Quantcast

Want jobs? Elect Republicans

Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA 2012/07/10 19:13:00
YES!  I live in a Republican Governed state and Unemployment has declined!
No, Democrats are perfectly able to create jobs... but the Rich are greedy and not paying their fair share.
No, Democrats are perfectly able to create jobs... but the Rich are sitting on their money and not investing it!
Undecided
None of the above
You!
Add Photos & Videos

By Neal Boortz


Here’s an interesting statistics that warrants its own post in.


In 2010, Americans from throughout the country elected 17 Republican governors to various states throughout the nation. Since those governors were inaugurated in January 2011, every single one of those states has seen a decrease in their unemployment rates.


“The average drop in the unemployment rate in these states was 1.35%, compared to the national decline of .9%, which means, according to the analysis, that the job market in these Republican states is improving 50% faster than the national rate.”


Here’s a look at the list, so you can see for yourself. States that elected Democrat governors saw their rates either increase (like New York) or decrease at a rate close to the national average … nowhere near as fast as those states that elected Republican governors.


It’s like I’ve already said above.


If you just want a check, vote Democrat.


If you want a PAY-check, vote Republican.


I can’t make it any clearer than that.


http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2012/jul/09/want-job...



Do you live in one of those 17 states where Republican Governors have increased jobs and decreased the unemployment rate?

Read More: http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2012/jul/...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • A Founding Father 2012/07/11 07:08:14
    Undecided
    A Founding Father
    Jobs aren't "created" except when the population has money with which to expand demand for new or more products and services. Do you recall taht when GWB left
    office the nation was shedding 750,000 jobs a month? If providing more money to
    corporations and the "Top 2% Club" would create jobs we would be begging for more
    "undocumented workers" to please, please come across the border and help fill the
    needs. In thirty years of "Reaganomics" the Reagan Banks, corporations and Wall
    Street accumulated more than $27 Trillion from the middle class citizens and used
    much of it to move industry to China and India. Now, the middle class has no more
    to spend except on barest necessities, so there is no need for new jobs to be added.

    Did you follow the process I just explained? Why, then, would you want to elect these
    same financial interests to take the little that is left and not already in their accounts?
  • DuncanO... A Found... 2012/07/13 01:01:15
    DuncanONeil
    +1
    "Did you follow the process I just explained? Why, then, would you want to elect these
    same financial interests to take the little that is left and not already in their accounts?"
    Only thing is that everything you said is little more than a fugue state.

    "Jobs aren't "created" except when the population has money with which to expand demand for new or more products and services" Demand is only a small portion of the requirement. It matters not how high the demand of the consumer is if the business owner sees to great a risk in expanding to meet said demand. The same fears of the business owner often are part of the psyche of the consumer, thereby reducing demand as the consumer acts like a VERY SMALL business and seeks to reduce costs & stockpile resources.
  • A Found... DuncanO... 2012/07/13 01:14:41
    A Founding Father
    You need to write some of your economic theories down and publish them. You could totally revolutionize the concepts of economists and all marketing theory, In fact, you would turn all of business education classes upside down. Perhaps call it "Fear Based Recessionary Theory"?
  • DuncanO... A Found... 2012/07/13 01:21:10
    DuncanONeil
    "Perhaps call it 'Fear Based Recessionary Theory'?" There is no fear involved in this. There is a lot of fear in the policies put forth by Obama.
  • A Found... DuncanO... 2012/07/13 01:28:07
    A Founding Father
    Indeed so. The Republican Party and House of Reps have lived in constant fear for four years that the recession they caused will come to an end before the November elections. Without any concern for the suffering and pain they caused, they have made every effort to prolong and deepen the economic disasters they intentionally left on the desk when Obama came to office.
  • DuncanO... A Found... 2012/07/14 20:52:38
    DuncanONeil
    The GOP did not CREATE the recession. Policies levied on business by Congress did, however.
    "they have made every effort to prolong and deepen the economic disasters"
    The "they" in this statement is the current administration. Evidence? The complete refusal of the Senate to even bring any budget or jobs favorable bill to the floor.
  • A Found... DuncanO... 2012/07/15 02:54:01
    A Founding Father
    Each bill regarding jobs passed from the House to the Senate was laden with amendments to either prolong the Bush era tax cuts for the most wealthy, or to further reduce taxes on the "Top 2% Club" and corporations. That is a game played by politicians, to load up a bill the oppositions desires with amendmendments you know cannot be approved. That is what made the bills dead on arrival in the Senate. History in the making, Duncan, history in the making. Only a few, mostly RWNJs who aren't paying attention, have been fooled by these tactics. That is why Romney can't gain traction, the voters are smarter than Reagan Bankers and Wall Street Barons think they are.
  • DuncanO... A Found... 2012/07/15 13:26:24
    DuncanONeil
    "laden with amendments to either prolong the Bush era tax cuts for the most wealthy" Doubt that is the reason they were not brought to the floor. Such amendments could have been stripped in the Senate. Tax cuts are good for ALL people and the economy. There was no special treatment for the wealthy in the Bush tax cuts, in fact the greatest benefits accrued to the "not-wealthy".

    "or to further reduce taxes on the 'Top 2% Club'" Horse hockey. That you are going to have to show me.

    "game played by politicians, to load up a bill the oppositions desires with amendmendments you know cannot be approved" That means that the amendments you speak of would have been attached by the Democrats. Only the fact is that every amendment has to voted on in order to be attached to any bill. And amendments can be changed in the other house. If the GOP wanted to present a bill that the Demoncrats would not pass they would not need to go the route of amendments, they could just put it in the bill.

    "History in the making, Duncan, history in the making." Isn't that a Chinese curse?

    "the voters are smarter than Reagan Bankers and Wall Street Barons think they are." Really!? Then why do they keep buying the Demoncrat lies??
  • A Found... DuncanO... 2012/07/15 20:50:42 (edited)
    A Founding Father
    Duncan, you are so screwed up I hesitate to waste time with you, but I think you might have a sincere desire to understand. Let me try in the most simplistic terms:

    Spending minus Collections equals Debt. Debts has become a burden we can hardly bear, and it risks our national security, leaving us vulnerable to total collapse in event of a catastrophic need for funds as may be just a few months away. Debt spiraled under the Reagan Administration because of overspending, tax cuts for the wealthy, and a foolish tale that such would create "growth" that would repay all the borrowings and make us all rich by the "trickle down" of profits from the "emerging nations" where we were sending our manufacturing jobs. The spending has never been reduced and rhe tax cuts remain in place to reduce the collections, resulting in the debts that now are totally beyond justification.

    Collections come from tax revenue, some called "Income Tax" and a large portion now called "Payroll taxes" which bear heavily upon middle class and poorer, those employed for wages. Middle class also provide all the incomes and taxes paid by the most wealthy who prey upon these consumers in a thousand ways. Ultimately, the consuming poor and middle class provide all of the collections the Government receives.

    ...



    Duncan, you are so screwed up I hesitate to waste time with you, but I think you might have a sincere desire to understand. Let me try in the most simplistic terms:

    Spending minus Collections equals Debt. Debts has become a burden we can hardly bear, and it risks our national security, leaving us vulnerable to total collapse in event of a catastrophic need for funds as may be just a few months away. Debt spiraled under the Reagan Administration because of overspending, tax cuts for the wealthy, and a foolish tale that such would create "growth" that would repay all the borrowings and make us all rich by the "trickle down" of profits from the "emerging nations" where we were sending our manufacturing jobs. The spending has never been reduced and rhe tax cuts remain in place to reduce the collections, resulting in the debts that now are totally beyond justification.

    Collections come from tax revenue, some called "Income Tax" and a large portion now called "Payroll taxes" which bear heavily upon middle class and poorer, those employed for wages. Middle class also provide all the incomes and taxes paid by the most wealthy who prey upon these consumers in a thousand ways. Ultimately, the consuming poor and middle class provide all of the collections the Government receives.

    Since the early 1980s the nation has labored under the false claim that making the most wealthy and corporations more wealthy would make the economy stronger and provide more jobs. We wouldn't be having this discussion if that were true, would we? Thirty years of pillage of the consuming class has proven exactly the opposite to be true.

    As for bills reported out of the House to the Senate, all were crafted by the majority in the House. Any amendments offered by the minority could/.would/were rejected by the majority if they didn't fit the intentions of the Party of NO. that made public their intention to reject any offering or help to the Obama Administration, regardless of the pain and suffering inflicted upon the Nation.

    If you remove the partistan labels and just look at the history as it is, you will have a greater appreciation for facts and see the "issues" of the day in a different light.
    (more)
  • DuncanO... A Found... 2012/07/16 21:04:57
    DuncanONeil
    +1
    "Spending minus Collections equals Debt."
    ..Correct! But don't you think it is the duty of Congress to not spend more than they have?

    "Debt spiraled under the Reagan Administration"
    ..I suppose that depends on how you define spiral. Admit that debt increase was some 183% But a spiral? Does that imply that Obama's increase is not a spiral? Debt when he took over was $10,627,961,295,930.67, as of 15 July 12 it is $15,871,512,181,712.20 that's 149% increase. Nearly the increase of Bush IN HALF THE TIME.

    "because of overspending,"
    ..That is the fault of Congress.

    "tax cuts for the wealthy"
    ..Show me where a tax cut was put in placed that applied ONLY to the wealthy.

    "and a foolish tale that such would create 'growth' by the 'trickle down' of profits from the 'emerging nations'"
    ..That is not in the least what "trickle down" translates as. It is the job creators having the capital to invest in expansion or new business. Which crates new & more jobs. Which in turn creates additional income, all of which is taxed.

    "where we were sending our manufacturing jobs."
    ..Taxes are an issue, but corporate taxes. The major player is excessive and onerous Government regulation.

    "The spending has never been reduced"
    ..And whose fault is that? Hint: Congress.

    "and rhe tax cuts remain in place to reduce the ...
    &&
    "Spending minus Collections equals Debt."
    ..Correct! But don't you think it is the duty of Congress to not spend more than they have?

    "Debt spiraled under the Reagan Administration"
    ..I suppose that depends on how you define spiral. Admit that debt increase was some 183% But a spiral? Does that imply that Obama's increase is not a spiral? Debt when he took over was $10,627,961,295,930.67, as of 15 July 12 it is $15,871,512,181,712.20 that's 149% increase. Nearly the increase of Bush IN HALF THE TIME.

    "because of overspending,"
    ..That is the fault of Congress.

    "tax cuts for the wealthy"
    ..Show me where a tax cut was put in placed that applied ONLY to the wealthy.

    "and a foolish tale that such would create 'growth' by the 'trickle down' of profits from the 'emerging nations'"
    ..That is not in the least what "trickle down" translates as. It is the job creators having the capital to invest in expansion or new business. Which crates new & more jobs. Which in turn creates additional income, all of which is taxed.

    "where we were sending our manufacturing jobs."
    ..Taxes are an issue, but corporate taxes. The major player is excessive and onerous Government regulation.

    "The spending has never been reduced"
    ..And whose fault is that? Hint: Congress.

    "and rhe tax cuts remain in place to reduce the collections, resulting in the debts that now are totally beyond justification. "
    ..This gives the impression that you think that all the money belongs to the Government. Our Government has greatly exceeded the authorities granted by the Constitution. The Government was intended & designed to be limited in size & scope.
    (more)
  • A Found... DuncanO... 2012/07/17 05:09:32 (edited)
    A Founding Father
    You might be right, but the state of the Nation and the economy are what they are, not what you or I would wish them to be. That is called REALITY. Of course Congress has overspent and the White House has encouraged them to do so, making promises to anyone and every corporation with one of the 35,000 lobbyists in Washington.

    Either the spending must be stopped or the debts will continue to grow. We allowed the spending to happen and we owe the next
    generation an obligation to pay for our neglect.

    I just saw an ABC News coverage of one of the "Top 2% Club", the one who made a $Billion selling timeshares. He and wife were showing off their new home, in the making, a 95,000 s.f. display of ostentatious bad taste. The wife has a new closet, that is 4,000 s.f. in size. Could these freaks afford to pay more than 15% tax rate to help repay what we have wasted? I'll leave that for you opinion. Recall that the tax code was amended during the (are you ready) Reagan Administration to permit those who bought "timeshares" to deduct the cost of their "second homes" as a sort of "tax shelter" for the stupid. That was the opening this vulture needed, as he obviously knows how stupid and greedy people can be when someone tells them they can spend money and deduct it from their income for tax purposes.
  • DuncanO... A Found... 2012/07/17 22:26:02
    DuncanONeil
    +1
    "Either the spending must be stopped or the debts will continue to grow. We allowed the spending to happen and we owe the next
    generation an obligation to pay for our neglect."
    ..This is one of the prime goals of those espousing the Tea Party, Reduce Government spending.

    "Could these freaks afford to pay more than 15% tax rate to help repay what we have wasted?"
    ..First of all what is that 15%? Marginal or effective? Virtually NO ONE pays their marginal rate. Near as I can tell the top 2% has a total adjusted gross of $1.5 trillion. This would result in a tax of $217 billion. A 4.5% increase in tax would mean an additional $65 billion. Apply all of this to the deficit and it will take just over 25 years to erase one years deficit. So an increase in taxes is nowhere near the answer. Only a serious cut in spending will accomplish the deed. For a good start check out http://www.foxbusiness.com/on...
  • Adakin ... A Found... 2012/07/16 23:40:29
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    Ambass: "Debt spiraled under the Reagan Administration because of overspending, tax cuts for the wealthy..."

    Sorry about double teaming you (w/Duncan), but I have to ask you another question (another, in that you still are ignoring my previous question about naming some GOP bills that were "loaded up" with amendments).

    We all agree that overspending is the route cause for deficits and "spiraling debts", but you also said that tax cuts for the wealthy was one of the causes of the increased deficit.

    Can you point out the amount of actual tax revenue that Reagan's tax cuts diminished due to his "tax cuts for the wealthy"?

    I think when you google the Treasury Dept website and search for total revenue per year, you can look at the gross revenue for the years BEFORE the tax law change which cut taxes from a max bracket of 70% down to a max bracket of 28% while abolishing 70% of all loopholes and tax deductions often used by "the rich". Then look up the gross tax revenue generated by Reagan's "Tax Reform Act of 1986" AFTER TRA’86 took affect.

    I think you will find that actual tax revenue almost doubled from around $480 billion when Reagan first took the oath of office, to well over $900 billion when he left office 8 years later.

    Of course, I'm going from memory, so please...



    Ambass: "Debt spiraled under the Reagan Administration because of overspending, tax cuts for the wealthy..."

    Sorry about double teaming you (w/Duncan), but I have to ask you another question (another, in that you still are ignoring my previous question about naming some GOP bills that were "loaded up" with amendments).

    We all agree that overspending is the route cause for deficits and "spiraling debts", but you also said that tax cuts for the wealthy was one of the causes of the increased deficit.

    Can you point out the amount of actual tax revenue that Reagan's tax cuts diminished due to his "tax cuts for the wealthy"?

    I think when you google the Treasury Dept website and search for total revenue per year, you can look at the gross revenue for the years BEFORE the tax law change which cut taxes from a max bracket of 70% down to a max bracket of 28% while abolishing 70% of all loopholes and tax deductions often used by "the rich". Then look up the gross tax revenue generated by Reagan's "Tax Reform Act of 1986" AFTER TRA’86 took affect.

    I think you will find that actual tax revenue almost doubled from around $480 billion when Reagan first took the oath of office, to well over $900 billion when he left office 8 years later.

    Of course, I'm going from memory, so please confirm this, or at least tell me that I'm full of crap by providing the link to the Treasury.gov webpage and proving me wrong.

    Thanks, AV

    Oh, please don't forget those GOP bills that have all those added amendments that Harry Reid doesn't want to debate or vote on. Thks again, AV
    (more)
  • A Found... Adakin ... 2012/07/17 05:38:45
    A Founding Father
    If the story you paint had traction, if Reagan's policies actually produced excess revenues above spending, then we wouldn't know that the Reagan Administration more than doubled the National Debt, accumulating more of it than all the Presidents and Administrations in previous history. Recall that RR came to office in the midst of an inflationary period that began in the post Vietnam era, was spread by Johnson, Nixon, Ford, then Carter. The nation was flooded with money that drove up wages, corporations could raise prices with importunity and there was so much money floating around that no one really cared. So, grasping this, RR wascompelled to go along with the military-industrial complex and engaged in a spending spree paid for with printing presses running at maximum capacity 24/7, making what seemed like "prosperity" by flooding the nation with cheap dollars. Of course the revenues increased, but the spending increased much faster, requiring the spread to be financed by national debt, which reabsorbed some of the rivers of money, but not enough. It was a ponzi scheme, exactly the classic ponzi scheme, of taking from one source and paying another, then doing it all over again. The obvious inflation was disguised by changing the elements that were computed to make a st...








    If the story you paint had traction, if Reagan's policies actually produced excess revenues above spending, then we wouldn't know that the Reagan Administration more than doubled the National Debt, accumulating more of it than all the Presidents and Administrations in previous history. Recall that RR came to office in the midst of an inflationary period that began in the post Vietnam era, was spread by Johnson, Nixon, Ford, then Carter. The nation was flooded with money that drove up wages, corporations could raise prices with importunity and there was so much money floating around that no one really cared. So, grasping this, RR wascompelled to go along with the military-industrial complex and engaged in a spending spree paid for with printing presses running at maximum capacity 24/7, making what seemed like "prosperity" by flooding the nation with cheap dollars. Of course the revenues increased, but the spending increased much faster, requiring the spread to be financed by national debt, which reabsorbed some of the rivers of money, but not enough. It was a ponzi scheme, exactly the classic ponzi scheme, of taking from one source and paying another, then doing it all over again. The obvious inflation was disguised by changing the elements that were computed to make a statistic for periodic reporting.

    Then, there was the "Greater Fool" theory of prosperity, in which illusions of stock market gains were created by encouraging one "investor" to pay another "investor" more for a stock than it had cost a short time earlier, the result being a "zero sum" net gain for
    the two traders. That went on for decades, as did the habits of Congress to ignore all reason and spend whatever they wished,
    repeating the "Reaganomics" story that "growth" would produce
    revenues from the working class so that the "Top 2%" could avoid
    participation, or be charged not more than 15% if at all.

    A tenured Harvard economics professor once told a class I was in, "I am paid to share my education, experience, and knowledge with you. I am not paid to go to library and research questions your bright and inquisitive minds should raise. Bring me proof of errors in my words and I will add points to your test scores".. I am not going to do the homework that your inquisitive mind desires. Let me know what you
    come up with.
    (more)
  • Adakin ... A Found... 2012/07/17 13:26:14 (edited)
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    Ambass, your claim was: "Debt spiraled under the Reagan Administration because of overspending, tax cuts for the wealthy..."

    Now you say: "Of course the revenues increased, but the spending increased much faster” Which I've said we all agree on, but your point was focused on the tax cuts as well as the spending increases. My claim is that tax rate cuts DOUBLED the actual revenue and you have not provided conflicting Treasury data to repute my memory of that period.

    You've changed your tune to blaming inflation and overspending, which is something that we both agree.

    But your original statement implied that "tax cuts" were the cause, but tax cuts (as per Laffer Curve) usually provide greater tax revenue (up to a point).

    For another example look at the current situation. The tax rates paid by “the rich” under Bill Clinton during the 1990s are now the stated objective of the current LibProg agenda.

    But new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) figures show that the top 1% paid 21.3% of all federal taxes from 1993 to 2000, when Clinton was president and tax rates were high. But that same top 1% group paid 25.1% of all federal tax revenue from 2003 to 2008, AFTER the Bush tax cuts.

    If 21.3% of all tax revenue is what the LibProg's claim is a "Fair Share" tax rate, using t...






    Ambass, your claim was: "Debt spiraled under the Reagan Administration because of overspending, tax cuts for the wealthy..."

    Now you say: "Of course the revenues increased, but the spending increased much faster” Which I've said we all agree on, but your point was focused on the tax cuts as well as the spending increases. My claim is that tax rate cuts DOUBLED the actual revenue and you have not provided conflicting Treasury data to repute my memory of that period.

    You've changed your tune to blaming inflation and overspending, which is something that we both agree.

    But your original statement implied that "tax cuts" were the cause, but tax cuts (as per Laffer Curve) usually provide greater tax revenue (up to a point).

    For another example look at the current situation. The tax rates paid by “the rich” under Bill Clinton during the 1990s are now the stated objective of the current LibProg agenda.

    But new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) figures show that the top 1% paid 21.3% of all federal taxes from 1993 to 2000, when Clinton was president and tax rates were high. But that same top 1% group paid 25.1% of all federal tax revenue from 2003 to 2008, AFTER the Bush tax cuts.

