{if the post is accurate our President should stop cklaiming he has prodcued jobs}

True. The only way that the government can produce jobs is by having OTHER PEOPLE pay their salaries. How else? LIBERALS seem to actually think that the government actually somehow pays AT NO COST TO ANYONE.

LIBERALS actually believe in SANTA CLAUS. LIBERALS think that there really is "free stuff" but the EVIL RICH won't let the government spend this.

It is baffling how any adult can think like this.....

Seems to me like we keep giving the job creators more money, and there are still no jobs.
If that's not proof that trickle-dowm/"supply-side" economics is faulty, I don't know what is.
And there's no amount of talking points that can dig you out of that hole.

OMG. Where do you get your info?. Bush was a two-term President and so was Bill Clinton and now Barack Obama. There is no such thing as a three term President. Didn't you know that?

actually there could be a 3 term president although Bush;s wasn't

{Bush was blamed for everything for the past 4 years. He is the only three term president since FDR. }

He is going into his fourth term....

Didn't you get what Paratus wrote? It was perfectly clear, and I commented on it. Read it again. Typical Leftist post - distort what was written.

The last President to serve more than 2 terms was FDR. Congress voted to hold all Presidents to no more than 2 terms.

Everyone knows that. It was sarcasm.

Little slow on the uptake.

and if the vice Pesident becomes President due to death of the President???

lol...i get it now...good one

I've got no problem with that

....so that person has served 3 terms.

Just tell me where the facts are wrong...

In his State of the Union, Obama claimed he created 6 millions jobs. And yet liberals say Fox News is a horrific liar.

define the start point for the calculation.

http://www.barackobama.com/jobsrecord/

Under Obama, the US *added* 6.111 million jobs since March 2010. HOWEVER, the US *lost* 4.976 million jobs between Obama taking office and March 2010 (but he didn't include that in his speech).

Let's look at the *net* job creation: 6.111 - 4.976 = 1.1 million jobs. So at *most* Obama created 1.1 million jobs. Claiming 6 million jobs is nothing more than yet another half-truth.

Now I'm with you.....good reply

So very true

"Clinton and Carter in 12 years = 28,000,000 jobs

Reagan, Bush and Bush in 20 years = 17,000,000 jobs"

If you're going to post some pretty radical statistics like that, you need to cite your source please. In any case, those number don't mean much. As we've been debating below, the president really has very little influence over job growth. There are millions of other variables beyond whether the president was a R or D.

Well and truly said!

Stoner has cherry picked data.

I will provide some other for you:

Productivity growth under Reagan, was 1.5% annually. This was lower than the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, but higher than after Reagan. Under Clinton’s first term, it was 0.3%, the worst since Hoover.

Here is some with the source:

The Joint Economic Committee, in April 2000 reported that Ronald Reagan’s policies resulted in the largest peacetime economic boom in American history and nearly 35 million more jobs. 92-month boom: November 1982 to July 1990, economy grew one-third.

More data. I really do not like to exchange posts with the person in question.

From 1981 through 1989, 17 million new jobs were created, or about 2 million per year. In the post-Reagan era, only 1.3 million per year.

The Republican controlled House won't allow Obama to pass anything that would create jobs.

Thanks

It would destroy jobs. I have written to my representative and have encouraged everyone I know to do the same - STOP OBUMMER!

Truth!

Oh look. A Fox News zombie.

Thanks

Never met a person who watches Fox News who doesn't have a room temperature IQ. They are stunningly ignorant.

Thats your stick cherry picked data. Just because you disagree doesn't mean it's not true.

invalid

The data are valid.

Politifac says that since the beginning of the Nixon administration, the Republicans were in office for 28 years and 23.9 million jobs were created while they were in the White House. Since the beginning of the Kennedy administration, the Democrats (including Obama) have been in power for 24 years, and 42.3 million jobs were created while they were in the White House.

Since Nixon, America has created an average of 853,000 jobs a year with a Republican in the White House.

Since Kennedy, America has created an average of 1,762,000 a year when a Democrat is in the White house.

