Why is it the left thinks the gop promised jobs? Further more

[Uncensored2008]

Are you people stupid or what? The right was all about keeping as much money in the hands of the rich as they could because as they said themselves, that would allow them to create jobs that were needed. But over the last 10 years the tax cuts to the rich have not created any jobs that wouldn't have been created and they can't show you even one.

Are you mentally retarded?

I mean, have you been diagnosed by a physician as such?

 

[Avorysuds]

Why did you say the gov cant create jobs and then in the very next sentance say they did?

If it's explained to you one more time then you alone will disprove evolution by proving you only get dumber as each day progresses.

How many times can you ask the same questions when literally the answers are spammed at you.

Take WI, TM can you even re-type the words that "Walkers Bill only allows people to opt out of the Union, it on no way attacks or destroys the Union?"

What's the point, really? You will just ask the same question as if when you started reading the answer given to you, your eyes then glassed over and your brain rebooted so you could start fresh as if you learned nothing along the way.

Many people have earned nick names or have achieved statues both good and bad… You TM are known outright as the stupidest person on these boards, do you even wonder for a second why?

GL not reading any answers that Rachel Maddow does not give you. Because we all know how much you hate people that watch opinion-talk news…

 

[JRK]

What the banking industry did to the mortgages with wall street along with the people borrowing money to the amount they could never pay-back
both leveraged them selves beyond belief
the lendee and the lender
we had it perfect, or as close as we could get it and the greedy bastards ruined it

Let me see if I can dig through this ramble;

"What the banking industry did to the mortgages "

Okay, what DID the banking industry do to mortgages? Do you know?

What they did was create "bundled securities" from groups of mortgages and sold them. So we have real property which is encumbered by a mortgage leaving no clear title. Both the mortgage holder and the buyer have some equity in the property. So the bank could only sell their interest in the property, not the property itself, which is a vital distinction. Further, the bundled equity packages were first consolidated and divided. If one group had 10,000 mortgages, equitized them and sold shares to 100,000 different party - who holds title on anything?

What we have established here is fraud, but how do you claim it to be "greed?" Perhaps greed drove the banks to commit fraud, but need is as much a motivator as greed in that regard, and we don't condemn others for need.

And those who bought houses, were they "greedy bastards" or just "needy bastards?" Conventional wisdom was to buy more than one could afford since property values ALWAYS increase. Can we really blame them for over-leveraging?

Maybe the only ones who really should be blamed are Bush and Obama, for sticking their filthy hands into it all and shielding the banks from the consequences of their actions, at the expense of the public.

I am unsure why we blame either, there was nothing they could have done after glass steagall, unless you are referring to Tarp
I hated it, but I also do not know what else they was suppose to do

 

[JRK]

Are you people stupid or what? The right was all about keeping as much money in the hands of the rich as they could because as they said themselves, that would allow them to create jobs that were needed. But over the last 10 years the tax cuts to the rich have not created any jobs that wouldn't have been created and they can't show you even one.

Are you mentally retarded?

I mean, have you been diagnosed by a physician as such?

I am un sure how better job those tax rates could have done
from the heritage on deficits as well as lower taxes
Critics of President Reagan's budget deficits should answer one simple question: Would you trade the collapse of communism, your smaller tax burden, some of your income -- and possibly your job -- in exchange for eliminating that $2.1 trillion in added debt?

Coverage of President Reagan's legacy has been generally fair, with one exception. Many say, "Reagan masterfully won the cold war … but those budget deficits." Or "America needed Reagan's infectious optimism … but those budget deficits."

Not all debt is bad. Mortgage debt and student loan debt are worthy investments. No one criticizes President Franklin Roosevelt for the massive debt that financed World War II. Yet the commentators criticizing President Reagan for the $2.1 trillion in added debt (all numbers are in today's dollars) ignore how that debt won the Cold War, lowered the tax burden, and ignited the largest economic boom in American history.

