• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama: No Deal Without Tax Hikes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hey, thanks for posting that link. Just yesterday, Conservative was denying that a net gain of 23 million jobs were created while Clinton was president, even after I showed him the actual data from BLS.gov; and here, the Wall Street Journal says I'm right and he was wrong * ...

President ............................... Jobs created
Bill Clinton ............................... 23.1 million
Ronald Reagan ......................... 16.0 million
Lyndon Johnson ........................ 11.9 million
Jimmy Carter ........................... 10.5 million
Richard Nixon ............................ 9.4 million
Harry Truman ............................. 8.4 million
John F. Kennedy ......................... 3.6 million
Dwight Eisenhower ...................... 3.5 million
George W. Bush ......................... 3.0 million
George H.W. Bush ...................... 2.5 million
Gerald Ford ................................ 1.8 million

* = ordered by jobs created

Here's that list *, when time in office is factored in:

President ....... Jobs created per year in office
Bill Clinton ................................. 2,900,000
Jimmy Carter ............................. 2,600,000
Lyndon Johnson .......................... 2,300,000
Ronald Reagan ........................... 2,000,000
Richard Nixon ............................. 1,700,000
John F. Kennedy ......................... 1,200,000
Harry Truman ............................. 1,100,000
Dwight Eisenhower ........................ 438,000
George W. Bush ............................ 375,000
George H.W. Bush ......................... 625,000
Gerald Ford .................................. 745,000

* = population not factored in

That is typical liberal bull**** and not supported by BLS except by your selected charts, not the total employment charts, great spin but a typical lie. Wonder how many jobs Obama has created a year?
 
I am done with you Pb, you don't read or comprehend anything posted to you. Your statement has been refuted and "your" President has done nothing to reverse the downtrend.
Are you blaming Obama for the debt incurred in January 2009?
 
That is typical liberal bull**** and not supported by BLS except by your selected charts, not the total employment charts, great spin but a typical lie. Wonder how many jobs Obama has created a year?
The analysis was done by the conservative WSJ.
 
You call keeping more of what you earn in the form of subsidies as the govt. giving the rich something? Wow?

The govt allowing people to keep more of their money always irks liberals who are scared to death of losing their sacred cow, taxpayer funded support.

Still waiting for what the fair share from the rich is? define it?

It's not their money if they earn it using taxpayer funded resources. When they start earning their money w/o using roads, the internet, etc, then they can keep it all. Until then, we're taking a cut
 
The analysis was done by the conservative WSJ.

The analysis doesn't trump BLS data. I have posted the actual charts many times only to be ignored. Clinton did NOT create 23 million jobs, it was 18 million. Reagan's was 16.8 after inheriting a 19.33 misery index, 17.5% interest rates and rising unemployment. Reagan lost jobs during his first two years because of the conditions he inherited, Clinton inherited a growing economy
 
Hey, thanks for posting that link. Just yesterday, Conservative was denying that a net gain of 23 million jobs were created while Clinton was president, even after I showed him the actual data from BLS.gov; and here, the Wall Street Journal says I'm right and he was wrong * ...

President ............................... Jobs created
Bill Clinton ............................... 23.1 million
Ronald Reagan ......................... 16.0 million
Lyndon Johnson ........................ 11.9 million
Jimmy Carter ........................... 10.5 million
Richard Nixon ............................ 9.4 million
Harry Truman ............................. 8.4 million
John F. Kennedy ......................... 3.6 million
Dwight Eisenhower ...................... 3.5 million
George W. Bush ......................... 3.0 million
George H.W. Bush ...................... 2.5 million
Gerald Ford ................................ 1.8 million

* = ordered by jobs created

Here's that list *, when time in office is factored in:

President ....... Jobs created per year in office
Bill Clinton ................................. 2,900,000
Jimmy Carter ............................. 2,600,000
Lyndon Johnson .......................... 2,300,000
Ronald Reagan ........................... 2,000,000
Richard Nixon ............................. 1,700,000
John F. Kennedy ......................... 1,200,000
Harry Truman ............................. 1,100,000
Dwight Eisenhower ........................ 438,000
George W. Bush ............................ 375,000
George H.W. Bush ......................... 625,000
Gerald Ford .................................. 745,000

* = population not factored in

Well, the WSJ is obviously staffed by pinko commie lib RINOs who want to take all the money from the rich.
 
The analysis doesn't trump BLS data. I have posted the actual charts many times only to be ignored. Clinton did NOT create 23 million jobs, it was 18 million. Reagan's was 16.8 after inheriting a 19.33 misery index, 17.5% interest rates and rising unemployment. Reagan lost jobs during his first two years because of the conditions he inherited, Clinton inherited a growing economy

Obviously, the analysis was the result of the liberal bias of the WSJ :roll:

And the recession that Clinton inherited from GHWB (remember him racing his cigarette boat in Marthas' Vineyard while people were losing their jobs) never happened?
 
Last edited:
How do you know that they don't get additional benefits from the govt? Do you follow them around and measure the benefits they receive? Maybe you could post the response in the thread devoted to explaining how this could be done.

feel free to list any de jure benefits and the code from which they can be found

or de facto benefits that come from the government that you can back up with proof
 
The analysis doesn't trump BLS data. I have posted the actual charts many times only to be ignored. Clinton did NOT create 23 million jobs, it was 18 million. Reagan's was 16.8 after inheriting a 19.33 misery index, 17.5% interest rates and rising unemployment. Reagan lost jobs during his first two years because of the conditions he inherited, Clinton inherited a growing economy

Official Employment numbers, Total employment from the BLS and the chart is listed

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS12000000 Dec-07 Jun-09
Seasonally Adjusted Mar-01 Nov-01
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level Jul-90 Mar-91
Labor force status: Employed Jul-81 Nov-82
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 1980 to 2010

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1980 99879 99995 99713 99233 98945 98682 98796 98824 99077 99317 99545 99634
1981 99955 100191 100571 101056 101048 100298 100693 100689 100064 100378 100207 99645
1982 99692 99762 99672 99576 100116 99543 99493 99633 99504 99215 99112 99032
1983 99161 99089 99179 99560 99642 100633 101208 101608 102016 102039 102729 102996
1984 103201 103824 103967 104336 105193 105591 105435 105163 105490 105638 105972 106223
1985 106302 106555 106989 106936 106932 106505 106807 107095 107657 107847 108007 108216
1986 108887 108480 108837 108952 109089 109576 109810 110015 110085 110273 110475 110728
1987 110953 111257 111408 111794 112434 112246 112634 113057 112909 113282 113505 113793
1988 114016 114227 114037 114650 114292 114927 115060 115282 115356 115638 116100 116104
1989 116708 116776 117022 117097 117099 117418 117472 117655 117354 117581 117912 117830
1990 119081 119059 119203 118852 119151 118983 118810 118802 118524 118536 118306 118241
1991 117940 117755 117652 118109 117440 117639 117568 117484 117928 117800 117770 117466
1992 117978 117753 118144 118426 118375 118419 118713 118826 118720 118628 118876 118997
1993 119075 119275 119542 119474 120115 120290 120467 120856 120554 120823 121169 121464
1994 121966 122086 121930 122290 122864 122634 122706 123342 123687 124112 124516 124721
1995 124663 124928 124955 124945 124421 124522 124816 124852 125133 125388 125188 125088
1996 125125 125639 125862 125994 126244 126602 126947 127172 127536 127890 127771 127860
1997 128298 128298 128891 129143 129464 129412 129822 130010 130019 130179 130653 130679
1998 130726 130807 130814 131209 131325 131244 131329 131390 131986 131999 132280 132602
1999 133027 132856 132947 132955 133311 133378 133414 133591 133707 133993 134309 134523
2000 136559 136598 136701 137270 136630 136940 136531 136662 136893 137088 137322 137614
2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
2004 138472 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125
2005 140245 140385 140654 141254 141609 141714 142026 142434 142401 142548 142499 142752
2006 143142 143444 143765 143794 144108 144370 144229 144631 144797 145292 145477 145914
2007 146032 146043 146368 145686 145952 146079 145926 145685 146193 145885 146483 146173
2008 146421 146165 146173 146306 146023 145768 145515 145187 145021 144677 143907 143188
2009 142221 141687 140854 140902 140438 140038 139817 139433 138768 138242 138381 137792 1678573 139881.0833
2010 138333 138641 138905 139455 139420 139119 138960 139250 139391 139061 138888 139206 1668629 139052.4167
2011 139323 139573 139864 139674 139779 139334
 
feel free to list any de jure benefits and the code from which they can be found

or de facto benefits that come from the government that you can back up with proof

We're still waiting for you to do that. After all, you're the one who thinks that how the taxes should be computed.
 
Official Employment numbers, Total employment from the BLS and the chart is listed

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS12000000 Dec-07 Jun-09
Seasonally Adjusted Mar-01 Nov-01
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level Jul-90 Mar-91
Labor force status: Employed Jul-81 Nov-82
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 1980 to 2010

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1980 99879 99995 99713 99233 98945 98682 98796 98824 99077 99317 99545 99634
1981 99955 100191 100571 101056 101048 100298 100693 100689 100064 100378 100207 99645
1982 99692 99762 99672 99576 100116 99543 99493 99633 99504 99215 99112 99032
1983 99161 99089 99179 99560 99642 100633 101208 101608 102016 102039 102729 102996
1984 103201 103824 103967 104336 105193 105591 105435 105163 105490 105638 105972 106223
1985 106302 106555 106989 106936 106932 106505 106807 107095 107657 107847 108007 108216
1986 108887 108480 108837 108952 109089 109576 109810 110015 110085 110273 110475 110728
1987 110953 111257 111408 111794 112434 112246 112634 113057 112909 113282 113505 113793
1988 114016 114227 114037 114650 114292 114927 115060 115282 115356 115638 116100 116104
1989 116708 116776 117022 117097 117099 117418 117472 117655 117354 117581 117912 117830
1990 119081 119059 119203 118852 119151 118983 118810 118802 118524 118536 118306 118241
1991 117940 117755 117652 118109 117440 117639 117568 117484 117928 117800 117770 117466
1992 117978 117753 118144 118426 118375 118419 118713 118826 118720 118628 118876 118997
1993 119075 119275 119542 119474 120115 120290 120467 120856 120554 120823 121169 121464
1994 121966 122086 121930 122290 122864 122634 122706 123342 123687 124112 124516 124721
1995 124663 124928 124955 124945 124421 124522 124816 124852 125133 125388 125188 125088
1996 125125 125639 125862 125994 126244 126602 126947 127172 127536 127890 127771 127860
1997 128298 128298 128891 129143 129464 129412 129822 130010 130019 130179 130653 130679
1998 130726 130807 130814 131209 131325 131244 131329 131390 131986 131999 132280 132602
1999 133027 132856 132947 132955 133311 133378 133414 133591 133707 133993 134309 134523
2000 136559 136598 136701 137270 136630 136940 136531 136662 136893 137088 137322 137614
2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
2004 138472 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125
2005 140245 140385 140654 141254 141609 141714 142026 142434 142401 142548 142499 142752
2006 143142 143444 143765 143794 144108 144370 144229 144631 144797 145292 145477 145914
2007 146032 146043 146368 145686 145952 146079 145926 145685 146193 145885 146483 146173
2008 146421 146165 146173 146306 146023 145768 145515 145187 145021 144677 143907 143188
2009 142221 141687 140854 140902 140438 140038 139817 139433 138768 138242 138381 137792 1678573 139881.0833
2010 138333 138641 138905 139455 139420 139119 138960 139250 139391 139061 138888 139206 1668629 139052.4167
2011 139323 139573 139864 139674 139779 139334

No link, and no analysis. You couldn't even get the collumnar format straightened out
 
many of our governors are leading the way, americans are witnessing miracles worked at the state level

Many states celebrate surpluses as Congress struggles with debt

mitch daniels has accumulated a ONE POINT TWO BILLION dollar SURPLUS in hoosier-ville!

he's giving out BONUSES to state employees!

butch otter in idaho is EIGHTY FIVE MILLION AHEAD!

terry branstad in iowa---FOUR HUNDRED AND EIGHTY MILLION DOLLARS!

how EXCITING!

finally, some HOPE! some CHANGE!

maine, ohio, arkansas, south carolina...

the laboratories of liberty in progress

GO, CUOMO, GO!
 
Last edited:
we werent about to default on our debt or trillions in the hole
So how come debt wasn't much of an issue until Reagan fostered in supply-side economics? Seems to me, trickle down is really trickled on.
 
How do you know that they don't get additional benefits from the govt? Do you follow them around and measure the benefits they receive? Maybe you could post the response in the thread devoted to explaining how this could be done.
The top marginal rate during first years of Reagan's term was 50% and all the conservatives seem to think that was great.
 
No link, and no analysis. You couldn't even get the collumnar format straightened out

As usual you don't know what you are talking about, pretty easy to analyze take the January numbers when Reagan, Bush, Clinton, GW Bush, and Obama took office and compare them.

Clinton took office January 1993 and there wre 119.075 million employed people so that is hardly inheriting a recession that ended in March 1991. I just couldn't take the misinformation any more

By the way, the chart name is listed, go to BLS.gov and find it yourself. Learn something
 
Last edited:
the rich get money & subsidies for their companies, corporations, businesses.

You call keeping more of what you earn in the form of subsidies as the govt. giving the rich something? Wow?
WTF?? He's not talking about tax cuts, he's he's talking about corporate welfare.


:damn
 
We're still waiting for you to do that. After all, you're the one who thinks that how the taxes should be computed.

I want all of those posters who claim the rich should be taxed more because they are GIVEN more by the government to prove that. Its been a total fail for going on two years now on this board.
 
The top marginal rate during first years of Reagan's term was 50% and all the conservatives seem to think that was great.

do you have a citation for that idiocy? It was better than the 70% before it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom