What Message Do You Want To Hear At The Democratic National Convention?

[swake]

I do the math every year I do my taxes.

It's a myth that Republicans are good for the economy. Romney's plan is more failed right wing garbage that will do nothing to help our current job problems.


Here's the real historical facts. Unemployment started going up as we entered the recession at 5% in April 2008 when there were 146.1 jobs in the economy, by Obama's first full month in office, Feb '09 the rate was up to 8.3% with 141.6 million jobs, 4.5 million less than in April. The unemployment rate peaked in Oct '09 when Obama had been in office for seven months at 10% with 138.4 million jobs. The rate has been falling since and is back down to 8.3% but now with 142.2 million jobs.

Bush entered office with 136.6 million jobs in the economy, eight years later even before the full weight of the recession that was created under his watch was felt we were only at 142.2 million jobs in Bush's last month in office. Only 4.6 million jobs were created in his eight years. Millions more were lost right after he left office bottoming out at 138 million jobs in December '09, just 1.4 million more than when Bush entered office.

Since Obama took office we have only added 600k jobs but if you look at the number since the bottom in Dec '09 we have added 4.2 million jobs in three years as compared to Bush's 4.6 million in eight.

Other presidents:
Clinton is the gold standard and created 18.5 million jobs in 8 years
Bush I created a paltry 2.3 million jobs in 4 years
Reagan did very well creating 16.5 million jobs in 8 years
Carter actually did pretty well with 9.7 million jobs in 4 years
Nixon/Ford were also pretty mediocre with only 11.3 million jobs in 8 years

Tell me again which party is good for business and the economy? From 1971 to 2001 Democrats were in office for 12 years and created 28.2 million jobs for an average of 2.35 million per year in office. Republicans were in office for 20 years and only created 30.1 million jobs for an average of 1.5 million per year. Obama and Bush II would bring down these averages but the recession was created under Bush's watch.

Republicans aren't good for business

[Red Arrow]

ob·li·ga·tion   
NOUN:
The act of binding oneself by a social, legal, or moral tie.
A social, legal, or moral requirement, such as a duty, contract, or promise that compels one to follow or avoid a particular course of action.
A course of action imposed by society, law, or conscience by which one is bound or restricted.
He wants people to trust him...look at that first example each time.

I see a lot of want by you and others for the tax returns but we will have to disagree on obligation.

[Gaspar]

Now, just for comparison, lets look at how President Obama addresses the exact same two issues of taxation and spending.

His platform for taxes from his website:
President Obama has cut taxes for middle-class families and small businesses. One of the first things he did in office was cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. He has also signed 18 tax cuts for small businesses and extended the payroll tax cut for all American workers and their families, putting an extra $1,000 in the typical middle-class family's pocket.
For too long, the U.S. tax code has benefited the wealthy and well-connected at the expense of the vast majority of Americans. A third of the 400 highest income taxpayers paid an average rate of 15 percent or less in 2008.

That's why President Obama proposed the Buffett Rule, asking millionaires and billionaires to do their fair share. But if you're one of the 98 percent of American families who make under $250,000 a year, your taxes won't go up.

The President has asked Congress to take action to reform our tax code and close tax loopholes for millionaires and billionaires, as well as hedge fund managers, private jet owners, and oil companies.

He proposes to leave the system as is for you, and raise taxes on the wealthy and on businesses.  So, by comparison, you would see your rate reduced by 20% under Romney.  Using the typical Democrat logic (the absence of a cuts equals raises) you can argue that President Obama is going to raise taxes on the poor and middle class by 20% over Romney.

His platform for spending from his website:
There is no such part of the Obama platform.

Spending is obviously unimportant to him as long as he is engaged in class warfare.  His list of issues only offers very thin explanations (a paragraph or so) with no details:
Jobs and the Economy
Education
Energy and the Environment
Equal Rights
Health Care
National Security
Taxes
Women's Health

The presentation of his platform is very similar to his speeches, and the "budget frameworks" presented to congress.  They are vague, emotional, and devoid of detail.  When pushed for action or more granular facts, President Obama resorts to the formation of a committee, or study.  When presented with such detail by said committee, he refutes and relapses back to vague and emotional stances.  

He is jello, and jello is hard to pin to the wall.

[Red Arrow]

I do the math every year I do my taxes.

Every year you do the comparison of a 20% cut in taxes vs. removing the mortgage deduction and charitable giving deduction?

You must be way over extended on your house payments.  I may not like the charities you are giving to and thereby raising my taxes to make up for your deduction.  You need to post on TNF what charities you give to and how much.

Mr Gold Standard Clinton was fortunate during his terms to have a tech bubble.  Jimmy Carter was dealt a bad hand but was unable to fix the problems.  Manufacturing in some segments in the US was already on the way down at the end of Clinton's 2nd term.  I have stated before that I considered voting for Algore so they would get the proper credit for that downturn.  I couldn't actually do it at the election though.  

[Red Arrow]

The President has asked Congress to take action to reform our tax code and close tax loopholes for millionaires and billionaires, as well as hedge fund managers, private jet owners, and oil companies.

He must have buddies with big yachts.  Lucky for me my airplane has a piston engine. (And not a very big one at that.)