    If 21.3% of all tax revenue is what the LibProg's claim is a "Fair Share" tax rate, using the Clinton years, then the top 1% today has been paying far more than its fair share since 2003 after the Bush Tax Cuts were implemented.

    Again, your original discussion was regarding "tax cuts for the wealthy..."

    Please try to stay on topic.

    == == ==
    BTW - Can you please address my ORIGINAL question that was regarding your previous erroneous statement that amendments in the GOP bills are the reason for Reid's senate refusing to debate or vote on those 30 BIPARTISAN bills approved by the House?
    (more)
  • A Found... Adakin ... 2012/07/18 03:08:54
    A Founding Father
    You spin into stats that appear to be favorable to your premise that making the rich more rich will make for a stronger economy and more jobs for the serfs, but that is not really true. I don't have time to emlighten you totally on the economics involved, but let me direct your attention to important facts.

    Taxes are levied on "Net Taxable Income", which will increase as the money supply of the nation is inflated. Flooding the economy with over spending on military hardware and "earmarks" for all of Congress is a means of inflating the profits of corporations, thereby increasing the Federal revenues, a ponzi scheme that makes it appear as if there is prosperity in the economy, while the spending (and the resulting Tax revenues) are being financed by increasing the Public Debt and borrowing.

    That is the game of mirrors that is "Reaganomics" - a Zero Sum game for the nation as a whole, a wining media campaign for the POTUS and his Party, a great burden for future generations that must pay the debts this crazy scheme created.

    Lastly, the evidence is completely undeniable. The very wealthy are much more wealthy than at any time in the history of the world, and we have a high level of unemployment and few prospects of the stats improving. The theory of "Reaganomics" has thi...
    You spin into stats that appear to be favorable to your premise that making the rich more rich will make for a stronger economy and more jobs for the serfs, but that is not really true. I don't have time to emlighten you totally on the economics involved, but let me direct your attention to important facts.

    Taxes are levied on "Net Taxable Income", which will increase as the money supply of the nation is inflated. Flooding the economy with over spending on military hardware and "earmarks" for all of Congress is a means of inflating the profits of corporations, thereby increasing the Federal revenues, a ponzi scheme that makes it appear as if there is prosperity in the economy, while the spending (and the resulting Tax revenues) are being financed by increasing the Public Debt and borrowing.

    That is the game of mirrors that is "Reaganomics" - a Zero Sum game for the nation as a whole, a wining media campaign for the POTUS and his Party, a great burden for future generations that must pay the debts this crazy scheme created.

    Lastly, the evidence is completely undeniable. The very wealthy are much more wealthy than at any time in the history of the world, and we have a high level of unemployment and few prospects of the stats improving. The theory of "Reaganomics" has thirty years to prove itself, and ended in a complete failure to live up to any of it's promises. The "Top 2% Club" now has more than twice the wealth they had in 1980. The middle class of our citizens have less than half the wealth they had in 1980. Unemployment has more than doubled since 1980. Doesn't this paint a picture you can see????
    (more)
  • Adakin ... A Found... 2012/07/18 04:53:53
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    "The middle class of our citizens have less than half the wealth they had in 1980. Unemployment has more than doubled since 1980. Doesn't this paint a picture you can see????"

    And all of those stats are the result of the last 5 years of warnings and mismanagement by gov't of the housing and financial environment where everyone from Clinton, Bush and Barry changed the housing dynamic where everyone had a "right" to own a home, regardless of their being able to afford one, and few had any "skin in the game" as finnancing promoted by Fannie & Freddie encourated lenders to create subprime mortgages which were then sold to "F&F" which in turn sold them to Wall Street brokers who hypothicated the underlying debt instrument and sold the resulting derivitives to the global market. All the while AIG underwrote and insured these bogus securitized instruments to a world that thought the U.S. Gov't via "F&F" would back the paper. Only a handful of GOP senators and Gee Dubya himself said that constraints should be placed on F&F for their questionable practices. But as the Clinton appointees and Barney Frank's boyfriend that were running those entitles raked in the bonus bucks, no one could get anything past Franks or the Democrats in the Senate... and the house of cards collapsed.

    The prob...

    "The middle class of our citizens have less than half the wealth they had in 1980. Unemployment has more than doubled since 1980. Doesn't this paint a picture you can see????"

    And all of those stats are the result of the last 5 years of warnings and mismanagement by gov't of the housing and financial environment where everyone from Clinton, Bush and Barry changed the housing dynamic where everyone had a "right" to own a home, regardless of their being able to afford one, and few had any "skin in the game" as finnancing promoted by Fannie & Freddie encourated lenders to create subprime mortgages which were then sold to "F&F" which in turn sold them to Wall Street brokers who hypothicated the underlying debt instrument and sold the resulting derivitives to the global market. All the while AIG underwrote and insured these bogus securitized instruments to a world that thought the U.S. Gov't via "F&F" would back the paper. Only a handful of GOP senators and Gee Dubya himself said that constraints should be placed on F&F for their questionable practices. But as the Clinton appointees and Barney Frank's boyfriend that were running those entitles raked in the bonus bucks, no one could get anything past Franks or the Democrats in the Senate... and the house of cards collapsed.

    The problem wasn't "Reaganomics"... the problem was crony-capitalism where the friends of congress and the WH were cashing in on the housing and finance system.

