Why does the left think the government can create jobs?

[8537]

The best way to destroy any remaining credibility you might have it to link Reagan with a 21% Prime Rate. Please don't let your hate for Free Enterprise and love of Failed Keynesian cloud your judgement

I'm not the idiot who responded to a post about entire decades with references to one four-year president. That was you.

ERTA didn't pass until August, 1981.

Birds don't migrate until September. Of course, neither of those have a lick to do with the topic at hand - which is job creation. Job creation was faster during the 1960's and 1970's than it was during any decade during Reagan or since.

Now, you can continue to claim I hate free enterprise and I believe in failed economics, but you're the one staunchly defending tepid growth and level or declining real incomes.

1961...... 54,105 45,399 18,647 728 2,908 15,011
1962...... 55,659 46,655 19,203 709 2,997 15,498
1963...... 56,764 47,423 19,385 694 3,060 15,631
1964...... 58,391 48,680 19,733 697 3,148 15,888
1965...... 60,874 50,683 20,595 694 3,284 16,617
1966...... 64,020 53,110 21,740 690 3,371 17,680
1967...... 65,931 54,406 21,882 679 3,305 17,897
1968...... 68,023 56,050 22,292 671 3,410 18,211
1969...... 70,512 58,181 22,893 683 3,637 18,573

1970...... 71,006 58,318 22,179 677 3,654 17,848
1971...... 71,335 58,323 21,602 658 3,770 17,174
1972...... 73,798 60,333 22,299 672 3,957 17,669
1973...... 76,912 63,050 23,450 693 4,167 18,589
1974...... 78,389 64,086 23,364 755 4,095 18,514
1975...... 77,069 62,250 21,318 802 3,608 16,909
1976...... 79,502 64,501 22,025 832 3,662 17,531
1977...... 82,593 67,334 22,972 865 3,940 18,167
1978...... 86,826 71,014 24,156 902 4,322 18,932
1979...... 89,932 73,864 24,997 1,008 4,562 19,426

1980...... 90,528 74,154 24,263 1,077 4,454 18,733
1981...... 91,289 75,109 24,118 1,180 4,304 18,634
1982...... 89,677 73,695 22,550 1,163 4,024 17,363
1983...... 90,280 74,269 22,110 997 4,065 17,048
1984...... 94,530 78,371 23,435 1,014 4,501 17,920
1985...... 97,511 80,978 23,585 974 4,793 17,819
1986...... 99,474 82,636 23,318 829 4,937 17,552
1987...... 102,088 84,932 23,470 771 5,090 17,609
1988...... 105,345 87,806 23,909 770 5,233 17,906
1989...... 108,014 90,087 24,045 750 5,309 17,985

the first row is total
the second row is private
61-79 28.5 million, 1.5 million per year
80-89 16 million, 1.6 million per year with 80-83 having a negative job growth period

Rate of job creation, JRK. Rate. I can't be held accountable for your failure to understand rates.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Job creation during the 1970's was faster than during the 1980's. Ditto, the 1960s. I never mentioned Carter, nor did I mention the 21% prime rate under Reagan.

The best way to destroy any remaining credibility you might have it to link Reagan with a 21% Prime Rate. Please don't let your hate for Free Enterprise and love of Failed Keynesian cloud your judgement

I'm not the idiot who responded to a post about entire decades with references to one four-year president. That was you.

ERTA didn't pass until August, 1981.

Birds don't migrate until September. Of course, neither of those have a lick to do with the topic at hand - which is job creation. Job creation was faster during the 1960's and 1970's than it was during any decade during Reagan or since.

Now, you can continue to claim I hate free enterprise and I believe in failed economics, but you're the one staunchly defending tepid growth and level or declining real incomes.

..and only government tax and spending is the cure for "tepid growth and level or declining real incomes". Works like a charm every time just like.....er, well

 

[8537]

The best way to destroy any remaining credibility you might have it to link Reagan with a 21% Prime Rate. Please don't let your hate for Free Enterprise and love of Failed Keynesian cloud your judgement

I'm not the idiot who responded to a post about entire decades with references to one four-year president. That was you.