Here is Truthful Politics numbers since F.D.R., sourcing the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

“Therefore, the average amount of private sector jobs created during Democratic Presidential terms is 1,463,220 and the average amount during Republican Presidential terms is 642,000.”

Here is the best I could do to skew the numbers for the Republicans.

The Minority Staff Office of the House Appropriations Committee says that since the beginning of Truman’s administration, until the end of Bush Jrs. first term, the Republicans had been in office for 32 years and the Democrats were in office for 28. (I’m trying to skew the numbers for Republicans so we will just forget about Bush Jrs second term).

The House Appropriations Committee says America created 38,688,000 jobs during the 32 years of Republican administrations, or an average of 1,209,000 jobs a year.

The House Appropriations Committee says America created 57,408,000 jobs during the 28 years of Democratic administrations, or an average of 2,050,286 jobs a year.

Still almost twice as many jobs when a Democrat is in office than a Republican.
For whatever reason, no matter how you slice it, America has greater job growth under Democratic Presidents.

I put up RATE, professor, didn't ya notice? That is because when the great Ronald Reagan first became the president, he inherited an incredible unemployment rate, left to him by a DEMOCRAT and severe economic problems - unemployment, high interest rates, inflation, and a MISERY INDEX.

Billary inherited the peace dividend that the venerable Ronald Reagan made possible. in fact, if one looks at THAT savings, that aloneaccounts for Billybob's surplus!

And go back to Coolidge, please. And don't count the jobs made from Democrat employment with their WARS, OK?

But I will tell you this: These numbers games are absurd anyway. I just put that out there as an example. For example, if one compares the Reagan record from when his policies actually started having their effects, from no earlier than late 1982, there emerges a completely different picture than the lying and deceitful Left-wingers present when they claim that this great president was responsible for the economy from January 1, 1981, BEFORE he even assumed office! Take a look, professor: You will see that your perfidious counterparts actually analyze the record from Jan 1, 1981!

SOURCE: The Joint Economic Committee, in April 2000 reported that Ronald Reagan’s policies resulted in the largest peacetime economic boom in American history and nearly 35 million more jobs. 92-month boom: November 1982 to July 1990, economy grew one-third.

1950 – 1973 economy averaged 3.6% growth
1973-1982, 1.6%
1983-1990, 3.5%

Under the venerable Ronald Reagan, unemployment fell faster than pre- or post. From 1981 through 1989, 17 million new jobs were created, or about 2 million per year. In the post-Reagan era, only 1.3 million per year. In 1981, unemployment was 7.6%. In the 1981-1982 recession, it peaked at 9.7%. It then fell continuously, going to 5.5% when Reagan left office. Before Reagan it tended upward, with Reagan it went down.

Productivity rate was higher. From mid-1960s, there was a downward trend in US productivity growth. Under Reagan, it was 1.5% annually. This was lower than the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, but higher than after Reagan. Under Clinton’s first term, it was 0.3%, the worst since Hoover.

The only one that was worse was the savings rate.

SOURCES:
Bureau of the Census
Economic Report to the President, 1996
Historical Tables, Budget of the U.S. Government

Okay.

denial

invalid

appears that you never really were overseas

not true

You lied. I never claimed Reagan did so well, simply because of how much he improved the mess Carter left. Reagan went far beyond that.

You did not put up the reference because you intended to deliberatly lie about what I wrote. Your game is clear.

denial

denial

valid data from multiple sources

You never did answer the question about 日本人の友達　ー　どうして？

sources are valid of course

Lobbyists and racism play into the equation.

Tell that to the thousands of people who work for GM and Chrysler and all the parts plants around the country that were saved by the stimulus plan Obama used.

{Which is exactly why the stimulus bills were a massive waste of money.}

Yes! If that money were simply passed on to the people it would have been better. That would have made things worse, of course - taking money with taxes and redistributing it, but at least it would have lessened waste, stopped the creation of stupid "made up" fake government jobs and bureaucracies, and put the power of the $ in the hands of the citizens instead of the GOVERNMENT.