[Gaspar]

I do the math every year I do my taxes.

It's a myth that Republicans are good for the economy. Romney's plan is more failed right wing garbage that will do nothing to help our current job problems.


Here's the real historical facts. Unemployment started going up as we entered the recession at 5% in April 2008 when there were 146.1 jobs in the economy, by Obama's first full month in office, Feb '09 the rate was up to 8.3% with 141.6 million jobs, 4.5 million less than in April. The unemployment rate peaked in Oct '09 when Obama had been in office for seven months at 10% with 138.4 million jobs. The rate has been falling since and is back down to 8.3% but now with 142.2 million jobs.

Bush entered office with 136.6 million jobs in the economy, eight years later even before the full weight of the recession that was created under his watch was felt we were only at 142.2 million jobs in Bush's last month in office. Only 4.6 million jobs were created in his eight years. Millions more were lost right after he left office bottoming out at 138 million jobs in December '09, just 1.4 million more than when Bush entered office.

Since Obama took office we have only added 600k jobs but if you look at the number since the bottom in Dec '09 we have added 4.2 million jobs in three years as compared to Bush's 4.6 million in eight.

Other presidents:
Clinton is the gold standard and created 18.5 million jobs in 8 years
Bush I created a paltry 2.3 million jobs in 4 years
Reagan did very well creating 16.5 million jobs in 8 years
Carter actually did pretty well with 9.7 million jobs in 4 years
Nixon/Ford were also pretty mediocre with only 11.3 million jobs in 8 years

Tell me again which party is good for business and the economy? From 1971 to 2001 Democrats were in office for 12 years and created 28.2 million jobs for an average of 2.35 million per year in office. Republicans were in office for 20 years and only created 30.1 million jobs for an average of 1.5 million per year. Obama and Bush II would bring down these averages but the recession was created under Bush's watch.

Republicans aren't good for business

President	Took office	Jobs at start	Jobs at end	Change	Pct. change
Truman	4/12/1945	41,443,000	50,145,000	8,702,000	21%
Eisenhower	1/20/1953	50,145,000	53,683,000	3,538,000	7%
Kennedy	1/20/1961	53,683,000	57,255,000	3,572,000	7%
Johnson	11/22/1963	57,255,000	69,438,000	12,183,000	21%
Nixon	1/20/1969	69,438,000	78,619,000	9,181,000	13%
Ford	8/9/1974	78,619,000	80,692,000	2,073,000	3%
Carter	1/20/1977	80,692,000	91,031,000	10,339,000	13%
Reagan	1/20/1981	91,031,000	107,133,000	16,102,000	18%
Bush	1/20/1989	107,133,000	109,725,000	2,592,000	2%
Clinton	1/20/1993	109,725,000	132,469,000	22,744,000	21%
Bush	1/20/2001	132,469,000	133,549,000	1,080,000	1%
Obama	1/20/2009	133,549,000	130,462,000	-3,087,000	-2%

I'd rather use the figures from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics.   

[erfalf]

Considering Clinton left office at the peak of a tech bubble, it is actually quit remarkable that the economy was able to more or less keep the number of jobs constant over that first term of Bush II. That being said, I would like to know exactly what policies are bad for the economy, you know the Republican ones that have never worked.  

And as much as I would like to see the federal government run a balanced budget, running a deficit is actually not harmful on the economy as long as the credit worthiness of the government remains in tact (which it is tetering). It is the spending that most directly effects the overall economy. And generally speaking more government spending causes more dislocation within the economy, thus hindering the effectiveness of the private economy. Unfortunately neither party seems to keen on actually doing things that would rectify this, but here's hoping.

[Gaspar]

You know, I'm really impressed with the detail that Romney presents on the issues.  I don't think I have ever seen a candidates website that spells out the positions so clearly with so much detail.  http://www.mittromney.com/issues

Really worth doing a comparison between Romney and Obama on how they offer their positions to the public.

[swake]

President	Took office	Jobs at start	Jobs at end	Change	Pct. change
Truman	4/12/1945	41,443,000	50,145,000	8,702,000	21%
Eisenhower	1/20/1953	50,145,000	53,683,000	3,538,000	7%
Kennedy	1/20/1961	53,683,000	57,255,000	3,572,000	7%
Johnson	11/22/1963	57,255,000	69,438,000	12,183,000	21%
Nixon	1/20/1969	69,438,000	78,619,000	9,181,000	13%
Ford	8/9/1974	78,619,000	80,692,000	2,073,000	3%
Carter	1/20/1977	80,692,000	91,031,000	10,339,000	13%
Reagan	1/20/1981	91,031,000	107,133,000	16,102,000	18%
Bush	1/20/1989	107,133,000	109,725,000	2,592,000	2%
Clinton	1/20/1993	109,725,000	132,469,000	22,744,000	21%
Bush	1/20/2001	132,469,000	133,549,000	1,080,000	1%
Obama	1/20/2009	133,549,000	130,462,000	-3,087,000	-2%

I'd rather use the figures from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics.   

