October 8, 200422 yr Bush had a chance to get some momentum going, and take away a strong sticking point of Kerry's by have a net gain in jobs during his presidency. But, with this month's job growth report being weaker than expected Bush's 4 years will end with less jobs than he started with. Fox News Cnn My Favorite quote Sen. Bennett blamed a series of hurricanes hitting Florida and the Southeast United States in September for the disappointing number. "If we hadn't had the hurricanes I think we clearly would have been over 100,000," he said. Republicans seem to blame anything but a thing called policy.
October 8, 200422 yr Not only less jobs, but the ones created pay less with fewer benefits. curiously negative indeed.
October 8, 200422 yr Author Not only less jobs, but the ones created pay less with fewer benefits. curiously negative indeed. 586264[/snapback] Not only that but 33,000 of the jobs created in the past month are temporary jobs! So they won't even last for more than a few months. I think it is safe to say a vote for Bush has to be strictly for Iraq because there is no way you can spin Bush's domestic performance or policies unless you reeeeally stretch.
October 8, 200422 yr Forgive me, but would someone mind explaining how exactly a President affects job growth?
October 8, 200422 yr Forgive me, but would someone mind how exactly a President affects job growth? 586269[/snapback] Unfortunately it doesnt matter because the masses believe this to be true.
October 8, 200422 yr Author Forgive me, but would someone mind how exactly a President affects job growth? 586269[/snapback] Well a big part of Bush's tax plan is cutting taxes for the upper end in hopes of the trickle down effect... well it doesn't seem to be working. And this also has implications towards outsourcing jobs. So this brings a lot of policies towards the forefront. There is a reason this is the first president to see a net loss through his presidential stay.
October 8, 200422 yr Forgive me, but would someone mind how exactly a President affects job growth? 586269[/snapback] Well a big part of Bush's tax plan is cutting taxes for the upper end in hopes of the trickle down effect... well it doesn't seem to be working. And this also has implications towards outsourcing jobs. So this brings a lot of policies towards the forefront. There is a reason this is the first president to see a net loss through his presidential stay. 586274[/snapback] What are you talking about? A lot of middle class people got a 200$ check back! :thumbdown
October 8, 200422 yr Easy to distort the facts on the Bush Administration tax cuts. Only for the rich? What a ridiculous argument. One thing Cheney did a swell job of during the debates was pointing out that this also applies to small businesses, which are one of THE biggest job providers. Would a Democrat in office tax these small businesses to death, thus losing jobs?
October 8, 200422 yr Author Easy to distort the facts on the Bush Administration tax cuts. Only for the rich? What a ridiculous argument. One thing Cheney did a swell job of during the debates was pointing out that this also applies to small businesses, which are one of THE biggest job providers. Would a Democrat in office tax these small businesses to death, thus losing jobs? 586280[/snapback] Well a big part of Bush's tax plan is cutting taxes for the upper end in hopes of the trickle down effect... well it doesn't seem to be working. And this also has implications towards outsourcing jobs. So this brings a lot of policies towards the forefront. There is a reason this is the first president to see a net loss through his presidential stay. I didn't remember saying tax cuts only for the high end, and theres a reason why I don't remember saying that. And those tax cuts for those small businesses don't seem to be working. This type of stuff doesn't happen on its own. There is a reason for: That revision and the September payroll number left overall economy with about 585,000 fewer jobs than when President Bush took office in January 2001. If the president has nothing to do with job growth then the Bush camp wouldn't have tried to tout the job growth number the last couple months. "See the economy is good, more jobs!"
October 8, 200422 yr A typical conservative move by me I suppose, but I'll say it anyway. 9/11 had to have some negative affect in job growth.
October 8, 200422 yr Author A typical conservative move by me I suppose, but I'll say it anyway. 9/11 had to have some negative affect in job growth. 586290[/snapback] Granted that in all likely-hood did not help matters, but we still had 3 years to recover. Its not like 9/11 was a year ago. And a lot of jobs that were lost were lost last year which is hard to say those are directly affected by 9/11 fall out. For the last couple of months before the job report comes out the administration has been overestimating job growth substantially. So the jobs are not growing at the rate that they should be. Even if you say 9/11 caused the HALF A MILLION job loss on its own, jobs still are not growing fast enough today 3 years later.
October 8, 200422 yr One thing Cheney did a swell job of during the debates was pointing out that this also applies to small businesses, which are one of THE biggest job providers. Would a Democrat in office tax these small businesses to death, thus losing jobs? Cheney was wrong. He was inflating the figure bigtime: Small Businesses Cheney made a puffed-up claim that "900,000 small businesses will be hit" should Kerry and Edwards raise taxes on individuals making more than $200,000 a year, as they promise to do. As we've explained before, 900,000 is an inflated figure that results from counting every high-income individual who reports even $1 of business income as a "small business owner." Even Cheney and his wife Lynne would qualify as a "small business owner" under that definition because Mrs. Cheney reports income as a "consultant" from fees she collects as a corporate board member, even though she had no employees and the business income is only 3.5% of the total income reported on their 2003 tax returns. www.factcheck.org Plus yes the president doesnt necessarily steward the economy, but its clear the tax cuts didnt work as well as Bush claims. See the president does control how well the economy recovers and Bush has botched that. And at what consequence? A massive deficit that he wont pay off. Fiscal conservatives should be crapping themselves.
October 8, 200422 yr One thing Cheney did a swell job of during the debates was pointing out that this also applies to small businesses, which are one of THE biggest job providers. Would a Democrat in office tax these small businesses to death, thus losing jobs? Cheney was wrong. He was inflating the figure bigtime: Small Businesses Cheney made a puffed-up claim that "900,000 small businesses will be hit" should Kerry and Edwards raise taxes on individuals making more than $200,000 a year, as they promise to do. As we've explained before, 900,000 is an inflated figure that results from counting every high-income individual who reports even $1 of business income as a "small business owner." Even Cheney and his wife Lynne would qualify as a "small business owner" under that definition because Mrs. Cheney reports income as a "consultant" from fees she collects as a corporate board member, even though she had no employees and the business income is only 3.5% of the total income reported on their 2003 tax returns. www.factcheck.org Plus yes the president doesnt necessarily steward the economy, but its clear the tax cuts didnt work as well as Bush claims. See the president does control how well the economy recovers and Bush has botched that. And at what consequence? A massive defecit that he wont pay off. Fiscal conservatives should be crapping themselves. 586295[/snapback] And here you have the number one reason why I'm voting for Bush reluctantly at best. He has got to do a way better job on this department.
October 8, 200422 yr A better figure comes from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, which recently calculated that the Kerry tax increase would hit roughly 471,000 small employers. That's barely half the figure Cheney used.
October 8, 200422 yr One thing Cheney did a swell job of during the debates was pointing out that this also applies to small businesses, which are one of THE biggest job providers. Would a Democrat in office tax these small businesses to death, thus losing jobs? Cheney was wrong. He was inflating the figure bigtime: Small Businesses Cheney made a puffed-up claim that "900,000 small businesses will be hit" should Kerry and Edwards raise taxes on individuals making more than $200,000 a year, as they promise to do. As we've explained before, 900,000 is an inflated figure that results from counting every high-income individual who reports even $1 of business income as a "small business owner." Even Cheney and his wife Lynne would qualify as a "small business owner" under that definition because Mrs. Cheney reports income as a "consultant" from fees she collects as a corporate board member, even though she had no employees and the business income is only 3.5% of the total income reported on their 2003 tax returns. www.factcheck.org Plus yes the president doesnt necessarily steward the economy, but its clear the tax cuts didnt work as well as Bush claims. See the president does control how well the economy recovers and Bush has botched that. And at what consequence? A massive defecit that he wont pay off. Fiscal conservatives should be crapping themselves. 586295[/snapback] And here you have the number one reason why I'm voting for Bush reluctantly at best. He has got to do a way better job on this department. 586299[/snapback] Reagan didnt...why should Bush? He will use the war on terror as an excuse. Four years and nothing but continues projected increases.
October 8, 200422 yr What are the dems plans for job growth? Middle class tax cuts like the ones clinton promised and never even made it to congress? The economy dictates the job growth figure, with the recession in 2001 and 9/11 it will take close to about 7 or 8 years for a full eocnomic recovery barring the fact that something else may happen like another terrorist attack. The Bush tax cuts unfortunately only provide more money back to the rich on whole number value but not on percentage value. For example lets say we cut taxes 30% across the board. A person who pays 0 dollars in income tax will get 0 dollars back, a person who pays 3000 dollars will get 300 back (if my math serves me well), if you pay 30,000 in taxes you'll get 3000 dollars back and so forth. The more taxes you pay the more money you get back, it has nothing to do with reagonomics it has to do with simple math. The reagan cuts, cut a larger percentage for upper brackets than for lower brackets unlike the bush cuts or the kennedy cuts. The tax cuts are not the reason for job loss at all, in fact most ofd that tax money goes into entitlement programs which do nothing in terms of job growht or loss.
October 8, 200422 yr whats your foundation for the 7-8 year figure? in fact most ofd that tax money goes into entitlement programs which do nothing in terms of job growht or loss. Not true. Current Military, $536B:Military Personnel $109B, Operation and Maintenance $164B, Procurement $67B, Research and Development $66B, Construction $6B, Family Housing $4B, Retired Pay $44B, DoE Nuclear Weapons $17B, 50% NASA $8B, International Security $8B, 50% Homeland Security $16B, Ex. Off. Pres. $10B, misc. $6B Iraq & Afghan Wars, $50B: Though the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is not included in the President?s budget, it is included here because the Administration will request supplemental funding after the Nov. 2004 election. Past Military, $349B: Veterans? Benefits $69B; Interest on National Debt (80% estimated to be created by military spending) $280B Human Resources, $633B: Education, Health/Human Services, HUD, Food/Nutrition programs, Labor Department, Soc. Sec. Admin. General Government, $244B: Legislative, Justice Dept., State Dept., International Affairs, Treasury, Gov?t. Personnel, 20% interest on national debt, 50% of NASA, 25% Homeland Security Physical Resources, $114B: Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Interior Dept., Transportation, Environmental Protection, Army Corps Engineers, NSF, FCC, 25% Homeland Security A lot of those human rescources arent event the entitlement programs that conservatives rail about.
October 8, 200422 yr whats your foundation for the 7-8 year figure? in fact most ofd that tax money goes into entitlement programs which do nothing in terms of job growht or loss. Not true. Current Military, $536B:Military Personnel $109B, Operation and Maintenance $164B, Procurement $67B, Research and Development $66B, Construction $6B, Family Housing $4B, Retired Pay $44B, DoE Nuclear Weapons $17B, 50% NASA $8B, International Security $8B, 50% Homeland Security $16B, Ex. Off. Pres. $10B, misc. $6B Iraq & Afghan Wars, $50B: Though the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is not included in the President?s budget, it is included here because the Administration will request supplemental funding after the Nov. 2004 election. Past Military, $349B: Veterans? Benefits $69B; Interest on National Debt (80% estimated to be created by military spending) $280B Human Resources, $633B: Education, Health/Human Services, HUD, Food/Nutrition programs, Labor Department, Soc. Sec. Admin. General Government, $244B: Legislative, Justice Dept., State Dept., International Affairs, Treasury, Gov?t. Personnel, 20% interest on national debt, 50% of NASA, 25% Homeland Security Physical Resources, $114B: Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Interior Dept., Transportation, Environmental Protection, Army Corps Engineers, NSF, FCC, 25% Homeland Security A lot of those human rescources arent event the entitlement programs that conservatives rail about. 586356[/snapback] What exatly goes under human resources that helps job growth?
October 8, 200422 yr I was more responding to the point about most tax money going to human rescources. To me its simple..monetary policy determines economy...tax cuts dont have a very good multiplier...so why run deficits?
October 8, 200422 yr I was more responding to the point about most tax money going to human rescources. To me its simple..monetary policy determines economy...tax cuts dont have a very good multiplier...so why run deficits? 586367[/snapback] But in Europe, especially France, Germany, and spain there is heavy social spending and double the deficit the US has and double the unemployment rate. Surely this cant be an anomaly
October 8, 200422 yr I never defended Europe did I? They tax their way into disaster. The US is at a good position in terms of optimization of taxes. Maximization of utility is key here. Just because I argue that fewer taxes will not have an effect and can only hurt, doesnt mean Im also arguing for massive increases in taxes. Im arguing for maximization. The fact is we have to pay for a certain amount of things. We have to tax. So we tax as much as we can until it has an adverse affect. Then keep things optimum. Those countries go way too far. But saying we shouldnt optimize is just ineffecient. On another note, why is it that anytime a democrat or liberal argues against tax cuts, they are automatically equated with the socialists of Europe?
October 8, 200422 yr I never defended Europe did I? They tax their way into disaster. The US is at a good position in terms of optimization of taxes. Maximization of utility is key here. Just because I argue that fewer taxes will not have an effect and can only hurt, doesnt mean Im also arguing for massive increases in taxes. Im arguing for maximization. The fact is we have to pay for a certain amount of things. We have to tax. So we tax as much as we can until it has an adverse affect. Then keep things optimum. Those countries go way too far. But saying we shouldnt optimize is just ineffecient. On another note, why is it that anytime a democrat or liberal argues against tax cuts, they are automatically equated with the socialists of Europe? 586384[/snapback] Because the definition of what 'hurts' is vague, how much can you tax a society also is a violation of basic freedoms. So maybe raising taxes will give the economy a slight boost, but wha tgood is more money in circulation of people have to keep less and less of it the more they make. That no longer creates opportunity it now hinders opportunity, because you will never be rich b/c the more you make the more they take. Why dont we instead keep tax cuts for everyone especially the middle class and in addition to that use the money that we do pay in taxes to reform programs that are being mismanaged. For example more is not always better some programs are rewarded for inefficiency when govt sends them more money to correct the problem. What message are you sending to the heads of these programs? Govt programs need to be accountable and reformed to mimimize how much money they spend, then we can lower tqxes to a certain level effectively without causing us to plunge into deficit.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.