CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Creating Jobs - Republicans vs. Democrats
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Creating Jobs - Republicans vs. Democrats

post #1 of 32
11/3/10 at 7:37pm
Thread Starter 


Source, Source, Source.
Reply
post #2 of 32
11/3/10 at 8:02pm
Thread Starter 
Beyond Republican and Democrat, in terms of fleeing jobs, here's an amazing speech Bill Moyers recently gave at Boston University. Truly a must-watch: Link
Reply
post #3 of 32
11/3/10 at 9:11pm
Good info. Your second source (wiki) mentions that the numbers are comprised of public and private sector jobs, but dont include self employed.

It would be interesting to see some numbers with distinctions between the categories.
Reply
post #4 of 32
11/3/10 at 9:50pm
I've been looking, but I can't find the links to a Rachel Maddow episode, and a guy flipping out on the floor of the House, literally pointing to a graph which charted job growth/recession from 1990 to today, and it's glaringly obvious that the Republican years were the leanest in terms of employment.

If anything, more than the flow of untraceable cash, this election will be remembered as the one in which not only do facts not matter, espousing them is a political liability.

ETA: I'm halfway through the Bill Moyers lecture, nice find yt.
Reply
post #5 of 32
11/4/10 at 12:58am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by matches View Post
ETA: I'm halfway through the Bill Moyers lecture, nice find yt.
I miss him so much. Wish he was still on tv.
Reply
post #6 of 32
11/4/10 at 1:18am
So Reagan was the shit, but Clinton was the shitter?
Reply
post #7 of 32
11/4/10 at 1:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll View Post
So Reagan was the shit, but Clinton was the shitter?
Bill Clinton was just as bad as Reagan. Repealing the Glass-Steagall Act and then pardoning indicted criminals as you depart office isn't exactly the most altruistic stance.
Reply
post #8 of 32
11/4/10 at 2:24am
Thread Starter 
Bill Clinton was NOT just as bad as Reagan. He was dealing with an aggressively hostile GOP congress and made the mistake of doing things their way in his second term, which led to Gramm Leach Bliley, Commodity Futures Modernization, which were incredibly destructive, but he was nowhere near the fulcrum of bad change that Reagan was. (He also signed NAFTA, which is almost unforgivable). He balanced two budgets, reduced the deficit, left with a surplus, helped create more jobs than any recent Republican president, and brought about some positive change.

Reagan declared war on unions, expanded the government and began this whole snow job of destroying any trust in government, ballooned the deficit, traded arms for hostages, committed unbelievable covert actions to prop up dictators in third world countries, slashed taxes for millionaires and corporations while enacting the largest tax in history on the middle class and small business, lowered the social security cap, and had his own mini-version of our latest meltdown with the savings and loan crisis, and on and on.
Reply
post #9 of 32
11/4/10 at 3:49am
Ronald Reagan was in The Winning Team (1952) which is "the warmest, most wonderful, most human story ever told." Clinton was on a second-rate talk show playing third-rate sax.

ADVANTAGE GIPPER
Reply
post #10 of 32
11/5/10 at 12:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
Bill Clinton was NOT just as bad as Reagan. He was dealing with an aggressively hostile GOP congress and made the mistake of doing things their way in his second term, which led to Gramm Leach Bliley, Commodity Futures Modernization, which were incredibly destructive, but he was nowhere near the fulcrum of bad change that Reagan was. (He also signed NAFTA, which is almost unforgivable). He balanced two budgets, reduced the deficit, left with a surplus, helped create more jobs than any recent Republican president, and brought about some positive change.

Reagan declared war on unions, expanded the government and began this whole snow job of destroying any trust in government, ballooned the deficit, traded arms for hostages, committed unbelievable covert actions to prop up dictators in third world countries, slashed taxes for millionaires and corporations while enacting the largest tax in history on the middle class and small business, lowered the social security cap, and had his own mini-version of our latest meltdown with the savings and loan crisis, and on and on.
Admittedly I was using copious amounts of hyperbole, just illustrating the point that they both contributed to some horrible stuff.
Reply
post #11 of 32
11/5/10 at 1:47pm
I wonder how long it takes for FOX and the GOP to take credit for this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...ail/components
Reply
post #12 of 32
11/5/10 at 2:04pm
Thread Starter 
Ralph Nader talked to Thom Hartmann recently on his TV show and detailed the four levers corporate America has used to gain power. The fourth lever was using its money to blur the lines between the parties. It was pretty fascinating.

