death of the Democratic Party

LadyJazzer wrote: If you aren't willing to give any credit to Clinton for "creating" them, then you don't get to blame Obama for NOT "creating them."

The numbers are from the Wall Street Journal's own research. I'm still waiting for an answer:

Clinton created 23.1 Million in 8 years...and that was with the PRE-Bush tax-rate levels... So, Bush could only create 8 million in 8 years, after giving all those "job-creators" those tax-breaks?... That's funny, I thought people who got all that extra money from tax-breaks were supposed to take their capital and labor and create jobs, too... What happened?

Economics and math is totally lost on you! Bush inherited Clinton's recession which Bush's tax cuts made the shallowest in history. He inherited the World Com and Enron mess which he had to clean up which was a huge hit to the economy which Clinton ignored. He inherited Osama that was let go 4 times by Clinton which spearheaded 9/11 which was a $1 trillion dollar hit to the economy and cost millions of jobs. He inherited the housing bubble bust which was started under Clinton. You really have got to take your blinders off someday and quit spewing the same numbers over and over which make no sense. It makes you look really ignorant and uneducated. Keep saying 23.1 million like a broken robot, it gives me a good laugh each time you say it!

Like I said, the only thing Clinton created was the housing deregulation which is destroying this economy today and a stained dress and a nasty tasting cigar!

LadyJazzer wrote: Yep... That's part of my point... They either have to give Clinton credit for the 23.1 million jobs created; or they have to stop blaming Obama for the jobs he hasn't been able to create with the legacy he inherited... You can't have it both ways...

:rofl rofllol Again you are asking to prove a negative which you can't do! And one thing we can prove is that he has raised our deficit $4 trillion dollars with nothing to show for it. Bush wasn't handed $4 trillion after Clinton's recession and even with the Enron scandals and 9/11 and two wars, he still turned the economy around and created millions of jobs, until the housing bust. But Obama has lost 2.5 million jobs even WITH $Trillions handed to him! He couldn't figure out how to create jobs with a fully running factory and a line of workers standing outside looking for work!

LadyJazzer wrote: If you aren't willing to give any credit to Clinton for "creating" them, then you don't get to blame Obama for NOT "creating them."

The numbers are from the Wall Street Journal's own research. I'm still waiting for an answer:

Clinton created 23.1 Million in 8 years...and that was with the PRE-Bush tax-rate levels... So, Bush could only create 8 million in 8 years, after giving all those "job-creators" those tax-breaks?... That's funny, I thought people who got all that extra money from tax-breaks were supposed to take their capital and labor and create jobs, too... What happened?

NEWSFLASH!! Government can not create jobs, presidents can not create jobs (R or D), jobs are created by PRIVATE individuals PERIOD. I've never said once that Bush or any president has created a single job unless it's some government job that does not create revenue, they only deplete it.

It's government policies that effect how many jobs the private sector is willing to create, either through regulation, good or bad bills, and taxation. Government is not the main factor, but it is a very large one. To say that any president has ever "created" a job, is to completely discount the origin of job creation....it's people who want a better life for themselves and it's the risks they alone take. If government increases that risk by raising the cost of doing business, you won't see a mad rush to expand and hire new employees.

Still ducking the question....

If the people who got all that extra money from tax-breaks were supposed to take their capital and labor and create jobs, too... What happened? So, according to your theory, for 8 years Bush's tax-cuts put all that extra money in their pockets... Where are the jobs?

Hey LJ, do you really believe that every president has the same blank slate to build from when they step into office? Did Clinton create the dotcom bubble? Did Bush create 9/11 or the financial meltdown? You can't compare presidents in a vaccum. Sometimes presidents can "help" make a bad situation better, and sometimes they can make a bad situation worse. Which has Obama done?

I remember when the economy was in the crapper under Carter and then it jumped back strong under Reagan, yet liberals only have bad things to say about Reagan and are dead silent about Carter. I don't see many liberals cheering for Obama's great ideas right now, they only scream about what Republicans want or don't want. You can't have it both ways....either a president can create jobs or he can't. So if he can, why is he not doing it?

As for your question, no, I don't give any president credit for creating jobs, but I will give them credit for getting the f#@k out of the way so we the people can. And no matter how much money someone has in their pocket, if they are smart, they will look at the future of their industry and the future of government policies before they decide to hire people in order to make more future income.

LadyJazzer wrote: If cutting taxes created jobs, then where are all the jobs that should have been created in the 10 years since the Bush tax-cuts went into effect? It was a lie then, and it's a lie now.

Bush only created 8million in 8 years... Clinton created 23.1 Million in 8 years...and that was with the PRE-Bush tax-rate levels...

So, where are the jobs?

Those tax rate reductions led to more money in the treasury despite the lower rates. The final year of complete Republican control the deficit was what, under $200 Billion? Why then, since Democrats gained control of Congress, have they been unable to hold the deficit under $500 Billion with the same tax structure? The answer of course is that Democrats can outspend Republicans with one arm tied behind their backs, and pride themselves on being able to do so. There is still more revenue coming into the treasury than during the Bush years, the problem is that the Democrats have made that big spending Republican Congress look like misers instead of extravagant spenders. We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

Reagan's average expenditures during his 8 years in the Oval office was around 22% of GDP while receiving about 18.5% of GDP in revenue - a 3.5% difference. Obama makes him look like a miser - averaging 24.5% of GDP in spending on 16.1% of GDP, a difference of over 8%, in revenue thus far. Bush and Clinton actually averaged about the same percentage of GDP at roughly 20% on average over their tenure in office.

Let's look at the effects of raising taxes on consumption, shall we? Remember what happened to tobacco consumption when the tax was raised? Consumption went down, not up and the tax revenue realized from the tax increase fell far short of projections. What you are attempting to have us believe is that raising the taxes will increase something when the opposite has been proven to be the case over and over again - raising taxes discourages spending on the item subject to the tax increase. Take away a tax deduction and what you will get for your trouble is less utilization of whatever is now subjected to being taxed. Take away the exemption for the exploration of new energy and you will have fewer people searching for new sources - which impacts the amount known to be in reserve, which increases the cost of the current product, decreases exploration, lessens employment and will end up yielding far less in new revenue than projected by ending the deduction, just as every other tax increase has done. Oh sure, the tax deduction might be worth $400 Billion now, but take it away and I promise you that the tax revenue actually realized will be far less than that amount - history has proven this to be true.

It wasn't the Clinton tax increase of 1993 that led to the expansion of the economy from 1997 through 2000, it was the tax cuts under Clinton, that's right the tax cuts of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, that fueled the expansion of the economy that led to such an increase in tax revenues. Top bracket capital gains was cut from 28% to 20%, the lower bracket went from 15% to 10%. Taxes on the sale of a personal residence was eliminated for a gain of less than $500K. Parents were given a tax deduction for each child of $400, estate tax went from kicking in at $600k to $1 Million - more for farms. Expiring business tax credits were extended instead of allowed to expire. In other words, allowing people and businesses to keep more of the money they earned gave them more incentive to earn more money. It encouraged investment in businesses rather than discouraging it, which is precisely what we are seeing with the current president saying that tax increases have to be part of any deal - a discouraging of investment and a discouragement to earn more money.

The increase in the amount of profit one could realize from the sale of their personal residence was an incentive for many people to sell their current home and move into a newer, or bigger one. That expanded the construction trades as more new homes were built and remodeled. The $400 per child tax deduction expanded the amount of money a family had as disposable income. Capital gains tax reductions inspired more investments. Tax relief on retirement accounts led to more money being saved for retirement and larger employer contributions to the retirement accounts. The folks who think the tax hikes of 1993 resulted in the economy expansion are listening to talking points, not learning from history.

:rofl

I've just read through this thread.....and the only conclusion I can come to is that the Republican :Koolaid: has fermented. I hear only NO.....we can't do that....no....no....no....no......Bush good, Clinton & Obama bad.....no....no....no....we can't touch the corporations......we cant close loopholes....we can't increase revenue......we must cut spending, but it must hurt both the middle class and the poor to be acceptable to the Republicans.....no....no....no....we cannot touch a single corporation......that would be bad.....but take away grandmas SS or medicare.....that is good.

When did America become the country that throws the least of it's citizens to the wolves in order to protect the wealthiest citizens and it's corporations. I cannot believe that this is what our nation has come to....the conservatives/tea party are poisoning this country with their selfish greedy intentions. If America lets this happen we will be no better than a 3rd world country with a ruling class and a poverty class.....the latter toiling long hours to keep the ruling class in power, or begging in the street because the conservatives have deemed them not worthy.

Take a look at Syria.....Egypt.....Libya and see what happens when the little guys is denied the ability to have a chance at a better life....when all the money goes to the haves.......the people revolt. And it will happen here....mark my word.....the poor, the middle class.....the ethnic minorities......the gay community WILL rise up and take this country back.....this country that was founded as a haven for the poor, the immigrants.....those who practiced other religions, those who looked for a better life.

Go ahead conservatives, keep chipping away at peoples lives, at their ability to better themselves, keep taking more out of their paycheck and less from the wealthy, Take away their health care, their retirement, their security....keep favoring the corporations over families and children.....just keep up the me, me, me, mentality and you will have a very long hard fall......I just hope it happens before you totally destroy this country that I love so much

CriticalBill wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: If you aren't willing to give any credit to Clinton for "creating" them, then you don't get to blame Obama for NOT "creating them."

The numbers are from the Wall Street Journal's own research. I'm still waiting for an answer:

Clinton created 23.1 Million in 8 years...and that was with the PRE-Bush tax-rate levels... So, Bush could only create 8 million in 8 years, after giving all those "job-creators" those tax-breaks?... That's funny, I thought people who got all that extra money from tax-breaks were supposed to take their capital and labor and create jobs, too... What happened?

NEWSFLASH!! Government can not create jobs, presidents can not create jobs (R or D), jobs are created by PRIVATE individuals PERIOD. I've never said once that Bush or any president has created a single job unless it's some government job that does not create revenue, they only deplete it.

It's government policies that effect how many jobs the private sector is willing to create, either through regulation, good or bad bills, and taxation. Government is not the main factor, but it is a very large one. To say that any president has ever "created" a job, is to completely discount the origin of job creation....it's people who want a better life for themselves and it's the risks they alone take. If government increases that risk by raising the cost of doing business, you won't see a mad rush to expand and hire new employees.

That is one of the more ridiculous statements. I am sure that the 21 million or so government employees would certainly disagree with you, as I am sure they believe their employment would be considered "jobs".

Not to mention all of the projects, (highways, bridges, dams, water-mitigation, levees, forest management, ad nauseum) that employ millions...

But it is fun to watch them try, isn't it?

PrintSmith wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: If cutting taxes created jobs, then where are all the jobs that should have been created in the 10 years since the Bush tax-cuts went into effect? It was a lie then, and it's a lie now.

Bush only created 8million in 8 years... Clinton created 23.1 Million in 8 years...and that was with the PRE-Bush tax-rate levels...

So, where are the jobs?

Those tax rate reductions led to more money in the treasury despite the lower rates. The final year of complete Republican control the deficit was what, under $200 Billion? Why then, since Democrats gained control of Congress, have they been unable to hold the deficit under $500 Billion with the same tax structure? The answer of course is that Democrats can outspend Republicans with one arm tied behind their backs, and pride themselves on being able to do so. There is still more revenue coming into the treasury than during the Bush years, the problem is that the Democrats have made that big spending Republican Congress look like misers instead of extravagant spenders. We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

Reagan's average expenditures during his 8 years in the Oval office was around 22% of GDP while receiving about 18.5% of GDP in revenue - a 3.5% difference. Obama makes him look like a miser - averaging 24.5% of GDP in spending on 16.1% of GDP, a difference of over 8%, in revenue thus far. Bush and Clinton actually averaged about the same percentage of GDP at roughly 20% on average over their tenure in office.

Let's look at the effects of raising taxes on consumption, shall we? Remember what happened to tobacco consumption when the tax was raised? Consumption went down, not up and the tax revenue realized from the tax increase fell far short of projections. What you are attempting to have us believe is that raising the taxes will increase something when the opposite has been proven to be the case over and over again - raising taxes discourages spending on the item subject to the tax increase. Take away a tax deduction and what you will get for your trouble is less utilization of whatever is now subjected to being taxed. Take away the exemption for the exploration of new energy and you will have fewer people searching for new sources - which impacts the amount known to be in reserve, which increases the cost of the current product, decreases exploration, lessens employment and will end up yielding far less in new revenue than projected by ending the deduction, just as every other tax increase has done. Oh sure, the tax deduction might be worth $400 Billion now, but take it away and I promise you that the tax revenue actually realized will be far less than that amount - history has proven this to be true.

It wasn't the Clinton tax increase of 1993 that led to the expansion of the economy from 1997 through 2000, it was the tax cuts under Clinton, that's right the tax cuts of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, that fueled the expansion of the economy that led to such an increase in tax revenues. Top bracket capital gains was cut from 28% to 20%, the lower bracket went from 15% to 10%. Taxes on the sale of a personal residence was eliminated for a gain of less than $500K. Parents were given a tax deduction for each child of $400, estate tax went from kicking in at $600k to $1 Million - more for farms. Expiring business tax credits were extended instead of allowed to expire. In other words, allowing people and businesses to keep more of the money they earned gave them more incentive to earn more money. It encouraged investment in businesses rather than discouraging it, which is precisely what we are seeing with the current president saying that tax increases have to be part of any deal - a discouraging of investment and a discouragement to earn more money.

The increase in the amount of profit one could realize from the sale of their personal residence was an incentive for many people to sell their current home and move into a newer, or bigger one. That expanded the construction trades as more new homes were built and remodeled. The $400 per child tax deduction expanded the amount of money a family had as disposable income. Capital gains tax reductions inspired more investments. Tax relief on retirement accounts led to more money being saved for retirement and larger employer contributions to the retirement accounts. The folks who think the tax hikes of 1993 resulted in the economy expansion are listening to talking points, not learning from history.

It was the tax hikes on the 1.2% of the wealthiest americans that paid for those tax cuts. Never, I repeat, never have tax cuts had a positive impact on the economy UNLESS those tax cuts were offset by a decrease in spending or by an increase in taxes elsewhere. The Reagan tax cuts were an example of this, they were offset by cuts in spending, and even then, Reagan later RAISED taxes and still created one of the largest deficits in history at that time. It was the tax hikes that increased revenue sufficiently to wipe out the Reagan/Bush deficits, which led to a booming economy.

I do get a kick out of the revisionist history by Viking and others. I must get a subscription to their "history channel".