ERTA didn't pass until August, 1981.

Birds don't migrate until September. Of course, neither of those have a lick to do with the topic at hand - which is job creation. Job creation was faster during the 1960's and 1970's than it was during any decade during Reagan or since.

Now, you can continue to claim I hate free enterprise and I believe in failed economics, but you're the one staunchly defending tepid growth and level or declining real incomes.

..and only government tax and spending is the cure for "tepid growth and level or declining real incomes". Works like a charm every time just like.....er, well

It's really no use attempting to have a discussion with someone who doesn't address what you say, and instead replies to some imaginary friend making statements s/he wishes you said.

I never said that government tax and spending is the cure for tepid growth. You're just making shit up.

 

[JRK]

I'm not the idiot who responded to a post about entire decades with references to one four-year president. That was you.



Birds don't migrate until September. Of course, neither of those have a lick to do with the topic at hand - which is job creation. Job creation was faster during the 1960's and 1970's than it was during any decade during Reagan or since.

Now, you can continue to claim I hate free enterprise and I believe in failed economics, but you're the one staunchly defending tepid growth and level or declining real incomes.

1961...... 54,105 45,399 18,647 728 2,908 15,011
1962...... 55,659 46,655 19,203 709 2,997 15,498
1963...... 56,764 47,423 19,385 694 3,060 15,631
1964...... 58,391 48,680 19,733 697 3,148 15,888
1965...... 60,874 50,683 20,595 694 3,284 16,617
1966...... 64,020 53,110 21,740 690 3,371 17,680
1967...... 65,931 54,406 21,882 679 3,305 17,897
1968...... 68,023 56,050 22,292 671 3,410 18,211
1969...... 70,512 58,181 22,893 683 3,637 18,573

1970...... 71,006 58,318 22,179 677 3,654 17,848
1971...... 71,335 58,323 21,602 658 3,770 17,174
1972...... 73,798 60,333 22,299 672 3,957 17,669
1973...... 76,912 63,050 23,450 693 4,167 18,589
1974...... 78,389 64,086 23,364 755 4,095 18,514
1975...... 77,069 62,250 21,318 802 3,608 16,909
1976...... 79,502 64,501 22,025 832 3,662 17,531
1977...... 82,593 67,334 22,972 865 3,940 18,167
1978...... 86,826 71,014 24,156 902 4,322 18,932
1979...... 89,932 73,864 24,997 1,008 4,562 19,426

1980...... 90,528 74,154 24,263 1,077 4,454 18,733
1981...... 91,289 75,109 24,118 1,180 4,304 18,634
1982...... 89,677 73,695 22,550 1,163 4,024 17,363
1983...... 90,280 74,269 22,110 997 4,065 17,048
1984...... 94,530 78,371 23,435 1,014 4,501 17,920
1985...... 97,511 80,978 23,585 974 4,793 17,819
1986...... 99,474 82,636 23,318 829 4,937 17,552
1987...... 102,088 84,932 23,470 771 5,090 17,609
1988...... 105,345 87,806 23,909 770 5,233 17,906
1989...... 108,014 90,087 24,045 750 5,309 17,985

the first row is total
the second row is private
61-79 28.5 million, 1.5 million per year
80-89 16 million, 1.6 million per year with 80-83 having a negative job growth period

Rate of job creation, JRK. Rate. I can't be held accountable for your failure to understand rates.

Rate of private sector job creation
Let me interject

2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,557 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,818 107,337 17,755 705 5,526 11,524

what do we call this?