The reason I continue to defend Democrats over Republicans is that the potential is there much more than with the pro-business GOP to fight the corporate takeover and truly be the party of the people. Democrats do it now in small doses, but the GOP doesn't appear to have any problem with corporate rule. In fact, the two seem to have merged.

I know people hate Nader because of his White House run, but I think he's brilliant and in this interview pretty much explains what a thankless, joyless proposition it is to be a true progressive in today's America.

Part 1
Part 2
Reply
post #13 of 32
11/5/10 at 2:06pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pop Zeus View Post
I wonder how long it takes for FOX and the GOP to take credit for this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...ail/components
They've been using this meme that banks aren't lending money because they're afraid of what Obama is going to do. This would fit into their whole "confidence" narrative. I think the banks aren't lending money because they're making it hand over fist on Wall St. using this zero interest backdoor bailout Fed money.
Reply
post #14 of 32
11/5/10 at 2:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pop Zeus View Post
I wonder how long it takes for FOX and the GOP to take credit for this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...ail/components
I've already heard the "these are just part-time holiday seasonal jobs and don't count" meme getting spread around.
Reply
post #15 of 32
11/5/10 at 2:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pop Zeus View Post
I wonder how long it takes for FOX and the GOP to take credit for this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...ail/components
Probably as soon as today. I'm sure they'll say that the immenent Republican takeover of the House gave private industry confidence to start hiring again and the ironic thing is that it might be a little true.

Still I hope Obama uses those numbers as ammo that his policies ARE working. Just how many years did it take for Roosevelt to get us out of the Depression? Some people are just so impatient and/or dumb.
Reply
post #16 of 32
11/5/10 at 2:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
I think the banks aren't lending money because they're making it hand over fist on Wall St. using this zero interest backdoor bailout Fed money.
You would be right. Getting money from the Fed at 0% and buying guaranteed Treasury bonds paying 2.5%.

2.5% may not sound like a lot but when you're doing it with a few billion dollars it adds up.
Reply
post #17 of 32
11/5/10 at 2:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
I've already heard the "these are just part-time holiday seasonal jobs and don't count" meme getting spread around.
You know wo's created those jobs? Rich people! The captains of industry, who've slaved through the recession in their leather office chairs working their fingers to the bone so they go out and buy their obscenely expensive Christmas presents. Without those fine titans of capitalism, where would those shop assistants be? Nowhere, that's where!
Reply
post #18 of 32
11/5/10 at 2:16pm
Personally, I think a reduction in the payroll tax is long overdue, and would help the private sector create more jobs. Roubini's plan is solid:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091605846.html

President Obama could fully fund the reduction in payroll tax by allowing the Bush tax cuts for people making more than $250,000 a year to expire. Meanwhile, the Bush-era cuts affecting middle- and low-income earners -- the vast majority of Americans -- would remain in place for the time being.

After two years, when U.S. growth is more robust and the pace of private-sector hiring has picked up, we can afford to phase out the payroll tax cut while maintaining the income tax rates for the rich. It's possible also that we could increase the tax burden on the middle class over time to reduce our budget deficit.
Reply
post #19 of 32
11/5/10 at 2:19pm
After watching how the corporations and banks have completely abused the lending loopholes and bail-out money, any plan that relies on the private sector using savings to create jobs instead of just pocketing the extra cash is a fairly risky proposition.
Reply
post #20 of 32
11/5/10 at 2:22pm
It'd be nice if the WH and his allies in Congress would actually push a very pro-Main St agenda instead of the more pro-Wall St agenda they've been pushing for the past 2 years, Republican bloviated claims to sea change elections aside.
Reply
post #21 of 32
11/5/10 at 2:24pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post
You would be right. Getting money from the Fed at 0% and buying guaranteed Treasury bonds paying 2.5%.

2.5% may not sound like a lot but when you're doing it with a few billion dollars it adds up.
The Closer, these are your people, how can you stop something like this?

One of the interesting things Nader talks about in the interview I linked to above was managing to get the white collar crime task force reduced to just a handful of lawyers. I mean, wtf.
Reply
post #22 of 32
11/5/10 at 2:25pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluelouboyle View Post
Personally, I think a reduction in the payroll tax is long overdue, and would help the private sector create more jobs. Roubini's plan is solid:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091605846.html

President Obama could fully fund the reduction in payroll tax by allowing the Bush tax cuts for people making more than $250,000 a year to expire. Meanwhile, the Bush-era cuts affecting middle- and low-income earners -- the vast majority of Americans -- would remain in place for the time being.

