lol really? Corporations have taught us that the more they make the more they hoard. Like I said do you think we as an entire country were better off before the Bush Tax Cuts or after? When you can answer that then we can continue with this conversation my friend.
again arch.....you can create jobs all day every day...but if the middle class is burden heavily with high gas prices and other unavoiable neccessary expenses and DISPROPORTIONATE taxes then business will not be able to get all of disposable income. The more you spend in gas and taxes and ect.. the less you spend on a pizza at pizza inn. do remember in the turn of the century taxes then is higher than what it is now for the "job creators"
I take my time and I layout a viable vision for two of my brightest brothers......and behold, they are still thinking like a worker instead of thinking like a boss......they are still thinking like the proletariat instead of the bourgeoisie..............Some one once said:...."You can take the Blackman out of the factory,..but you can't take the factory out of the Blackman" ....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19487985 http://www.mining.com/worlds-riches...alous-calls-for-minimum-wage-reduction-50299/ i want some of that shit she's smoking
The economy was better under Clinton. But my point was that Clinton had a Republican House and Senate during his years. So he cut spending massively and was able to raise taxes. That is a smart move when you have a booming economy. Obama has a lagging economy so he must lower taxes to spur activity. Bush did very well during his first term with the economy, but in his second term spending went up when Democrats took control of the House and Senate and he left taxes & interest rates too low.
I'm not saying taxes should be equal across the Board. A progressive tax system makes sense, but it needs to be adjusted without political bias in order to be effective. Taxes should be lowered and raised depending on the situation. What happens is that Presidents stick to their platform ideals instead of doing what's in the best interest of the country. But to argue using capital gains as a means to offset income tax gaps won't work. Capital gains cannot be modeled and predicted the same as regular income taxes. But in general I believe capital gains should be lower to encourage investment. The majority of the wealthy in this country are wealthy because of investments. If people want to move up economic ladder, they need to invest their money. It could be stocks...it could be buying a home...etc.
Yeah so his unnecessary war had nothing to do with out of control spending? The right wing treats everything like its a fricking vaccum like one action doesnt beget another. Well if you need historical context refer to hoe FDR handled a similar situation
I saw this article and thought of this the many threads on this forum that talk about job creation: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...n-jobs-created-under-175621036--election.html Thoughts?
They left it a mess, he didn't clean it up fast enough, so let's thrown him out and put them back in... not a chance... it's working #obama2012- A chick from my fb It seemed really fitting.
Bill Clinton says 4.5 million jobs have been created under Barack Obama Share this story: Former President Bill Clinton addresses the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C. During his speech to the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., former President Bill Clinton repeated a talking point often used by Democrats to tout President Barack Obama’s record on job creation. "In the last 29 months," Clinton said, "our economy has produced about 4.5 million private-sector jobs." But Clinton is cherry-picking the numbers to paint Obama’s record in the most favorable light. Other methods show less impressive growth in jobs -- even declines. First of all, Clinton was using private-sector job figures, not total job figures. Right off the bat, that paints Obama’s numbers favorably, since government jobs have declined during much of Obama’s term. If you count from the start of Obama’s term, private-sector jobs have increased by 332,000, but total jobs have decreased by 316,000 due to losses of government jobs. Since this time frame includes the start of Obama’s term -- when the economy was in free fall and before Obama’s policies had time to take effect -- we don’t think this is the best way to measure it. The way Clinton did it is another way to count it. Clinton started counting from the low point of jobs in February 2010. Using this method, private-sector jobs increased by about 4.5 million. However, starting the count at the low point is a bit of cherry-picking. If you instead start at the official end of the recession in June 2009, private-sector jobs increased by 3.4 million. That’s well below Clinton’s 4.5 million figure. We realize that speakers at political conventions are going to put the best gloss on the numbers they have available, so it’s not surprising that Clinton would use the 4.5 million figure. But getting to 4.5 million requires starting the count at the most favorable point possible for Obama. In addition, as we’ve written previously, presidents are not the only factor in job creation. The national, and world, economies are too big for any one person to control. So crediting Obama’s policies is at best partially correct because there are so many other factors -- such as policies of the Federal Reserve, the willingness of banks to lend money, and global business trends -- that play a role. Our ruling While it’s true that by most measures, the number of jobs in the United States has increased on Obama’s watch, Clinton has done some cherry-picking in coming up with the 4.5 million number. But he chose his words carefully in describing the jobs picture. He said, "In the last 29 months, our economy has produced about 4.5 million private-sector jobs." On balance, we rate the claim Mostly True.
What Mr. Newhouse said was, “These fact-checkers come to those ads with their own sets of thoughts and beliefs. We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.”
Ann what's her face tweeted that president Clinton impregnated Sandra fluke backstage during his speech. Classy. Really classy.
Actually 4.316 million jobs were lost in the first 13 months of Obama's presidency. Since he took office, 4 million net jobs have been added back. So he's still at a negative number from when he took over. Look at the jobs numbers under President's Reagan and Clinton. Even though they were from two different parties, both reduce government spending drastically and the economy benefited from it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms
Actually, before Obama took office we were hemorrhaging jobs like it was a fashion statement. Here's an idea.. Go find your Radial Artery and then slice through it and see how long it takes for you to stop bleeding. If your stop at all.
You must have had a long week..TGIF! If you look at the chart it will show that job losses started during the end of Bush's term. But my point is that we're just now breaking even under Obama. but he's spinning it like we have 4 million new jobs. Reagan and Clinton both had terms triple the job creation than Obama. So it doesn't matter what party you're from, it's about the policies. Reagan and Clinton had different tax policies, but they both knew that spending had to be under control. Obama hasn't learned that lesson yet.
