm trying to prove" it's only because you don't understand basic math - or you are intentionally avoiding the truth.

 

[Jarhead]

1961...... 54,105 45,399

1979...... 89,932 73,864

1980...... 90,528 74,154

1990...... 109,487 91,072
Year Total Private sector

lets do the math
JOB CREATION
36 million 61-79 = 19 years = 1.89 million total on avg per year TOTAL
28.5 million 61-79 = 19 years = 1.5 million per year PRIVATE SECTOR

19 million 80-90 = 11 years = 1.73 million total on avg per year total
17 million 80-90 = 11 years = 1.55 million total on avg per year private sector

lets not forget that real job creation did not begin until 1984. The interest rate RR inherited in conjunction with the inflation problems we faced during those first 3 years held back job growth as you can see here
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

This is just information, not sure what 8537 is trying to prove here, dont really care
this is what matters today

2008...... 136,790 114,281
2009...... 130,807 108,252
2010...... 129,818 107,337

You prove, once again, that you don't understand the relevancy of rate, percentage change or the importance of the denominator. If you don't see "what I'm trying to prove" it's only because you don't understand basic math - or you are intentionally avoiding the truth.

Proved...

Not prove.

 

[8537]

1961...... 54,105 45,399

1979...... 89,932 73,864

1980...... 90,528 74,154

1990...... 109,487 91,072
Year Total Private sector

lets do the math
JOB CREATION
36 million 61-79 = 19 years = 1.89 million total on avg per year TOTAL
28.5 million 61-79 = 19 years = 1.5 million per year PRIVATE SECTOR

19 million 80-90 = 11 years = 1.73 million total on avg per year total
17 million 80-90 = 11 years = 1.55 million total on avg per year private sector

lets not forget that real job creation did not begin until 1984. The interest rate RR inherited in conjunction with the inflation problems we faced during those first 3 years held back job growth as you can see here
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

This is just information, not sure what 8537 is trying to prove here, dont really care
this is what matters today

2008...... 136,790 114,281
2009...... 130,807 108,252
2010...... 129,818 107,337

You prove, once again, that you don't understand the relevancy of rate, percentage change or the importance of the denominator. If you don't see "what I'm trying to prove" it's only because you don't understand basic math - or you are intentionally avoiding the truth.

Proved...

Not prove.

His post proved it. He is currently (with his post) proving it. He proves it. You prove.

Or, it's quite possible that you proved me wrong But you can't prove it. You lack proof.

 

[Jarhead]

You prove, once again, that you don't understand the relevancy of rate, percentage change or the importance of the denominator. If you don't see "what I'm trying to prove" it's only because you don't understand basic math - or you are intentionally avoiding the truth.

Proved...

Not prove.

His post proved it. He is currently (with his post) proving it. He proves it. You prove.

Or, it's quite possible that you proved me wrong But you can't prove it. You lack proof.

OK....I call your bluff...

Prove it.

 

[8537]

Proved...

Not prove.

His post proved it. He is currently (with his post) proving it. He proves it. You prove.

Or, it's quite possible that you proved me wrong But you can't prove it. You lack proof.

OK....I call your bluff...

Prove it.

The proof is in the bottom of the Dogfish Head IPA I'll be drinking in about two hours.

Have a great weekend Jarhead and everyone else.

 

[Jarhead]

His post proved it. He is currently (with his post) proving it. He proves it. You prove.

Or, it's quite possible that you proved me wrong But you can't prove it. You lack proof.

OK....I call your bluff...

Prove it.

The proof is in the bottom of the Dogfish Head IPA I'll be drinking in about two hours.

Have a great weekend Jarhead and everyone else.

you too bro.

 

[Mustang]

Apparently, Rick Perry wants voters to believe that he can create 1.2 million jobs if he's elected. Thankfully, this thread proves that conservatives won't believe it and will reject his contention and his plan.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Capital gains are a gain that requires no help from the public sector. simply put for me to purchase a stock or an option only takes my computer, My Sprint account, My TD Ameritrade account and some cash
Why should I be taxed the same for that (or for that matter any)? don't you understand what the difference is from utilizing public domain to create wealth and using all private domain to create wealth?
Its my money I am putting at risk, Not the tax payers

Its your money you put at risk if you open a car wash, too, but your profits will get taxed as ordinary income, not capital gains. You also have to actually work to keep the carwash running, rather than just sitting back waiting for the stock market to do its thing. A capital gain is one earned through market fortune - earned income is something people actually have to work for. How does it makes sense to tax the latter higher than the former?

And as far as the 9-9-9 goes vs fair tax?
Fair tax is my preference, but I think 9-9-9 has a better chance of passing. The tax system we have in place is 100% the problem

Why not 1-1-1? Or 0-0-0? 0-0-0- is my preferred level of taxation.

 

[JRK]

No, that doesn't clear it up - your fetish with gerbil sex aside.

In a thread where the OP is claiming that we have experienced excellent job growth ever since Reagan (up until Obama was elected), it's relevant and on-topic to point out that we have not experienced excellent (or even exceptional) job growth ever since Reagan.

What's not on topic are random attempts at dismissing those facts by responding to claims that weren't made and ideas that weren't stated.

Because you choose optics that make Reagan's record look less than the transformation Presidency that is was.

"less than the transformation"? JRK was using the metric of job creation. If the metric chose by JRK is job creation, it follows that the relevant metric for comparison would be...job creation.

Crazy, I know!

Whats crazy is the jobs that are govt jobs are not ones that were created. Wealth that has been provided by the tax payer created those jobs, most needed, but most that do nothing to create anything other than less welath for those who pay those taxes
The only crazy thing here is the state of denial as well as the constant effort by some here to ignore the information or to treat it as 8537 does

 

[JRK]

You prove, once again, that you don't understand the relevancy of rate, percentage change or the importance of the denominator. If you don't see "what I'm trying to prove" it's only because you don't understand basic math - or you are intentionally avoiding the truth.

Proved...

Not prove.

His post proved it. He is currently (with his post) proving it. He proves it. You prove.

Or, it's quite possible that you proved me wrong But you can't prove it. You lack proof.

My intent was not "prove" anything, its just information
chill out

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the government can't create jobs, how come every member of Congress left right and center throws a fit any time there's a chance that the defense industry in his or her district might face a cutback in defense spending?