    Besides, you cannot dispute the fact that the top 1% paid 21.3% of all federal taxes from 1993 to 2000, when Clinton was president and tax rates were high. But that same top 1% group paid 25.1% of all federal tax revenue from 2003 to 2008, AFTER the Bush tax cuts.
    (more)
  • A Found... Adakin ... 2012/07/18 05:05:51
    A Founding Father
    As I said to "Duncan" below, I can live with the knowledge that I cannot find words to break through to some students. There is always the urge to repeater and try again, but I don't think I can explain it any more clearly to you. Live with your misconceptions, such as Barney Frank being given a bonus for something. Some on Wall Street did take home bonus money as large as $1Billion in a single year, all the money from America's middle class who were induced by the songs
    of the Reagan Banks and the dreams that housing price increases were part of the "trickle down" promised by Reagan and his "conservative agenda" of "Reaganomics". Enjoy your
    view from the window.
  • DuncanO... Adakin ... 2012/07/17 22:41:56
    DuncanONeil
    +1
    "Of course, I'm going from memory, so please confirm this"
    There were 11 FY at 70% marginal and nine at the Reagan rates. Revenue to the Government was, in total, some 18% higher under Reagan rates. For a shorter period of time. If we weight for the time variance the 70% rate produced some $30,000 per year. The Reagan rates produced some $43,500.
  • A Found... DuncanO... 2012/07/18 02:49:04 (edited)
    A Founding Father
    Let me address both you and Adakin, who insists things were great under the Reaganomics agenda. In most simple terms, look at it this way: If the Govy increased the amount of dollars in circulation in the economy by, say 40%, resulting in price escalations and "profits" increases by corporations of a similar amount, do you see how the Federal revenues would increase? During the period
    you and Adakin ar boasting of, the assets of the "Top 2% Club" and corporations more than doubled, and the assets of America's middle class dropped by an average of 50%, the minorities by more than 60%. What that evidences is that "Reaganomics" was the causative factor that shifted more wealth into the hands of a new Aristocratic layer of citizens than any similar shift in all the history of mankind. At the same time, employment began to move downward in 2006 and collided with the collapsed economy in late 2008, totally disproving the nonsense theory that making the "Top 2% Club" more wealthy will somehow make jobs for American citizens. Jobs result from DEMAND and when the consumers have less with which to buy, revenues to the Federal Treasury drop rapidly. That is the lesson in history and I can't make it any more simplified than that. If lost on you, I've just failed one or two students, but hopefully have enlightened others.
  • DuncanO... A Found... 2012/07/18 15:53:52
    DuncanONeil
    +1
    An increase in the money supply will in no way increase business profits by a concomitant amount. Such an increase in the money supply results in an increase in costs. But during the Reagan years the money supply (M2) was not growing but shrinking.

    "you and Adakin ar boasting of, the assets of the "Top 2% Club" and corporations more than doubled" I am the one that looked up the data. But I assure you I did not restrict myself to a segment of the economy, but the economy as a whole. You claim the so-called middle class "dropped by an average of 50%", and "the minorities by more than 60%." Where is you data? With making an assertion that "What that evidences is that "Reaganomics" was the causative factor that shifted more wealth into the hands of a new Aristocratic layer of citizens". I would think it imperative that you support the claim you made.
    With an increase in revenue in the Reagan years of 18%, your claimed loss to the middle class of 50% and "minorities" of 60% is impossible. Moreover Revenues to the Government doubled during the Reagan era. Even the reduction to 69.13% produced an increase in revenue of 16.79% (higher than the average of the 70% era & only exceeded by one year). This huge increase makes all the following increases worth more.

    "DEMAND" does not creat...
    An increase in the money supply will in no way increase business profits by a concomitant amount. Such an increase in the money supply results in an increase in costs. But during the Reagan years the money supply (M2) was not growing but shrinking.

    "you and Adakin ar boasting of, the assets of the "Top 2% Club" and corporations more than doubled" I am the one that looked up the data. But I assure you I did not restrict myself to a segment of the economy, but the economy as a whole. You claim the so-called middle class "dropped by an average of 50%", and "the minorities by more than 60%." Where is you data? With making an assertion that "What that evidences is that "Reaganomics" was the causative factor that shifted more wealth into the hands of a new Aristocratic layer of citizens". I would think it imperative that you support the claim you made.
    With an increase in revenue in the Reagan years of 18%, your claimed loss to the middle class of 50% and "minorities" of 60% is impossible. Moreover Revenues to the Government doubled during the Reagan era. Even the reduction to 69.13% produced an increase in revenue of 16.79% (higher than the average of the 70% era & only exceeded by one year). This huge increase makes all the following increases worth more.

    "DEMAND" does not create jobs. We have demand now that is not making jobs. There needs to be a willingness for the entrepreneurs to TAKE THE RISK. If the risk to benefit analysis does not have a positive value there will be no new jobs REGARDLESS of the "demand". "Jobs result from DEMAND and when the consumers have less with which to buy, revenues to the Federal Treasury drop rapidly. That is the lesson in history". History lessons? Yet the left continues to claim that Reganomics was a COMPLETE failure, in spite of the data (some of which I provided above).
    (more)
  • Adakin ... DuncanO... 2012/07/18 17:30:39 (edited)
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    +1
    Duncan, on several occations I've asked Abmass to provide support for previous statements (see post below for example) and, to date, have not seen any citation that supports his speculative claims. So... don't hold your breath while trying to reason with what may very well be unreasonable.
  • Adakin ... A Found... 2012/07/15 23:56:24
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    "...to load up a bill the oppositions desires with amendmendments you know cannot be approved. That is what made the bills dead on arrival in the Senate."