No, go back in time and see the reason that they failed in the first place. Government over-regulation. Then, they lost the competitive edge, and I believe it started with the catylitic (spelling?) converters. Then, the Japanese and Germans got the edge on the market.

Notice that unions drove up costs. Estimates are that union contracts added over $1,500 to the purchase of cars.

"Tell that to the thousands of people who work for GM and Chrysler and all the parts plants around the country that were saved by the stimulus plan Obama used."

Capitalism is social Darwinism in action. Survival of the fittest. The fact those companies would have gone bankrupt without a government bailout is proof their financial policies were weak. They should have had huge cash reserves in the bank to weather hard times. Apple is a good example of that. A corporation that can only survive during good economic times, and not the bad, deserves to fail.

Unfortunately, it seemed to be just too much of a blow to see our auto industry permanently collapse.

{Capitalism is social Darwinism in action. Survival of the fittest.}

I disagree in the practical and realistic sense. Any reasonable person - including die-hard free marketers like Friedman and Hayek - agree that we should have social safety nets and laws to protect consumers. If we do not, the vultures could ravage the rest. All reasonable free market advocates know that their own free market operates best if the society has some sense of protecting its weakest.

But yes, those companies should have been allowed to go bust. I prefer Shumpeter's "creative destruction" to thinking of a society as the "survival of the fittest" in the SPENCERIAN Darwin mold.

That's historically inaccurate...it's also a favorite, but out dated, GOP talking point.
You must really like to cherry pick your history and math.

"That's historically inaccurate...it's also a favorite, but out dated, GOP talking point. "

False. I make my own observations---I don't rely on GOP talking points. How about the Bureau of Labor Statistics? Accordingly, unemployment when Obama took office (January 2009) was 7.6%; it is currently 7.9% (January 2013). So it's about the same, but if anything, unemployment is still a net 0.3% higher than than when Obama took office.

Granted, the *derivative* of unemployment is currently positive as opposed to negative in 2009. The economy is improving now. But I do not credit the stimulus bills for this at all. The US economy is so large that an $878 billion stimulus package is insignificant. It accomplished nothing worth spending that much money for and was merely political to make it *look* like our government was doing *something*.

Got some information in which you may be interested. Until recently the UAW made an average of $70 an hour. It dropped because they had no choice. But before this, in 2007, it was estimated that their high union wages raised the cost of each car at GM $1,200.

The unions were a significant factor in the decline of the autos. Taxpayers lost $23 BILLION from them, according to the Treasury Department.

These LEFT-WINGERS claim that I lie. I will NEVER put up sources for them, of course. But I naturally would for you.

From the Treasury:
"We estimate that the Administration redistributed $26.5 billion more to the UAW than it would have received had it been treated as it usually would in bankruptcy proceedings. Taxpayers lost between $20 billion and $23 billion on the auto programs. Thus, the entire loss to the taxpayers from the auto bailout comes from the funds diverted to the UAW."

SOURCE:
U.S. Department of the Treasury, “Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP): Monthly Report to Congress–April 2012

More about auto unions.... In 2006, union BUMS of the UAW at GM were getting $70.51 per hour; at Chrysler, $75.86. The average American in similar labor makes $30.15. The foreign-based car makers were getting $47 an hour.

Even after the unions had to accept the decreases in pay, they were making $56 an hour.

"Got some information in which you may be interested. Until recently the UAW made an average of $70 an hour. It dropped because they had no choice. But before this, in 2007, it was estimated that their high union wages raised the cost of each car at GM $1,200."

I have nothing against high wages. I believe people should be paid what they're worth. However, this is not the case here. Vehicles are manufactured mostly by robotics now. How can you be paid $70/hr just for pressing a button that says "BEGIN"?

Boeing machinists, which manufacture airplane components, only get paid in the mid to upper $40s/hr. No wonder the auto industry was going bankrupt.

May I ask where you are getting your information? Quite enlightening...

{I have nothing against high wages. I believe people should be paid what they're worth.}

True. It boggles my mind that some people actually think that some people should be paid MORE than they are worth. Something about being "fair" and "compassionate." (Except to those who lose money and get businesses destroyed in the process.....)

