PDA

View Full Version : Comrade Carney must be denounced!



LWW
08-05-2011, 11:19 AM
Ina stunning display of heresy, Jay Carney has denied the wisdom taught to us by dear leader ... going so far as claiming that the omnipotent and omniscient state does not create jobs, but tax cuts do!

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>I DENOUNCE YOU, JAY CARNEY, AS AN ENEMY OF THE STATE, AND OF THE PEOPLE! (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/08/04/carney_the_white_house_doesnt_create_jobs.html)</span>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>WALL STREET JOURNAL RETHUGLICAN PROPAGANDIST:</span> Sort of to follow on that, why should Americans believe that the White House can create jobs when the unemployment rate has been so stagnant and the record is sort of anemic?

[<span style='font-size: 11pt'>b]ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE AND TRAITOR JAY CARNEY:[/b]</span> Well, the White House doesn’t create jobs. The government together -- White House, Congress -- creates policies that allow for greater job creation. And that can be through tax cuts, for example, for working Americans; everyone who works pays a payroll tax.

Soflasnapper
08-05-2011, 06:20 PM
Tax cuts are a lousy way to stimulate jobs, based on W's and O's experiences to date.

Both tried, and both failed, using that method.

ugotda7
08-05-2011, 06:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tax cuts are a lousy way to stimulate jobs, based on W's and O's experiences to date.

Both tried, and both failed, using that method. </div></div>

Wrong

LWW
08-06-2011, 02:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ugotda7</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tax cuts are a lousy way to stimulate jobs, based on W's and O's experiences to date.

Both tried, and both failed, using that method. </div></div>

Wrong </div></div>

You would think he would be used to that by now.

From 01/01 to 01/03 ... non farm payrolls were down for 21 of 24 months.

In leftspeak ... that would be the economy Bush inherited until the tax cuts took effect, if it weren't Bush that is.

Then, from 02/05 through 01/07 ... non farm payrolls rose for 38 of 46 months.

Let me make that real easy ... in the 2 years pre tax cuts, jobs fell 87.5% of the monthly reporting periods.

From the tax cuts implementation until the democrooks took control of congress ... non farm payrolls rose 82.6% of the monthly reporting periods. That is pretty much a complete reversal.

But wait, there's more.

Since then, non farm payrolls have dropped in 24 of 53 reporting periods.

Hence ... capitalism and tax reform works. Stupidonomics doesn't.
OH DEAR! (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/non-farm-payrolls)

Soflasnapper
08-06-2011, 06:55 PM
A brilliant seeming dodge, going to the numbers of positive vs. negative job growth vs. job decline, as to the number of reporting periods.

That's an odd thing to focus on, when you could, you know, talk about the numbers of jobs created directly.

Except that you cannot for obvious reasons:

Key: President Name/Party/Term Yrs/Starting Jobs/Ending Jobs/Ttl Increase (millions)/% Avg. annual growth in jobs

Bill Clinton D/1993–1997/109,725/121,231/+11.5/+2.6%
Bill Clinton D/1997–2001/121,231/132,469/+11.2/+2.3%
George W. Bush R/2001–2005/132,469/132,453/+0.0/-0.0%
George W. Bush R/2005–2009/132,453/133,563/+1.1/+0.1%
Barack Obama D/2009–2013/133,563/135,373 (May 2011)/+1.81 (May 2011)/+0.54% (May. 2011/Roughly 2.5 Years)

See the original table at:

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms)

In the original, clicking on the headings allows one to sort on any particular column.

When I clicked on the average annual percentage increase in jobs, sorting lowest to highest, Hoover was first (meaning the lowest in average annual job growth, an actual negative 9% or so), and then W's two terms came in 2nd and 3rd lowest.

So this fine job creation history you tout, oh so many reporting periods up instead of down (!!-- astonishing!!), didn't actually, you know, result in a lot of jobs being created. Hardly any, relatively speaking, and at so slow a rate as to be the slowest this side of Hoover.

LWW
08-07-2011, 05:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A brilliant seeming dodge, going to the numbers of positive vs. negative job growth vs. job decline, as to the number of reporting periods. </div></div>

How was it a dodge.

You said it didn't happen.

I demonstrated it did.

Imagine that.

Soflasnapper
08-08-2011, 12:25 PM
It's a dodge, because it is wholly misleading, dealing not with jobs, but with plus/minus job reporting periods.

Presuming the totals are accurate, it appears to show a history of strong job growth (although, simply saying there was a positive change in jobs doesn't say how MUCH a positive change there was, and evidently, the answer is, not so much positive change).

So these are possibly true, and yet misleading, figures to argue your point. Or else the two terms of W wouldn't have seen the very worse job creation numbers in the history of presidential terms this side of the iconic Hoover himself.

Or else, again, the admittedly low job creation numbers in this weak recovery couldn't be 80% larger than the whole of the job creation numbers for W's 8 years in office.

LWW
08-08-2011, 01:46 PM
If you think the data shows something different ... make your case.

If you can't, stop getting all butt sore because another of your smoke and mirrors arguments was destroyed.

Soflasnapper
08-11-2011, 06:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you think the data shows something different ... make your case.

If you can't, stop getting all butt sore because another of your smoke and mirrors arguments was destroyed. </div></div>

Here's the data:

George W. Bush R/2001–2005/132,469/132,453/+0.0/-0.0%
George W. Bush R/2005–2009/132,453/133,563/+1.1/+0.1%

This shows that from Jan. 01 as of when he took office, until Jan of 05 when his first term ended (and his next term began), the number of new jobs in millions was 0.0 millions, and his average annual rate of job growth was -0.0%.

Then from Jan 05 when he took office his second term, until Jan 09 when he left office, the number of new jobs in millions was +1.1 million, and his average annual rate of growth in jobs was +0.1%.

These are the real-world results from W's extensive tax cutting policy changes, which were put in place RETROACTIVELY for all of '01 once passed (for the lowered bottom rate change from 15% to a 10% rate, for all taxpayers), and then for the '03 tax cut for dividends, interest and cap gains, to 15%, plus several other tax cuts, tax credits, or tax rebates (every minor child got another $500 tax credit on top of the pre-existing $500 per child tax credit, doubling that break to $1,000 per child), there was that famous $200 check (or whatever it was) that all taxpayers got, etc.

These real-world results are nearly a record low for job creation for any presidential term in office, beaten only by the disgraced Herbert Hoover's job record.

You ignore the totals of new jobs created (for an obvious reason, they are lousy!), and tell us instead to look at the story told by the numbers of reporting periods the household job numbers were up compared to down.

Which I agree is a far better STORY for your point of view, but that's because it is misleading in the extreme, by implying a good to great jobs record, when the jobs record was really abysmal.

LWW
08-12-2011, 12:59 AM
That is smoke and mirrors.

The economy was in trouble in 2001 from the Clinton era dot bomb bubble and just entering the danger zone from GLB.

The economy has been in free fall since the demokrooks took congress in 2007.

This is not an endorsement of Bush, but a counterweight to the left's blaming Bush for the failures of Bush and blaming Bush for the failures of Clinton and blaming Bush for the failures of Obama.