Those who denounce the Reagan deficits should answer the following questions:

Would you bring back the Soviet empire? President Reagan spent $3 trillion on defense, well above the $2.2 trillion baseline. What did that extra $800 billion buy? The end of the Cold War -- saving, perhaps, a billion lives from nuclear extinction.

No less than former Soviet Union Foreign Minister Alexander Bessmertnykh has been quoted crediting President Reagan's defense buildup for the accelerated collapse of the Soviet Union. The fragile communist economy, already stretched thin by substantial defense spending, could not keep up with America's defense buildup. The possibility of American missile defense, and President Reagan's powerful rhetoric, further persuaded the Soviets they could not win the Cold War, and induced the reforms that culminated in the collapse of the Soviet empire -- without America firing a single shot. It was the best $800 billion investment America ever made.

Would you raise the top income-tax rate back to 70 percent? Commentators also blame the 1980s deficits on President Reagan's insistence on reducing taxes in 1981. Yet President Reagan inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression. Excessively high tax rates were discouraging work and investment and therefore damaging the economy while raising little revenue. President Reagan removed barriers to entrepreneurship by reducing tax rates, cutting red tape, and stabilizing the economy, thereby encouraging risk takers. The centerpiece of this policy was a radical series of across-the-board tax cuts that lowered the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 50 percent, and eventually to 28 percent. (It stands at 35 percent today.)

This tax relief unleashed a 20-year surge of entrepreneurship, as the U.S. economy tripled in size. The lasting impact of these policies can be seen in successive presidents, who ratified Reaganomics by refusing to even consider raising taxes back to their 1970s levels. Thus, America continues to benefit from lower tax rates.

Would you trade 2.8 million jobs? Before the Reagan tax relief, the unemployment rate averaged 7.7 percent. Since the tax cuts, it has averaged 5.8 percent -- a difference that translates into 2.8 million jobs per year.

Would you trade $15,000 of your annual income? In the two decades before the Reagan tax relief, the average household's annual disposable income increased $13,000. In the 20 years following Reagan's tax cuts, these incomes surged $28,000.

Would you trade the stock market boom? In the two decades before the Reagan tax relief, the S&P 500 increased 120 percent. In the 20 years following Reagan's tax cuts, the market jumped 575 percent.

And don't forget the 12 percent inflation rate and 21 percent interest rates that Reaganomics slew.

The Reagan tax cuts replaced the deepest recession since the Great Depression with the largest 20-year boom in American history. Tax revenues actually grew faster in the low-tax 1980s than in the high-tax 1970s, and rising incomes meant the share of taxes paid by the wealthy actually increased throughout the 1980s. Millions of people who had entered the 1980s in the lowest income quintile surged to the highest income quintile by 1990.

All a coincidence? As Reagan would say, "there you go again."

Sure, President Reagan would have preferred to minimize the deficits by eliminating wasteful spending. However, the only way to persuade a Democratic Congress to accept a defense buildup and pro-growth tax cuts was to agree to their domestic spending demands.

Ironically, the 1980s budget deficits made the 1990s surpluses possible. The budget was balanced by surging tax revenues from a booming, low-tax economy and defense savings brought on by the end of the Cold War.

To paraphrase a classic President Reagan line: Are you better off today than you were in 1980?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Both Republicans & Democrats have promised Jobs in the past. Their latest folly is called "Stimulus." Optimistic estimates now put Stimulus created or ''Saved" Jobs costs at between $225k and $600k per job. The Taxpayer has been royally reamed again. So when Politicians promise jobs,i would be very skeptical. Their Stimulus did create some jobs but at what cost? Too much Government is always bad. I prefer Politicians not promise jobs. Most just aren't qualified to accomplish that. Time for a new way of thinking. The GOP doesn't need to promise jobs. Look where those promises have gotten us?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I am unsure why we blame either, there was nothing they could have done after glass steagall, unless you are referring to Tarp
I hated it, but I also do not know what else they was suppose to do

I am referring to TARP and later Porkulus.

If you go to Vegas and bet your house on "00" at the first Roulette table you come to, you may win and make lots of money, but if you lose, you lose your house.