No problem:

  President          Took office          Jobs at start          Jobs at end          Change          Pct. change   
    Truman          4/12/1945          41,443,000          50,145,000          8,702,000          21%   
    Eisenhower          1/20/1953          50,145,000          53,683,000          3,538,000          7%   
    Kennedy          1/20/1961          53,683,000          57,255,000          3,572,000          7%   
    Johnson          11/22/1963          57,255,000          69,438,000          12,183,000          21%   
    Nixon          1/20/1969          69,438,000          78,619,000          9,181,000          13%   
    Ford          8/9/1974          78,619,000          80,692,000          2,073,000          3%   
    Carter          1/20/1977          80,692,000          91,031,000          10,339,000          13%   
    Reagan            1/20/1981          91,031,000          107,133,000          16,102,000          18%   
    Bush          1/20/1989          107,133,000          109,725,000          2,592,000          2%   
    Clinton          1/20/1993          109,725,000          132,469,000          22,744,000          21%   
    Bush          1/20/2001          132,469,000          133,549,000          1,080,000          1%   
    Obama          1/20/2009          133,549,000          130,462,000          -3,087,000          -2%   

I don't have a problem with these number, mine were from Google Analytics.

But let's leave out the Bush II/Obama piece for now and Bush's responsibility in his stewardship of a crash that happened under his watch but was mostly felt under Obama.

Let's look at your numbers:

Johnson – 21% in 5+ years – 4.0% per year
Carter – 13% in 4 years – 3.3% per year
Truman – 21% in just under 8 years. – 2.7% per year
Clinton - 21% in 8 years – 2.6% per year
Kennedy – 7% in 2+ years – 2.5% per year
Nixon – 13% in 5+ years – 2.4% per year
Reagan – 18% in 8 years – 2.3% per year
Ford – 3% in 2.5 years – 1.2% per year
Eisenhower – 7% in 8 years – 0.9% per year
Bush I – 2% in 4 years – .5% per year
Bush II – 1% in 8 years - .1% per year, and that's NOT taking any credit for the jobs lost in the first few months under Obama

Reagan and Nixon were the only Republican presidents do well with jobs. And they created them slower than  every other Democratic president since WWII other than Obama, and Obama's job losses came entirely in his first 10 months in office, mostly in the first six. The last three years Obama's job creation numbers have been somewhere between Reagan and Ford rate. In other words, even with this terrible economy he's creating more jobs now than 4 of the 6 Republican presidents since WWII.

Republicans are bad at economics and are bad for business.

[erfalf]

Statistics are funny things. Some might say that Democrats are bad for the economy if you were to look at the following



Of the last 62 years, Republicans have had control of the house for a grand total of 12 of the. All consecutively, and a good chunk during the Clinton term. Who truly is responsible for the economy?

That is why some of us want the government out of it all together.

[Gaspar]

Government intervention in general is bad for the economy.  It doesn't matter wether it is Democrat or Republican.  Those are simply terms used to describe two different wolves who want different forms of central planning.

[nathanm]

Government intervention in general is bad for the economy.

Hello Mr. Hoover. You're looking rather well for a zombie.

"Republicans do poorly because of circumstance, while Democrats do poorly because they do everything wrong." Such BS.

[swake]

Statistics are funny things. Some might say that Democrats are bad for the economy if you were to look at the following



Of the last 62 years, Republicans have had control of the house for a grand total of 12 of the. All consecutively, and a good chunk during the Clinton term. Who truly is responsible for the economy?

That is why some of us want the government out of it all together.

Interesting chart. So the only two periods in the last 100 years where Republicans were had both the house and the presidency  were from 1921 to  1933 and 2001 to 2007. The Great Depression started in 1929 after the Republicans had been in power for eight years and the Great Recession which started in 2008 just a year after the Republicans lost the house after holding it for six years.

The Republicans created both but still held power after the start of Great Depression and didn't stop the collapse, so 1929 was worse. The difference in 2008 was that Republicans weren't fully in power when the eventual collapse happened and quickly lost power entirely allowing Obama to attack the collapse and stop us from sinking into a second and maybe even worse depression.

Since the Great Depression Democrats have embraced Keynesian economics and this country because the most powerful economic power in the history of the world. The two periods when Republicans held complete power in the last 100 years BOTH periods led right up to the two worst economic calamities this nation has had in that time.

Did you know that before Roosevelt and the rise of Keynesian economics depressions were common in this country? There were several in the 19th century but only one during the 20th century and that one was created by Republican economic policy.

[nathanm]

Did you know that before Roosevelt and the rise of Keynesian economics depressions were common in this country?

It's not an unreasonable argument that what put a stop to the almost yearly banking panics was the implementation of a strong central bank (and later, deposit insurance). I think Keynesian policies are well proven, if sometimes mismanaged, but it's hard to say that they are solely responsible for the relative stability we have enjoyed since the Depression.

What convinces me of the unseriousness of some of the economic "thinkers" on the right is their tax cut uber alles philosophy. They seem to be unable to square themselves with the fact that tax cuts are inflationary, just like anything that pumps money into the real economy.

[Conan71]

Republicans are bad at economics and are bad for business.

I think we all know which meme card swake got in exchange for his latest contribution to the DNC.