 

[8537]

1961...... 54,105 45,399 18,647 728 2,908 15,011
1962...... 55,659 46,655 19,203 709 2,997 15,498
1963...... 56,764 47,423 19,385 694 3,060 15,631
1964...... 58,391 48,680 19,733 697 3,148 15,888
1965...... 60,874 50,683 20,595 694 3,284 16,617
1966...... 64,020 53,110 21,740 690 3,371 17,680
1967...... 65,931 54,406 21,882 679 3,305 17,897
1968...... 68,023 56,050 22,292 671 3,410 18,211
1969...... 70,512 58,181 22,893 683 3,637 18,573

1970...... 71,006 58,318 22,179 677 3,654 17,848
1971...... 71,335 58,323 21,602 658 3,770 17,174
1972...... 73,798 60,333 22,299 672 3,957 17,669
1973...... 76,912 63,050 23,450 693 4,167 18,589
1974...... 78,389 64,086 23,364 755 4,095 18,514
1975...... 77,069 62,250 21,318 802 3,608 16,909
1976...... 79,502 64,501 22,025 832 3,662 17,531
1977...... 82,593 67,334 22,972 865 3,940 18,167
1978...... 86,826 71,014 24,156 902 4,322 18,932
1979...... 89,932 73,864 24,997 1,008 4,562 19,426

1980...... 90,528 74,154 24,263 1,077 4,454 18,733
1981...... 91,289 75,109 24,118 1,180 4,304 18,634
1982...... 89,677 73,695 22,550 1,163 4,024 17,363
1983...... 90,280 74,269 22,110 997 4,065 17,048
1984...... 94,530 78,371 23,435 1,014 4,501 17,920
1985...... 97,511 80,978 23,585 974 4,793 17,819
1986...... 99,474 82,636 23,318 829 4,937 17,552
1987...... 102,088 84,932 23,470 771 5,090 17,609
1988...... 105,345 87,806 23,909 770 5,233 17,906
1989...... 108,014 90,087 24,045 750 5,309 17,985

the first row is total
the second row is private
61-79 28.5 million, 1.5 million per year
80-89 16 million, 1.6 million per year with 80-83 having a negative job growth period

Rate of job creation, JRK. Rate. I can't be held accountable for your failure to understand rates.

Rate of private sector job creation
Let me interject

2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,557 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,818 107,337 17,755 705 5,526 11,524

what do we call this?

That's not a rate. I can't even begin to imagine the confusion you must be wracked with. The rate of job growth was higher during the 1960's and 1970's was higher than the 1980's, 1990's and 2000's. The 1960's and 1970's were before Reagan, to whom you credit the 40M jobs since 1981.

Now, where's that lie you accused me of?

 

[JRK]

Rate of job creation, JRK. Rate. I can't be held accountable for your failure to understand rates.

Rate of private sector job creation
Let me interject

2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,557 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,818 107,337 17,755 705 5,526 11,524

what do we call this?

That's not a rate. I can't even begin to imagine the confusion you must be wracked with. The rate of job growth was higher during the 1960's and 1970's was higher than the 1980's, 1990's and 2000's. The 1960's and 1970's were before Reagan, to whom you credit the 40M jobs since 1981.

Now, where's that lie you accused me of?

Lie, I accused you of lying?
now when did I do that?
confusion?
Dude its just information okay. Everything is not personal.
more private sector jobs were created on average per year from 80-90 than was from 61-79
That is just simple information that now is being put in a place to hide this information
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,557 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,818 107,337 17,755 705 5,526 11,524

Look 8537, I do not call people liars, i am above that and so is my pay grade. Jake takes care of that for all of us
I sit here waiting for my next assignment that looks now like it will be home or Canada sense Obama will not let us to extract oil like they can in Canada, but I sit here and study facts.
Its never personal. I believe that the way Obama has done things have failed, why any-one would think different is beyond me

 

[toxicmedia]

I should have been clearer. I didn't mean to imply that Obama's policies have been neutral or harmless, and they certainly haven't shown a quanifyable success....

.......I just don't think that his 800 billion dollar stimulus is the significant factor that lead to our current situation. Conservative media, Rush especially, is trying to saddle Obama with 90% of the blame, and THAT, is electioneering. I see too many people embracing everything conservative media says, and they are fixing an inflated amount of blame on Obama, for electioneering purposes.

Even if the 800 billion flew out the window.....we'd still be in crisis. Our lack of jobs has very little to do with the deficit and debt..

Policies
failed policies and 4 trillion dollars of printed money, who are we suppose to blame?
No-one has EVER said Obama did not walk into a mess
FIX IT, that's his job. What did you people think he was suppose to do?

The 4 trillion Obama's admin printed up has nothing to do with joblessness.

As far as Obama fixing our joblessness......I'm confused......isn't this thread titled "Why does the left think government can create jobs"?.....the answer is no....government can't create jobs, they never have. Reagan didn't. Clinton didn't.....Microsoft did, Apple did, General Dynamics did, Lockheed did, etc.....I thought we agreed on that.

The problem is.....neither the GOP nor the Democrats CAN admit that they have no real power to create jobs on the scale that private industry can during prosperous times. If they did admit that....they wouldn't win any elections.

The fact is....it's the semi skilled and unskilled American worker that is to blame, because they've gotten soft and are not competitive globally. It''s also a problem that people in America are placing less importance on education. Pretty soon all the Drs, programmers, and lawyers names will be Indian or Asian. With unedcuated people....how can we innovate? Bill Gates didn't have a degree...but the people he had that created Windows did!

I think I've said enough.

 

[8537]

Rate of private sector job creation
Let me interject

2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,557 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,818 107,337 17,755 705 5,526 11,524

what do we call this?

That's not a rate. I can't even begin to imagine the confusion you must be wracked with. The rate of job growth was higher during the 1960's and 1970's was higher than the 1980's, 1990's and 2000's. The 1960's and 1970's were before Reagan, to whom you credit the 40M jobs since 1981.

Now, where's that lie you accused me of?

Lie, I accused you of lying?
now when did I do that?

My gawd man. Try an ounce of intellectual consistency. Here, let's review:
"the rest of your thread has no basis on the in accurate information you supplied" <--That was you. I provided no inaccurate information. I wasn't lying.

confusion?
Dude its just information okay. Everything is not personal.

Then why do you run from the fact that the rate of job creation was higher in the 1960's and 1970's than in the decades during and following Reagan

more private sector jobs were created on average per year from 80-90 than was from 61-79

Rate, JRK, rate. Hint: Different denominators.

Look 8537, I do not call people liars, i am above that and so is my pay grade.

You claimed I provided inaccurate information, AKA I lied. I didn't.

 

[JRK]

Policies
failed policies and 4 trillion dollars of printed money, who are we suppose to blame?
No-one has EVER said Obama did not walk into a mess
FIX IT, that's his job. What did you people think he was suppose to do?

The 4 trillion Obama's admin printed up has nothing to do with joblessness.

As far as Obama fixing our joblessness......I'm confused......isn't this thread titled "Why does the left think government can create jobs"?.....the answer is no....government can't create jobs, they never have. Reagan didn't. Clinton didn't.....Microsoft did, Apple did, General Dynamics did, Lockheed did, etc.....I thought we agreed on that.

The problem is.....neither the GOP nor the Democrats CAN admit that they have no real power to create jobs on the scale that private industry can during prosperous times. If they did admit that....they wouldn't win any elections.

The fact is....it's the semi skilled and unskilled American worker that is to blame, because they've gotten soft and are not competitive globally. It''s also a problem that people in America are placing less importance on education. Pretty soon all the Drs, programmers, and lawyers names will be Indian or Asian. With unedcuated people....how can we innovate? Bill Gates didn't have a degree...but the people he had that created Windows did!

I think I've said enough.

you are correct
The tax payer creates everything the govt creates
jobs are lacking due to the housing sector has found no replacement. conditions set forth in the fossil fuel sector along with the threat of higher taxes has squashed any hope of job creation
Obama could set the right conditions for jobs the same GWB did in 01 and 03 along with the Fed
We were 2 million jobs in the hole in 03 from 9-11 and Clinton's recession, by 06 we were 6 million up
Tax policy and the Fed setting an almost 0 interest rate got the ball started, this is what Obama has missed
Its not the govt creating, it is the govt allowing, putting forth the Ts and Cs for expansion

 

[JRK]

That's not a rate. I can't even begin to imagine the confusion you must be wracked with. The rate of job growth was higher during the 1960's and 1970's was higher than the 1980's, 1990's and 2000's. The 1960's and 1970's were before Reagan, to whom you credit the 40M jobs since 1981.

Now, where's that lie you accused me of?

Lie, I accused you of lying?
now when did I do that?

My gawd man. Try an ounce of intellectual consistency. Here, let's review:
"the rest of your thread has no basis on the in accurate information you supplied" <--That was you. I provided no inaccurate information. I wasn't lying.


Then why do you run from the fact that the rate of job creation was higher in the 1960's and 1970's than in the decades during and following Reagan

more private sector jobs were created on average per year from 80-90 than was from 61-79

Rate, JRK, rate. Hint: Different denominators.

Look 8537, I do not call people liars, i am above that and so is my pay grade.

You claimed I provided inaccurate information, AKA I lied. I didn't.

You have got to be kidding me. It was not accurate information, y
Look 8537, your going back down the rabbits hole, I use to follow you there
no more
you want to talk like an adult, I am all in
"Different denominators"
later

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm not the idiot who responded to a post about entire decades with references to one four-year president. That was you.



Birds don't migrate until September. Of course, neither of those have a lick to do with the topic at hand - which is job creation. Job creation was faster during the 1960's and 1970's than it was during any decade during Reagan or since.

Now, you can continue to claim I hate free enterprise and I believe in failed economics, but you're the one staunchly defending tepid growth and level or declining real incomes.

..and only government tax and spending is the cure for "tepid growth and level or declining real incomes". Works like a charm every time just like.....er, well

It's really no use attempting to have a discussion with someone who doesn't address what you say, and instead replies to some imaginary friend making statements s/he wishes you said.

I never said that government tax and spending is the cure for tepid growth. You're just making shit up.

It would help it you checked the OP and Title once in a while before your Keynesian Defense Reflexes kick in.

You read the Title right? Are you not defending Government as job creator?

 

[JRK]

..and only government tax and spending is the cure for "tepid growth and level or declining real incomes". Works like a charm every time just like.....er, well

It's really no use attempting to have a discussion with someone who doesn't address what you say, and instead replies to some imaginary friend making statements s/he wishes you said.

I never said that government tax and spending is the cure for tepid growth. You're just making shit up.

It would help it you checked the OP and Title once in a while before your Keynesian Defense Reflexes kick in.

You read the Title right? Are you not defending Government as job creator?

The Liberal tries so hard to be an intellect you dont where to start with them. This is not rocket science
I am in full support of a central govt as our constitution mandated to be in place.
We pay taxes
the central govt takes those taxes
and where suppose to provide the services as spelled out in our constitution. Some-how the rainbow coalition, legacy cost and the NAACP along with god knows what else one could imagine has been added

Jobs creation can only be limited/or totally removed from the private sector by the US govt. no other service can when it comes to job creation from the US govt. provided

 

[idb]

It's really no use attempting to have a discussion with someone who doesn't address what you say, and instead replies to some imaginary friend making statements s/he wishes you said.

I never said that government tax and spending is the cure for tepid growth. You're just making shit up.

It would help it you checked the OP and Title once in a while before your Keynesian Defense Reflexes kick in.

You read the Title right? Are you not defending Government as job creator?

The Liberal tries so hard to be an intellect you dont where to start with them. This is not rocket science
I am in full support of a central govt as our constitution mandated to be in place.
We pay taxes
the central govt takes those taxes
and where suppose to provide the services as spelled out in our constitution. Some-how the rainbow coalition, legacy cost and the NAACP along with god knows what else one could imagine has been added

Jobs creation can only be limited/or totally removed from the private sector by the US govt. no other service can when it comes to job creation from the US govt. provided

I haven't trawled through the whole thread.
What should the government do now JRK?