I will send it in an email. Don't want to listen to the Left-wingers nonsense.

{You mean like when Bush passed it on?}

Not comparable, and an inability to understand the concept provided. Just like thinking an increase of a certain PERCENT of a percent (20% more of 30% comes to 36%, for example), the Left-winger thinks it means 20% PLUS 30%. LOL

So, you are saying that my math is not very good. OK. Then, tell me: If something, let's say an interest rate, is at 10% and it increases by 20%, what is the new interest rate? Please pay attention to every word there. The word "by" influences the entire meaning. If you know simple math, that is.

Obama will never get the Repulicans to give him any help with jobs. IMO they hate him because of his skin color.

Ha! They'll immediately be screaming at the top-of-their-lungs "Socialism"!!!

I don't understand they keep on calling us socailsm it bets nazism...This what Hilter did before he try to over the world..Meaning the GOP is nazism

they are all about turning the country into a right-wing-corporate-FASCIST-police-state yes.

So, how much HAS Obummer and his cadres put into infrastructure? As opposed to his "green energy" dreck and ObummerCare?

It is possible that real infrastructure spending could improve things in the long run. Texas made some such investment and it seems to have helped.

But Left-wingers like to tout the Eisenhower highway. I hope that they are aware of the "other" costs, and the cronism with property magnates who made incredible amounts of money from it. Do the liberals know how it led to the deterioriation of the cities, for example? I doubt it. Libbies just like it when their munificent government SPENDS. But it is only the money from the "evil rich," so it is OK.....

Statism is a better description, but most Liberals do not understand that word, even though they are driven to it.

The Left has something in common with Communists, Fascists and Nazis: The Left wants to centralize power. They insist, often via the federal and Supreme Courts, that it is all for "our own good," but it is the centralization of power all the same - for purposes of forcing uniformity and conformity on the citizens.

I agree

It is not all that easy for a lot of people.

What is the differance between what our grand parents did during the dust bowl and what is going on now ? some times you have to do what you don't want to do in order to move forward in life. I left home went half way across the country to a place where I had no friends or family and was working in three days as a pipefitter. did I sleep in the woods a couple of nights sure. Did I have to beg for food sure I did But now I'm a better person for it. sometimes you have to jump in the middle of the fire to get to the otherside. Sure sometimes ya get burnt But sometimes ya get ahead in life. Back in the sixties young folks left home to discover themselves. now they move back in with mom & dad and play video games. That is if they ever move out in the first place.

I was born in 1929 and grew up during the Great Depression and know all about tough times. I'm a Korean War veteran. Do I have to say anything more?

Then you know for fact that when times get hard do as you must to get where you want to be in this world. Need I say more ? Oh and My Father was a Korean War veteran. That grewup in the same era.

During the Great Depression, I had many relatives out of work and if it hadn't been for FDR starting the WPA, PWA and CCC to build the nation's infrastructure they wouldn't have been able to provide for their families. I used to bring soup to one of my uncles who had been a VP, but was working on WPA gang building a park.

My Family moved here from Tennesse during that time. I too had great uncles and a grand father that worked on building bridges. I have some old pictures in the attic of it. Those were Men That did what they had to do. Now if they don't have AC and a break every two hours people think they are being mistreated. Even now I have people offering me Jobs because of my past work history. I so wish I could return to work. I know I'm missing out on good money.

{Jobs are there for those that want to work....Sure you may have to get off your ass and move sure it may be rough }

Yes, that is very true. Did you read my email?

Work is there. Many people now expect - no demand - that they have a job and an income at a level to which they were accustomed before the economic situation. In fact, the Left-wingers were responsible - with their UNgrateful Society programs - for destroying the work ethic and creating a group of dependents. And Obummer has plans, already in place, to increase this dependency!

Do you know that the TVA actually caused economic hardships? The trouble with Left-wingers is their scope is too narrow. They focus on where the government spent OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY and refuse to even consider the "unseen costs." They think that these things are FREE, that it is the GOVERNMENT that actually pays.