After two years, when U.S. growth is more robust and the pace of private-sector hiring has picked up, we can afford to phase out the payroll tax cut while maintaining the income tax rates for the rich. It's possible also that we could increase the tax burden on the middle class over time to reduce our budget deficit.
Agree. The question is: can Obama sell it? That's become his major problem. The big corporate/right wing media phalanx is really dominating the narrative.
Reply
post #23 of 32
11/5/10 at 2:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamotv View Post
Still I hope Obama uses those numbers as ammo that his policies ARE working. Just how many years did it take for Roosevelt to get us out of the Depression? Some people are just so impatient and/or dumb.
The depression was a much, much different situation though.

And Im not trying to stir the pot, but I've been posting since 2008 that unemployment would peak and start to decline about a year and a half after the recession ends. Most non-Krugman economists have been saying the same thing...it's just how things work in conjunction with the business cycle theory.

Unemployment peaked/declined 19 months after the 2001 recession,15 months after the 1991 recession, and somewhere around 17 months in 1975. No matter the severity or depth of the recession (or the government response), the alignment with unemployment is usually consistent.
Reply
post #24 of 32
11/5/10 at 2:26pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pop Zeus View Post
It'd be nice if the WH and his allies in Congress would actually push a very pro-Main St agenda instead of the more pro-Wall St agenda they've been pushing for the past 2 years, Republican bloviated claims to sea change elections aside.
Michael Moore's challenge to them is to announce they won't take any Wall St. money for their campaigns. That would be amazing.
Reply
post #25 of 32
11/5/10 at 2:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
The Closer, these are your people, how can you stop something like this?
I'll make some calls but the CEOs' assistants usually dont put me through.
Reply
post #26 of 32
11/5/10 at 2:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
Agree. The question is: can Obama sell it? That's become his major problem. The big corporate/right wing media phalanx is really dominating the narrative.
What's the phrase? "The President proposes. Congress opposes."

Especially true now. I don't even know if Obama or his economic team have suggested it though. Although it might get through because it's the sort of thing the Republicans like: A tax reduction. Surely they couldn't spin an expiration of Bush tax cuts for those earning over $250,000 an assualt on hard-working normal Americans.
Reply
post #27 of 32
11/5/10 at 2:38pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluelouboyle View Post
What's the phrase? "The President proposes. Congress opposes."

Especially true now. I don't even know if Obama or his economic team have suggested it though. Although it might get through because it's the sort of thing the Republicans like: A tax reduction. Surely they couldn't spin an expiration of Bush tax cuts for those earning over $250,000 an assualt on hard-working normal Americans.
I think it's that "over $250,000" distinction. I'd like to see Obama say "Anyone over a million dollars" or "millionaires." He's been saying "under/over $250,000" since the campaign and people don't understand what he's talking about. Limbaugh/Beck/Hannity/etc. just says "raise your taxes" and that flies.
Reply
post #28 of 32
11/5/10 at 2:42pm
He should really let the cuts on over $250k expire then create a new rate for $1 million +.
Reply
post #29 of 32
11/5/10 at 3:26pm
If the Republicans block everything could he use some sort of executive action to pass a law or new economic policy? I'm not an expert on these matters.
Reply
post #30 of 32
11/5/10 at 3:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluelouboyle View Post
If the Republicans block everything could he use some sort of executive action to pass a law or new economic policy? I'm not an expert on these matters.
Bush passed his tax cuts via reconciliation. One would assume it would be possible to do the opposite, right?

Whether or not it's a good move politically is another question.
Reply
post #31 of 32
11/6/10 at 3:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post
He should really let the cuts on over $250k expire then create a new rate for $1 million +.
Absolutely. Considering that, even among those in the top tax bracket, the wealth distribution is still skewed towards the top few percent, it makes little sense to leave the highest marginal rate (whether it be 36 or 39%) at $250,000/year.

Why not set separate marginal rates for those making $500k, $750k, and $1 million+? It wouldn't be incredibly complicated to do so, and it'll give Congress more flexibility in adjusting marginal rates. Why should an attorney or a family practitioner making just north of $250,000/yr pay the same marginal tax rate as a Fortune 500 CEO or hedge fund manager making 100 times that?
Reply
post #32 of 32
11/6/10 at 3:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post
Bush passed his tax cuts via reconciliation. One would assume it would be possible to do the opposite, right?

Whether or not it's a good move politically is another question.
There is nothing Obama can do that will not result in an attack from Republicans and the right-wing cheerleading squad that is your news. Nothing. Policy does not interest the right, gaining power in 2012 is their raison d'etre. They said so.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Creating Jobs - Republicans vs. Democrats