 

[JRK]

It would help it you checked the OP and Title once in a while before your Keynesian Defense Reflexes kick in.

You read the Title right? Are you not defending Government as job creator?

The Liberal tries so hard to be an intellect you dont where to start with them. This is not rocket science
I am in full support of a central govt as our constitution mandated to be in place.
We pay taxes
the central govt takes those taxes
and where suppose to provide the services as spelled out in our constitution. Some-how the rainbow coalition, legacy cost and the NAACP along with god knows what else one could imagine has been added

Jobs creation can only be limited/or totally removed from the private sector by the US govt. no other service can when it comes to job creation from the US govt. provided

I haven't trawled through the whole thread.
What should the government do now JRK?

Completely overhaul the tax system we have in place
At the very least completely go to a VAT style tax system, no less than a 9-9-9 type of taxation
Re evaluate each sector as it is when you go thru the stock market. Find areas in which we can allow the free market to expand without burning down the house.
Mexico as well as Canada is making billions off of us extracting the very same oil sands we have in abundance here in this country and cannot touch,pipeline, nor process
Allow coal to be burned in those pants in which we spent billions installing scrubbers
Go back to the type of govt that was to be a central govt that governed as was the intent of our constitution.
Do away with Obama-care
I could write a book on the alternatives here. We have a problem, Obama -care is not going to fix it
Look real hard at the Ryan plan with SS and Medicare as a place to start
If you are on welfare, your healthy, your under 65
you get drug tested (I do 2-6 times each year) and pay for it
you pay taxes on that well-fare,
you pay a co pay on your medicare
you perform a community service

I can go on

 

[toxicmedia]

The 4 trillion Obama's admin printed up has nothing to do with joblessness.

As far as Obama fixing our joblessness......I'm confused......isn't this thread titled "Why does the left think government can create jobs"?.....the answer is no....government can't create jobs, they never have. Reagan didn't. Clinton didn't.....Microsoft did, Apple did, General Dynamics did, Lockheed did, etc.....I thought we agreed on that.

The problem is.....neither the GOP nor the Democrats CAN admit that they have no real power to create jobs on the scale that private industry can during prosperous times. If they did admit that....they wouldn't win any elections.

The fact is....it's the semi skilled and unskilled American worker that is to blame, because they've gotten soft and are not competitive globally. It''s also a problem that people in America are placing less importance on education. Pretty soon all the Drs, programmers, and lawyers names will be Indian or Asian. With unedcuated people....how can we innovate? Bill Gates didn't have a degree...but the people he had that created Windows did!

I think I've said enough.

you are correct
The tax payer creates everything the govt creates
jobs are lacking due to the housing sector has found no replacement. conditions set forth in the fossil fuel sector along with the threat of higher taxes has squashed any hope of job creation
Obama could set the right conditions for jobs the same GWB did in 01 and 03 along with the Fed
We were 2 million jobs in the hole in 03 from 9-11 and Clinton's recession, by 06 we were 6 million up
Tax policy and the Fed setting an almost 0 interest rate got the ball started, this is what Obama has missed
Its not the govt creating, it is the govt allowing, putting forth the Ts and Cs for expansion

The Bush admin and the Clinton admin faced very different conditions. I'm not sure I agree with everything here. But hey....at least we both care about America.

 

[JRK]

you are correct
The tax payer creates everything the govt creates
jobs are lacking due to the housing sector has found no replacement. conditions set forth in the fossil fuel sector along with the threat of higher taxes has squashed any hope of job creation
Obama could set the right conditions for jobs the same GWB did in 01 and 03 along with the Fed
We were 2 million jobs in the hole in 03 from 9-11 and Clinton's recession, by 06 we were 6 million up
Tax policy and the Fed setting an almost 0 interest rate got the ball started, this is what Obama has missed
Its not the govt creating, it is the govt allowing, putting forth the Ts and Cs for expansion

The Bush admin and the Clinton admin faced very different conditions. I'm not sure I agree with everything here. But hey....at least we both care about America.

Right you are.
whats your feeling on turning this mess around?

 

[auditor0007]

When the US Govt takes 1 trillion dollars of our wealth to "create a job" as Obama did, then all they have done is take 1 trillion dollars (really about 800 billion) of our wealth and re distributed it
It is wealth destruction is all it is

the private sector with the right conditions can create real jobs. How many jobs would that same 800 billion create in the private sector If the those who really pay taxes were allowed to keep that wealth?
What we purchase with that wealth would create work and we would get too keep the end product, instead of it becoming part of Obama's re-election campaign fund
That is real trickle down economics made simple. Allow the tax payer to keep more of his wealth, show him you can be trusted and watch him use it to grow the economy

That all sounds good and all, but the fact is that those wealthy people, business owners and corporations, are sitting on $2 trillion dollars, and they ain't creating a God Damn thing. When you keep spewing the same song over and over again, you would think that you could at least show us some positive results.

 

[JRK]

When the US Govt takes 1 trillion dollars of our wealth to "create a job" as Obama did, then all they have done is take 1 trillion dollars (really about 800 billion) of our wealth and re distributed it
It is wealth destruction is all it is

the private sector with the right conditions can create real jobs. How many jobs would that same 800 billion create in the private sector If the those who really pay taxes were allowed to keep that wealth?
What we purchase with that wealth would create work and we would get too keep the end product, instead of it becoming part of Obama's re-election campaign fund
That is real trickle down economics made simple. Allow the tax payer to keep more of his wealth, show him you can be trusted and watch him use it to grow the economy

That all sounds good and all, but the fact is that those wealthy people, business owners and corporations, are sitting on $2 trillion dollars, and they ain't creating a God Damn thing. When you keep spewing the same song over and over again, you would think that you could at least show us some positive results.

Until we get a leader in the white house who will stop talking to these people like there crooks, there going to keep sitting on it
you know what? I do not blame them
Its there money, they earned it and to hear Obama none of them earned it and you and I should be getting 40% of all of it
Why?
Why do I deserve monies that some one else earned?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When the US Govt takes 1 trillion dollars of our wealth to "create a job" as Obama did, then all they have done is take 1 trillion dollars (really about 800 billion) of our wealth and re distributed it
It is wealth destruction is all it is

the private sector with the right conditions can create real jobs. How many jobs would that same 800 billion create in the private sector If the those who really pay taxes were allowed to keep that wealth?
What we purchase with that wealth would create work and we would get too keep the end product, instead of it becoming part of Obama's re-election campaign fund
That is real trickle down economics made simple. Allow the tax payer to keep more of his wealth, show him you can be trusted and watch him use it to grow the economy

That all sounds good and all, but the fact is that those wealthy people, business owners and corporations, are sitting on $2 trillion dollars, and they ain't creating a God Damn thing. When you keep spewing the same song over and over again, you would think that you could at least show us some positive results.

Obama can piss that $2 Trillion away in 6 months and it will be gone!

 

[JRK]

When the US Govt takes 1 trillion dollars of our wealth to "create a job" as Obama did, then all they have done is take 1 trillion dollars (really about 800 billion) of our wealth and re distributed it
It is wealth destruction is all it is

the private sector with the right conditions can create real jobs. How many jobs would that same 800 billion create in the private sector If the those who really pay taxes were allowed to keep that wealth?
What we purchase with that wealth would create work and we would get too keep the end product, instead of it becoming part of Obama's re-election campaign fund
That is real trickle down economics made simple. Allow the tax payer to keep more of his wealth, show him you can be trusted and watch him use it to grow the economy

That all sounds good and all, but the fact is that those wealthy people, business owners and corporations, are sitting on $2 trillion dollars, and they ain't creating a God Damn thing. When you keep spewing the same song over and over again, you would think that you could at least show us some positive results.

Obama can piss that $2 Trillion away in 6 months and it will be gone!

Using the lords name in vain is the one sin that is so stupid, shows lack of character. Now with that said the reason those people are sitting on all that cash is there is no where to invest it to start with