That's the way it works in real life - but not with the mega banks, they bet on shaky and shady deals - lost, then Bush and Obama simply handed them trillions from the tax payers.

What they were supposed to do is let the free market work so that fraudulent concerns like Chase and Goldman Sachs were weeded out.

Hey, but it wasn't a total loss, after taxpayers bailing Chase out, they repaid the public by raising credit card interest rates to 35% APR and giving themselves million dollar bonuses.

Ain't fascism grand?

 

[8537]

Is this post a joke?

Are you entirely uneducated.

No, I'm not.

Can you find us one remaining genuine, Laffer-endorsed supply-sider?

You think Arthur Laffer is the force behind supply side economics?

For the past 40 years, yes.

Even the supply-siders now freely admit the supply-siders were wrong.

So you just make shit up?

How Krugmanesq of you.

So then point to a legit supply-sider (not one who pimps for CATO) that still believes in Supply-side economics. Not a hack, an actual credentialed economist.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So, finally, the Right here is agreeing with what I said a couple weeks ago, i.e.,

that the GOP had no, and has no, job creation plan...

...see,

I TOLD YOU SO.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

The Government did promise jobs and they have delivered. And that's the whole problem. Each job the Government claims they created or "Saved" with their Stimulus has cost $225k to $600k per job. Government shouldn't promise jobs. They're very likely the least qualified to accomplish that. What has this current President accomplished in the way of Business? He has very little knowledge of financial issues. This is just fact. Our Politicians need to get out of the business of promising jobs. Very few of them know what the hell they're talking about. Most are career Politicians who have done nothing in the real world. Neither the GOP or Democrats should promise jobs. They need to get our Government's spending house in order instead. They might be qualified to handle that. But creating Jobs is way out of their league.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, I'm not.

Reading and reciting KOS talking points doesn't rise to the level of "educated."

For the past 40 years, yes.

What an idiotic claim

So then point to a legit supply-sider (not one who pimps for CATO) that still believes in Supply-side economics. Not a hack, an actual credentialed economist.

The fact is that legitimate economists have recognized the failings of Keynesian theory.

Then you follow by rejecting Cato, the preeminent voice in serious economics.

I have nothing against Laffer, but he stands among giants like Friedman, Von Mises, Rothbard; one who doesn't know "Say's Law" doesn't know fundamental economics. Jean Baptiste Say defined supply side economic theory.

The fact is that there isn't a legitimate economist who promotes Keynesian ideals, Krugman isn't legitimate - he is a partisan hack, not an economist.

 

[Avorysuds]

So, finally, the Right here is agreeing with what I said a couple weeks ago, i.e.,

that the GOP had no, and has no, job creation plan...

...see,

I TOLD YOU SO.

Yikes... do you need to get spamed like TM before you hear anything other than your own voice?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So, finally, the Right here is agreeing with what I said a couple weeks ago, i.e.,

that the GOP had no, and has no, job creation plan...

...see,

I TOLD YOU SO.

Yikes... do you need to get spamed like TM before you hear anything other than your own voice?

I was right. You were the one who confirmed it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So, finally, the Right here is agreeing with what I said a couple weeks ago, i.e.,

that the GOP had no, and has no, job creation plan...

...see,

I TOLD YOU SO.

Yikes... do you need to get spamed like TM before you hear anything other than your own voice?

Oh, yeah, I was wrong.

It was 3 weeks ago:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3288557-post104.html

 

[8537]

No, I'm not.

Reading and reciting KOS talking points doesn't rise to the level of "educated."

Nor is that where I got my education.

For the past 40 years, yes.

What an idiotic claim

Who do you believe is the ideologocial leader of the supply-side movement over the past 40 years?

So then point to a legit supply-sider (not one who pimps for CATO) that still believes in Supply-side economics. Not a hack, an actual credentialed economist.

The fact is that legitimate economists have recognized the failings of Keynesian theory.

Then you follow by rejecting Cato, the preeminent voice in serious economics.

I have nothing against Laffer, but he stands among giants like Friedman, Von Mises, Rothbard; one who doesn't know "Say's Law" doesn't know fundamental economics. Jean Baptiste Say defined supply side economic theory.

The fact is that there isn't a legitimate economist who promotes Keynesian ideals, Krugman isn't legitimate - he is a partisan hack, not an economist.

Friedman, Von Mises and Rothbard are not supply-siders. They are monetarist, traditional Austrian and Anarcho-Austrian respectively.

Jean Baptiste Say did not define supply side theory - he simply demonstrated the now-accepted relation between production, consumption and incomes. In fact, one could just as easily argue that Say was a Demand-sider before Demand-side economics existed.

I'm not sure who you claim "Doesn't know Say's Law", but that's not me. I suspect, in fact, it's you. Too much rightwing radio is no place to learn economics.

And when you dismiss any economist who supports Keynesians beliefs as illegitimate, you expose yourself as the partisan hack you are.

Oh, and CATO is not the "preeminent voice in economics". They are the preeminent pushers of simpleton economic policy dressed up as academia. For the preeminent voices one would turn to academics and academic journals from economists of all stripes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's Republican Ron Johnson (Wisconsin) promising to create jobs by cutting government spending.

HE ran on creating jobs, AND cutting spending, by comically connecting one to the other.

Ron Johnson: We need to balance budget and create jobs

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Government does create jobs. But that's a big problem. Look at their Stimulus job costs. $225k to $600k per job created? Yea Government should probably stop promising jobs. They're the least likely to understand how to do that. How many of them have run their own businesses? Not many. Let the Private Sector handle it.

 

[Avatar4321]

TM, he is saying that a gov't job, such as an $80,000 a year "analyst" who does little more than sit in a room and sip coffee, is taking money from the private sector.

Aside from military, police, fire, there is little more the gov't absolutely MUST do.

Government doesnt HAVE to do anything for fire. That's why most government bodies have volunteer fire fighters.

 

[Political Junky]

Where are all the jobs the Republicans promised ?


The Republican and Teabaggers made a lot of promises in the 2010 elections. Now that they have been elected it seems they have forgotten most of them. I feel it is my job as a "True Blue All American" to remind them of said promises and hold their feet to the fire.

Here are a few of the promises the Republicans made:

-To put America back to work
-To eliminate Welfare
-To eliminate Social Security
-To eliminate Medicare
-To eliminate Medicaid
-To win the war in Afghanistan

What have the Republicans actually done since they were elected ?

1. Insured the Rich would get Tax Cuts
2. Tried to repeal medical care for poor children

If they aren't keeping the promises they made in the 2010 election, should we believe anything they tell us in 2012 ? Where are the jobs ?

 

[kaz]

Where are all the jobs the Republicans promised ?


The Republican and Teabaggers made a lot of promises in the 2010 elections. Now that they have been elected it seems they have forgotten most of them. I feel it is my job as a "True Blue All American" to remind them of said promises and hold their feet to the fire.

Here are a few of the promises the Republicans made:

-To put America back to work
-To eliminate Welfare
-To eliminate Social Security
-To eliminate Medicare
-To eliminate Medicaid
-To win the war in Afghanistan

What have the Republicans actually done since they were elected ?

1. Insured the Rich would get Tax Cuts
2. Tried to repeal medical care for poor children

If they aren't keeping the promises they made in the 2010 election, should we believe anything they tell us in 2012 ? Where are the jobs ?

There you go again...

 

[HUGGY]

As a true conservative we believe that the creation of jobs comes from lower taxes as well as less regulation in areas we can without turning the wolves of greed loose (see glass/steagall

As I recall the promise of 2010 mid terms was simple
stop the bleeding in the form of printed money as well as de funding/re-calling Obama care. I see there has been some other areas they have went after that were not promised

Jobs are not created by the Govt doing anything, the less they do to the the private sector the more jobs the private sector will create. Every job the Govt creates takes more wealth from the private sector
Legacy cost of federal employees are an item that has seen its day, this is used just for an example

Jobs come from sales, order increases and market force demand to increase production. Modest tax fluctuations have almost nothing to do with it.