    Ambassador, can you please provide a link to two or three of the bills (out of the 30+ that the House has sent to Senate) that fit the description you provided? I.E. bills so laden with amendments that Harry Reid won't allow the vote to be debated, much less voted on? Thanks, AV
  • Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA 2012/07/11 00:54:12
    YES! I live in a Republican Governed state and Unemployment has declined!
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    Yup, that's what has happened in my home state of FL and adopted state of SC.
  • Quietman ~PWCM~JLA 2012/07/10 20:25:10
    None of the above
    Quietman   ~PWCM~JLA
  • voice_matters 2012/07/10 19:40:36
    None of the above
    voice_matters
    tell me how does the letter after their names tell me they will create jobs. so far the gop has had control of the house for 2 years and the unemployment rate is still going up. that fact alone could cost the gop the senate and alot of seats in the house. they have shown that the party is more important than the country.
  • Adakin ... voice_m... 2012/07/11 00:26:43 (edited)
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    VM asks: "tell me how the letter after the name tells me they will create jobs"

    It's not a matter of what letter is behind the name, it’s a matter of the philosophical differences between the parties in roll that gov't has to play in its regulatory oversight of industry, safety, education and "general welfare".

    We must first acknowledge what gov’t can do and what it cannot do.

    Government does not “create jobs”… at least, it doesn’t create self sustaining jobs that use its self-generated profits to cover operating costs and fund the expansion that is required to hire new employees. Only the private sector does that. Sure there are numerous gov’t agencies that are expanded and hire folks, but they ultimately require tax money to sustain the services that the agency provides.

    So, if the desire is to create self sustaining and self funding jobs, those with an “R” behind their names have the governing philosophy that government creating jobs is NOT where to look. There is almost a trillion dollars worth of support for this philosophy when you consider that the “shovel ready” jobs and all the police, fire and teachers that the trillion bucks went to support…yet the economy is still in the dumper. That’s because none of those government sector jobs were self-sustaining via se...
















    &



    VM asks: "tell me how the letter after the name tells me they will create jobs"

    It's not a matter of what letter is behind the name, it’s a matter of the philosophical differences between the parties in roll that gov't has to play in its regulatory oversight of industry, safety, education and "general welfare".

    We must first acknowledge what gov’t can do and what it cannot do.

    Government does not “create jobs”… at least, it doesn’t create self sustaining jobs that use its self-generated profits to cover operating costs and fund the expansion that is required to hire new employees. Only the private sector does that. Sure there are numerous gov’t agencies that are expanded and hire folks, but they ultimately require tax money to sustain the services that the agency provides.

    So, if the desire is to create self sustaining and self funding jobs, those with an “R” behind their names have the governing philosophy that government creating jobs is NOT where to look. There is almost a trillion dollars worth of support for this philosophy when you consider that the “shovel ready” jobs and all the police, fire and teachers that the trillion bucks went to support…yet the economy is still in the dumper. That’s because none of those government sector jobs were self-sustaining via self-generating profits.

    So that leaves the private sector, and the best roll for government in that regard is to simply get out of the way and let the free market do what it does. Government’s ideal roll is that of referee, to adjudicate disputes and to provide regulatory guides by which fraud, destruction of other people's property and outright criminal activity. When gov’t restricts its endeavors to those functions as specified in the Constitution, the market is free to use its private capital to venture into any legal activity it chooses and reap the rewards or suffer the consequences.

    But people with a “D” behind their name have the philosophical ideal not to allow failure. Failures should require bail outs or subsidies or anything BUT failure. Bailing out folks, providing unemployment benefits, or ANY handouts for that matter simply reinforces the dependency of the beneficiary on the largess of the grantor… and all the grantor requires is the beneficiary’s vote. None of which has anything to do with actual productive “job” creation. Tax regs are not just for revenue generation. Tax regs are for manipulating society to do what government thinks is best, not what the individual thinks is best. Using the tax code as a carrot and a stick is not unique to those with the "D", but most of the supporters of a free market tax system (The FairTax bill, HR-25/S-13) have an "R" behind their name. That's because HR-25 would allow the individual to choose when, where and how much tax they wish to pay for the gov't they get. And that absolutely terrifies 'big government' types. As the FairTax no longer uses income, wages or wealth as basis for taxation, the "class envy" tool that many politicians love to use as a campaign tool is taken away... as is much of the politically motoviated use of the tax code as a reward for "friends" and a punishment for "enemies" of the politician. But then both "D"s and "R"s love that part of the existing tax code.

    To specifically answer your question, simply compare Governor (R) Chris Christie's New Jersey to Gov. (D) Jon Corzine's New Jersey.

    Or look at the differences between Gov. (R) Scott Walker's Wisconsin to that of Gov. (D) Jim Doyle and you can quickly see the philosophical differences between two in the roll that government has to play in regulatory oversight, business growth and resulting private sector job creation.

    So in summary, the letter behind the name, in general, represents a distinct philosophical difference in the roll that gov’t should play in affecting the private personal lives of individual Americans.

    == == ==
    VM said: “so far the GOP has had control of the house for 2 years and the unemployment rate is still going up.”

    Yes, that’s true, but the GOP House has passed over 30 bipartisan job stimulus bills, and almost every one of them has been blocked by the Democrat Senate leadership. Only a handful have bills have even been allowed to go to debate, much less allowed to have a floor vote.

    Can you tell me of any of those 30 GOP proposed job bills that Harry Reid has permitted to come to a vote? I can't think of any. The only ones that have gotten past Reid were bills that both House Dems & GOP agreed on... like the capital gains tax cut for small business start-ups... a bill that Obama proposed and the GOP immediately agreed to. The problem is that it makes a great "Talking Point" for PresBO, ("I cut taxes for small businesses"), but as Barry has no experience in running a small business, nobody told him that small start-up companies rarely HAVE any capital gains, much less a significant tax liability for them. (Heck it was four years before my auto parts store was profitable enough to where "taxes" were a significant impact on my bottom line.)

    VM said: “that fact alone could cost the gop the senate and alot of seats in the house”

    How so? How does passing numerous job stimulus bills, only to have the die in the Democrat controlled Senate, pose a threat to the GOP members up for reelection? Please explain, VM. Inquiring minds want to know!
    (more)
  • voice_m... Adakin ... 2012/07/11 01:39:17 (edited)
    voice_matters
    thanks for showing electing republicans does not create jobs
  • Adakin ... voice_m... 2012/07/11 02:42:21
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    +1
    What I've shown is that GOVERNMENT cannot create jobs. The party being elected is inconsequential to the creation of jobs.

    Actually if we REALLY wanted job creation, electing Libertarian Candidates would be more of a solution oriented result than is electing Democrats or Republicans. After all, just look at Gary Johnson's record in New Mexico with a Democrat state legislature and his balancing the budget every year for both of his 4 year terms as Gov. and the resulting job growth and educational standards that increased.

    BTW- How’s that basic civics class workin' out for ya? Maybe you need to include a course in cognitive reading along with the civics class, since you only interpreted my post as republicans do not create jobs. You obviously missed the part about the republican philosophy is what creates jobs... not government politicians regardless of their stripes.
  • voice_m... Adakin ... 2012/07/11 02:45:24
    voice_matters
    sad how libs need to flip flop. when you stop flip flopping come find me
  • Adakin ... voice_m... 2012/07/11 04:17:22
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    I am still curious as to why you think that with the unemployment rate going up: “that fact alone could cost the gop the senate and alot of seats in the house” especially considering that anything the House does must get past the Senate and the WH before having any affect on the job market.

    So now instead of answering my question you feel like you have to have me come find you?

    Please explain why anyone should have a need to come find you? You originally asked a question and I provided a detailed answer to it.

    No flipping. No flopping... Just you and your one line, no content, comments.

    Have a nice rest of the evening...
  • voice_m... Adakin ... 2012/07/12 12:37:31
    voice_matters
    notice how you claim that republicans can not create jobs but your title says they will. stop flip flopping and show how republicans can create jobs or show youreself the lib that you are.
  • Adakin ... voice_m... 2012/07/16 00:04:36
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    Yes, the "LIB"ertarian that I am... The article simply points out that Republican governors and GOP state legislatures have more often created economic environments where the private sector is more susceptible to job creation than are the states where the Dems ideology dominates the governor and legislature. No where does it state that republicans can create jobs.
  • voice_m... Adakin ... 2012/07/16 01:27:25
    voice_matters
    thanks for showing you are a lib and worthless in any discussion. thanks for showing that republicans can not create jobs.
  • DuncanO... Adakin ... 2012/07/13 01:02:50
    DuncanONeil
    +1
    Thanks Ad, for some reason voice-matters has me blocked.
  • Adakin ... DuncanO... 2012/07/16 02:55:22 (edited)
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    Yup, he blocked me too. He asked a question and I answered it...

    I guess he can't handle the truth.

    Scroll down a few inches for the dialog...
  • HarleyCharley 2012/07/10 19:31:20
    YES! I live in a Republican Governed state and Unemployment has declined!
    HarleyCharley
    +2
    I agree...
  • voice_m... HarleyC... 2012/07/10 20:43:48
    voice_matters
    many jobs have been created in the last year under gop leadership of the house?
  • Adakin ... voice_m... 2012/07/11 00:35:13
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    VM, I thought OH schools taught civics to all of their students; did you miss the part about how all bills passed by the House of Representatives must then go through the U.S. Senate, and then be signed into law by the President?

    Did you forget that part of the civics lesson?

    BTW - Can you tell me how many of the 30+ bipartisan job stimulus bills passed by the GOP House that Harry Reid has allowed to actually come to the Senate floor for a vote?

    No? Well, given that you asked about the house not creating jobs, I guess you must have missed the really complicated parts of how proposed legislation becomes law or that the House has passed dozens of job bills only to have them blocked by the Democrat Leadership in the Senate.
  • voice_m... Adakin ... 2012/07/11 01:42:32
    voice_matters
    thanks for showing electing republicans does not create jobs. why do libs give a title on their thread--want jobs? elect republicans then show that electing them does nothing to create jobs?

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/09/02 04:28:30

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals