To you very few remaining Maes supporters

Kinda like trickle down economics? It never gets far enough down to help anyone but the rich. Somewhere, there has to be a middle road, but neither the Dems or the Reps have figured it out yet.....and I doubt....actually know.....that what the Reps see as the way to our economic future is going to hurt us all, and this nation as a whole. But hey, we'll give the conservatives their chance to screw up big time and the pendulum will once again swing.

.....and so it goes.

Yep... Clinton created 23.1 million jobs in 8 years (with the tax-rates put in place by Ronald Reagan)....And Bush created 3 million in 8 years...with his "tax cuts." We were sure "doing alright"...

Funny thing, but the figures are still the figures--no matter how you like to spin them...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Bill_Clinton

http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishm ... mbers.html

http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary ... 15.article

blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-...ck-record-on-record/

By: The WSJ Staff:

The chart can be sorted by any of the following categories.

President Jobs created Jobs at end of term Jobs at start of term Payroll expansion Jobs created per year in office Population growth Percent change in population
George W. Bush 3.0 million 135.5 million 132.5 million 2.3% 375,000 22.0 million 7.7%
Bill Clinton 23.1 million 132.5 million 109.4 million 21.1% 2,900,000 25.2 million 8.9%
George H.W. Bush 2.5 million 109.4 million 106.9 million 2.3% 625,000 12.5 million 4.8%
Ronald Reagan 16.0 million 106.9 million 90.9 million 17.6% 2,000,000 17.3 million 7%

Ooooo... From that "liberal rag", the Wall Street Journal!

.....and then there is the personal reason for rejecting the conservatives......as one who is retired, and living on SS plus investments, the market has historically done better under Democrats than under republicans....look it up if ya don't believe me. By Bush's 2nd term we had largly pulled out of the market into cash. Under Obama....yep, investments are humming along.....but we're ready to hunker down again if Republicans get into office.

But here's Wall Street's strange little irony -- studies show the stock market performs better and tends to be less volatile when Democrats are in power.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/markets ... demsvreps/

So I have good reason to hope the republicans don't get to mess up my retirement income.

LadyJazzer wrote: Yep... Clinton created 23.1 million jobs in 8 years (with the tax-rates put in place by Ronald Reagan)....And Bush created 3 million in 8 years...with his "tax cuts." We were sure "doing alright"...

Funny thing, but the figures are still the figures--no matter how you like to spin them...

rofllol You just keep proving my point. The Republicans were in control of the spending and bills for most of clintons Presidency and they created 23 million jobs. And under Bush when the Republicans were in control of congress, they created over 8 million more, then the Dems took over congress in 2007 and we have since lost over 8 million jobs. The reason Bush's net jobs were only 3 million is that he had created over 8 million jobs until the Dems lost 5 million the last two years to give his Presidency a net of 3 million. More proof we need the Republicans in control of congress again. We can only hope that Obama is smart enough to sign what the Repubicans give him just like Clinton did.

Keep the stats rolling LJ that shows how good the Republicans did when they were in control! We appreciate it! :thumbsup:

archer wrote: .....and then there is the personal reason for rejecting the conservatives......as one who is retired, and living on SS plus investments, the market has historically done better under Democrats than under republicans....look it up if ya don't believe me. By Bush's 2nd term we had largly pulled out of the market into cash. Under Obama....yep, investments are humming along.....but we're ready to hunker down again if Republicans get into office.

But here's Wall Street's strange little irony -- studies show the stock market performs better and tends to be less volatile when Democrats are in power.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/markets ... demsvreps/

So I have good reason to hope the republicans don't get to mess up my retirement income.

Why do you guys keep looking at the President like he is the one who writes all the bills, debates, the spending, votes on it and passes it? Do you guys need politics 101 again? It is who is in control of congress that controls what happens in this country!!! :bash :bash When the Repubicans controlled congress, the market went to 14,000. Then the Dems were voted in control and all of their anti business policies took us down to 7000. They are even saying that a main reason the market is growing now is because it is looking almost assured that the Republicans are taking over at least the House again and will stop all the anti business policies.

If more taxpayers got to keep more of their money (meaning middle class taxpayers - the bulk of the populatioon) do you think some of them might invest that money in the markets or private business ownership?

Then with capital investment money more available do you agree that those businesses would create employment opportunities?

Wouldn't easing the government's burden on the small business owner (who employ half the current workforce and have accounted for 65% of the job growth in the last 17 years) allow him/her to expand and employ more people?

Trickle down is always framed by it's opponents as "give the money to the rich - they'll drink champaign with it and then trickle on the middle class". What if the money STARTS in the middle class? then they could help themselves, and employ others.

That's my idea of true fiscal conservatism. Note that I haven't mentioned any current or past administrations... I don't think any of them have had the slightest idea of what our economy really needs - it needs fresh air and light touch.

The Viking wrote: Keep the stats rolling LJ that shows how good the Republicans did when they were in control! We appreciate it! :thumbsup:

Doesn't it hurt your neck with all that spinning? :VeryScared:

Lessee... The Bush numbers say:

Jobs Created...Jobs at END-OF-TERM....Jobs at START-OF-TERM
..3.0 million........... 135.5 million.................. 132.5 million

So, you're saying that the jobs at the START-OF-TERM (132.5 million) were somehow increased exponentially, and that somehow the Dems managed to take it back down to the level at the END-OF-TERM (135.5 million) in just those two years that they had control in 2006-2007??? I want some of whatever you're on...

Was it also Bush's accomplishments that took the $230-Billion surplus that he started with and blew it in the first 6 years? (with control of both houses of Congress?)

Looking forward to the spin... rofllol rofllol

The Viking wrote:

archer wrote: .....and then there is the personal reason for rejecting the conservatives......as one who is retired, and living on SS plus investments, the market has historically done better under Democrats than under republicans....look it up if ya don't believe me. By Bush's 2nd term we had largly pulled out of the market into cash. Under Obama....yep, investments are humming along.....but we're ready to hunker down again if Republicans get into office.

But here's Wall Street's strange little irony -- studies show the stock market performs better and tends to be less volatile when Democrats are in power.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/markets ... demsvreps/

So I have good reason to hope the republicans don't get to mess up my retirement income.

Why do you guys keep looking at the President like he is the one who writes all the bills, debates, the spending, votes on it and passes it? Do you guys need politics 101 again? It is who is in control of congress that controls what happens in this country!!! :bash :bash When the Repubicans controlled congress, the market went to 14,000. Then the Dems were voted in control and all of their anti business policies took us down to 7000. They are even saying that a main reason the market is growing now is because it is looking almost assured that the Republicans are taking over at least the House again and will stop all the anti business policies.

So you are advocating that we keep a Democratic president if we have a Republican congress....good idea.

archer wrote:

The Viking wrote:

archer wrote: .....and then there is the personal reason for rejecting the conservatives......as one who is retired, and living on SS plus investments, the market has historically done better under Democrats than under republicans....look it up if ya don't believe me. By Bush's 2nd term we had largly pulled out of the market into cash. Under Obama....yep, investments are humming along.....but we're ready to hunker down again if Republicans get into office.

But here's Wall Street's strange little irony -- studies show the stock market performs better and tends to be less volatile when Democrats are in power.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/markets ... demsvreps/

So I have good reason to hope the republicans don't get to mess up my retirement income.

Why do you guys keep looking at the President like he is the one who writes all the bills, debates, the spending, votes on it and passes it? Do you guys need politics 101 again? It is who is in control of congress that controls what happens in this country!!! :bash :bash When the Repubicans controlled congress, the market went to 14,000. Then the Dems were voted in control and all of their anti business policies took us down to 7000. They are even saying that a main reason the market is growing now is because it is looking almost assured that the Republicans are taking over at least the House again and will stop all the anti business policies.

So you are advocating that we keep a Democratic president if we have a Republican congress....good idea.

I think checks and balances are good. But Obama is not a leader. So Republican Senate and Democratic President is 100% better than the Dems being in total control that is for sure!

I'm not unhappy when there are checks and balances in the gov't....I think that is healthy. My problem is what we are checking with.....I would rather the Republicans that are voted in be a little less extreme in their apparent ideologies....and I'm not talking about taxes, spending, or reducing the size of gov't. I fear some of the current crop of tea party Republicans are holding some pretty off the wall opinions about abortion, SS, medicare, education, infrastructure etc. I hope the more moderate Republicans can curtail their enthusiasm for taking down what has taken years to achieve, often over violent protests. But please.....don't mess with SS or medicare, it's what keeps many of my friends and relatives out of the proverbial poor house. For us, it's a nice addition to our income, and medicare alone is going to save us nearly $700/month compared to what I am paying for health insurance now just for me. It has been a struggle to pay that being retired. My husband retired at 65, I retired early for health reasons and a few other considerations....but the cost of medical care has bankrupted more than one couple in our circumstances.