Neither one of them created jobs. The private sector did that. The Obama economy speaks for itself. Low wage jobs, anemic growth, doubling the debt and a massive bubble ready to burst.
If you look at the details of job creation, Reagan's actions enabled significant growth of non-government jobs, while under Obama, there's been explosive growth in government at all levels.
Obama's stimulus, which was originally intended to maintain and improve the infrastructure, would have created hundreds of thousands of jobs in the construction industry, but instead was used to prop up municipal and state funds to protect government jobs. His focus has always been the destruction of the real free market commercial community, and the increasing nationalization of the economy. Fascism is the symbiotic relationship of big commerce interests and autocratic government, which is the direction the country is now headed.
What are they creating? Back in the 70s we began a journey, as a nation, to move away from manufacturing in pursuit of "the service economy". I can remember reading "Future Shock" and the author went on for ever about the benefits of the service economy. If we look up the classic definition of wealth creation we find that wealth comes from land, improvements to land, natural resources, and value added through manufacturing. In the 20th century intellectual property has also become a producer of wealth. Since most of us will not write a hit song or patent fusion energy the four classic definitions are available to all of us. By far the most portable is "value added through manufacturing", otherwise know as labor.
My argument is that not everyone is suited for college. And, by moving away from heavy industries we, as a nation, have turned our backs on roughly 1/3 of the nation that used to have something productive to do and now are a portion of the labor participation rate statistics. In the great recession (2nd great depression) businesses took advantage of the break by laying off laborers and making investments in automated manufacturing systems as well as looking off shore for parts production and assembly help. This is the unintended consequence of free trade. We like cheap TVs and electronics, but when RCA and Zenith go out of business the neighbors down the street lose their job.
If BLS is just counting jobs of any sort then it's probable to make that statement. If you throw in the average wages of the middle class, then divide it by the "more jobs than Reagan model" you find people making less and less, or holding down two or more jobs to make enough. the big 0 did promise to fundamentally change the nation.
For me, the real deal is to make our country, state, city, or township attractive to business endeavors. Today's CEO doesn't look at expanding by build a new plant on the lot next door. It's a world market. The executive can choose the country with the best tax treatment, best logistics for supply and distribution, best labor force, or any composite of their important factors. In the Reagan years we were the best corporate tax rate in the 7 industrialized nations, now we are dead last. John Rutledge teaches "Capital follows Return on Investment". Lower taxes, both corporate and capital gain, make it easier by magnitudes for CEOs to distribute a Return on Investment to stock holders. I argue that if you lower those two taxes Investment Capital will flood into the US like it hasn't in 35 years. Companies will either buy and remodel facilities, buy and build, or lease to design facilities all over the nation. If you're an out of work assembly worker or fulfillment picker does it matter if you work for Ford, GM, or VW? I think it only matters that you work.
At the same time the cash flow for government swings twice a much to the positive side. They are no longer paying entitlements to work capable people, they are now collecting income and other taxes from a prospering work force. Corporate inversion goes away, and in fact begins to work for us. Those foreign companies would be compelled to leave their profits here because we would be the tax haven of the world.
I have heard my local politicians say aloud they are not getting what they deserve from a new project. The city council didn't buy the land, build the building, hire the staff, produce the advertisement, supply the product or entertainment, and take care of their happy customer. All city council knows is someone is making money and they "deserve" their cut, "for the sake of the people of Columbus".
BS. Our elected officials have become romantically involved with the story of Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor. That is fiction. The rich man would not venture into Sherwood Forest without taking precaution. He would either take armed guards with him, or buy some of those traveler's cheques the Templars and Dominici's were selling. Just as today's wealthy use a team of lawyers and tax consultants to preserve their wealth. Our politicians need to study "the man theat killed the golden goose" It's a very different tale.
over 90% of the jobs created in the Obama years have been full-time jobs for bartenders and waitresses...or part-time jobs for those age 55-75...6 million full-time professional, high-paying jobs have been destroyed and are not coming back...
and BHO gets full-time jobs eliminated, to put part-time jobs in their places, with welfare health insurance and food stamps alongside ... NIRVANA!!! -- j .
While 0 is the potus I will continue to wear my chest high waders and carry a shovel. the latest on top of getting the noble peice prize and ending all wars and putting and end to race relations AND I am sure many of you can add to this list 0's many more accomplishments.Are any of the rep's saying this is a bad joke, etc.?
Politicians do not create jobs. The president has little effect on the economic cycle. The bigger is why the normal ups and downs of the economic cycle are such a big deal. Citizens structure their lives and the enterprises they manage with lots of leverage. It's not surprising they elect people who do lots of borrowing. The excessive borrowing IMHO is the core of the problem. If there were less leverage in all areas of the financial system, no one would care about these little fluctuations.
Political policies have a HUGE impact on economics. The tax cuts under Reagan created an economic boom that lasted even into Clinton's Presidency. Conversely, the huge amount of regulations and edicts under Obama have choked off economic growth. There may be some delay as to the effect of some policies, but the effects are very visible.
Regulation particularly cripples the smaller companies that can't afford to navigate through it. Big companies shrug and add more lawyers to their already bloated departments of regulatory compliance.
Correct. I believe the last report I read was that the regulatory burden on business the past year was $1.6 trillion. And that's been more than doubled since Obama took office.
Or if you're on the other side you can say "look how Clinton created a boom in the 90s, but by the end of President Bush's term people were afraid the whole banking system would collapse. Then President Obama came in, and the expansion started again. If you're a Republican, you just say the policies leg 5-8 years in having an effect. I believe none of it is true. The business cycle expands and contracts every decade, give or take with a lot of random variation.
In the end, you really have to get down to policies and who championed them. No one can question the fact that it was Ronald Reagan who led the move to reduce the absurdly high tax rates of the 70's. Clinton never championed a tax reduction policy however - that was a result of the Republican House led by Newt Gingrich. Clinton raised taxes.
Bush I also raised taxes just before Clinton. But they were relatively minor and the system was still enjoying the huge surge from Reagan's cuts, so we didn't really see much of any effect.
Bush II was much like his father. He agreed with the Democrats on the expansion of the welfare state as long as they gave him money for defense spending. I don't defend Bush II one bit in this regard, but the real policies that got us in trouble emanated from the Democratic Congress, including all the banking reforms that led to the financial crisis and the dishonest reporting by Barney Frank about Fannie/Freddie.
Obama had a Democratic Senate for the first two years of his Presidency and he passed massive spending bills and regulatory expansion - all of which have prolonged the crash that happened just prior to him entering office. And he hasn't let his foot up. Regulatory expansion has hit an all-time high under Obama when measured in terms of regulatory burden, which hit $1.6 trillion last year if I am not mistaken.
Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" points all this out pretty plainly and economists can point directly to the expanded State as a huge depressing factor on our economy right now. Is the rest of the world also in a similar situation? Yes, because we are all connected and they are pursuing the same bad policies!
This isn't merely cyclical fluctuations. Our economy is largely the part of government policy. When they take a heavy-handed approach as they are doing now, the burdens on the economy prevent it from growing and expanding the way it could if those burdens were lifted.
Best I remember from looking up the facts is a 1.4 trillion increase in national debt and zero years with a balanced budget or a surplus. As long as you are using common accounitng instead of Clintonomics = figures can lie and liars can figure. From there it got worse. Bush and the winner so far oBOMBa NO mics.
BUT, the government can only take from the economy and then possibly give it back. They cant create any jobs in the long haul. As far as startups are concerned, the worst regulations and costs are on the state, county, or local level. THOSE problems stop job origination.
Part of the "creation of jobs" has to do with which backroom deal that the politician makes on what freeway gets put where, or what mini-mall gets built. Kind of like the difference between Bedford Falls and Pottersville..
"There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me—because they want to give something back. They know they didn't—look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own... If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
Not in the free market economy. Maybe in the kakistocracy but I would not use the verb, 'created'...I would likely use hired the mentally insane for big government made up positions.
Somewhere, over the rainbow--...!@#$%$#@! glug, glurg. gerk!! Pardon me. Statements like that cause me to make a beeline to the Ceramic Appliance. Hasten, Jason, fetch the basin!
Neither one of them created a single job. Jobs arent created by government, they are created by business people who need work done, and cant do it by autonomous robots (yet). I dont know of any business people who WANT to create jobs. Dealing with employment requirements is a pain in the a$$, not to mention the high cost and possibility of getting sued because THEY do something that the government can fine ME for.
Bull Shit. Neither one created jobs in China they created opportunities in the case of Reagan in the case of Obama? We're still trying to figure out his new formula for creating something out of nothing such as the unemployment rate. Ahh I 've got it. He created an 18 trillion dollar national debt and ....wait a minute he had to have help doing that. He also was directly involved in devaluing my retirement fund. Now if you read Yakoff Lakoff's description of retirement and pensions Obama is a thief and so was Bush. In China? Sure thing. he created jobs for 500 plus people doing five year maintenance on our ship...which in the USA put 100 union people out of work. Small loss there. They were instrumental in helping Obama create jobless ship yards . Wow you are right he didn't do it by himself. Can't count the plusses if any without 'fessing up the minuses. So far it's pensioneers and old people minus 30% Obama flying to Paris for a dinner date. It didn't take a village. Just one aircraft crew.
Humor can be a dangerous thing. Some people just don't get it. Do you really think someone in the Gulch is going to make a case for government creating jobs? Maybe you think I'm a troll. But thanks for the fairly incoherent rant.
Clearly half of the voting population are card carrying members of the FSA and will absolutely vote for more of the same and put Hillary in office. The other half, many of us will divide our votes between a few different possibilities and hand it right over to the democrats. Then of course there is a big contingent of those who won't even bother to vote but have no problem complaining about how things are. I honestly think these are the folks being stirred up by Donald Trump because they like what he is saying and if he is the primary winner they just might show up on election day. Almost anyone else and it will just be more of the same promises, promises and those who don't normally vote will just stay home again. The FSA will win every election in this country until we get those who can't be bothered off their rears and out to vote. Sorry if I lost anyone-(FSA) Free Sheet Army.
You are right in supporting the left except for one detail. The mirror you have to face and he explanation you have to give your children one day when you explain how you chose to vote for evil. I hope you are honest enough to say that out loud. I chose evil because I wasn't moral enough to stand for what is not evil. And no thanks for destroying my country. Your weak excuse buys you no peace of mind only contempt. ----Actually I am about half looped tonight and not sure which post this belongs to except as garyL termed them the FSA. If the shoe doesn't fit don't wear it. If it doesn't jump out of an airplane I won't loan you my parachute.
and if you don't care for my comment...hit the ignore button. It's easier than looking in the mirror and rehearsing a Nuremburg defense for your progeny when they ask.. How come you sold out your country and subjected us to this....
Now who would BLS's boss of bosses be?
Oh, yeah . . .
Obama's stimulus, which was originally intended to maintain and improve the infrastructure, would have created hundreds of thousands of jobs in the construction industry, but instead was used to prop up municipal and state funds to protect government jobs. His focus has always been the destruction of the real free market commercial community, and the increasing nationalization of the economy. Fascism is the symbiotic relationship of big commerce interests and autocratic government, which is the direction the country is now headed.
My argument is that not everyone is suited for college. And, by moving away from heavy industries we, as a nation, have turned our backs on roughly 1/3 of the nation that used to have something productive to do and now are a portion of the labor participation rate statistics. In the great recession (2nd great depression) businesses took advantage of the break by laying off laborers and making investments in automated manufacturing systems as well as looking off shore for parts production and assembly help. This is the unintended consequence of free trade. We like cheap TVs and electronics, but when RCA and Zenith go out of business the neighbors down the street lose their job.
If BLS is just counting jobs of any sort then it's probable to make that statement. If you throw in the average wages of the middle class, then divide it by the "more jobs than Reagan model" you find people making less and less, or holding down two or more jobs to make enough. the big 0 did promise to fundamentally change the nation.
For me, the real deal is to make our country, state, city, or township attractive to business endeavors. Today's CEO doesn't look at expanding by build a new plant on the lot next door. It's a world market. The executive can choose the country with the best tax treatment, best logistics for supply and distribution, best labor force, or any composite of their important factors. In the Reagan years we were the best corporate tax rate in the 7 industrialized nations, now we are dead last. John Rutledge teaches "Capital follows Return on Investment". Lower taxes, both corporate and capital gain, make it easier by magnitudes for CEOs to distribute a Return on Investment to stock holders. I argue that if you lower those two taxes Investment Capital will flood into the US like it hasn't in 35 years. Companies will either buy and remodel facilities, buy and build, or lease to design facilities all over the nation. If you're an out of work assembly worker or fulfillment picker does it matter if you work for Ford, GM, or VW? I think it only matters that you work.
At the same time the cash flow for government swings twice a much to the positive side. They are no longer paying entitlements to work capable people, they are now collecting income and other taxes from a prospering work force. Corporate inversion goes away, and in fact begins to work for us. Those foreign companies would be compelled to leave their profits here because we would be the tax haven of the world.
I have heard my local politicians say aloud they are not getting what they deserve from a new project. The city council didn't buy the land, build the building, hire the staff, produce the advertisement, supply the product or entertainment, and take care of their happy customer. All city council knows is someone is making money and they "deserve" their cut, "for the sake of the people of Columbus".
BS. Our elected officials have become romantically involved with the story of Robin Hood. Take from the rich and give to the poor. That is fiction. The rich man would not venture into Sherwood Forest without taking precaution. He would either take armed guards with him, or buy some of those traveler's cheques the Templars and Dominici's were selling. Just as today's wealthy use a team of lawyers and tax consultants to preserve their wealth. Our politicians need to study "the man theat killed the golden goose" It's a very different tale.
Blatant Lying Sacks? Beguiling Looting Socialists? Bolshevist Leninist Scum? Maybe it's just acknowledging they're unabashedly...
'Bama's Lackey Suckups.
in their places, with welfare health insurance and food stamps
alongside ... NIRVANA!!! -- j
.
Bush I also raised taxes just before Clinton. But they were relatively minor and the system was still enjoying the huge surge from Reagan's cuts, so we didn't really see much of any effect.
Bush II was much like his father. He agreed with the Democrats on the expansion of the welfare state as long as they gave him money for defense spending. I don't defend Bush II one bit in this regard, but the real policies that got us in trouble emanated from the Democratic Congress, including all the banking reforms that led to the financial crisis and the dishonest reporting by Barney Frank about Fannie/Freddie.
Obama had a Democratic Senate for the first two years of his Presidency and he passed massive spending bills and regulatory expansion - all of which have prolonged the crash that happened just prior to him entering office. And he hasn't let his foot up. Regulatory expansion has hit an all-time high under Obama when measured in terms of regulatory burden, which hit $1.6 trillion last year if I am not mistaken.
Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" points all this out pretty plainly and economists can point directly to the expanded State as a huge depressing factor on our economy right now. Is the rest of the world also in a similar situation? Yes, because we are all connected and they are pursuing the same bad policies!
This isn't merely cyclical fluctuations. Our economy is largely the part of government policy. When they take a heavy-handed approach as they are doing now, the burdens on the economy prevent it from growing and expanding the way it could if those burdens were lifted.
Clintonomics = figures can lie and liars can figure. From there it got worse. Bush and the winner so far oBOMBa NO mics.
Altruism at its most virulent.
glug, glurg. gerk!! Pardon me. Statements like that cause me to make a beeline to the Ceramic Appliance.
Hasten, Jason, fetch the basin!
In China.
All according to plan.
Do you really think someone in the Gulch is going to make a case for government creating jobs? Maybe you think I'm a troll. But thanks for the fairly incoherent rant.
And it was pretty obvious to me that the post was sarcastic.
The other half, many of us will divide our votes between a few different possibilities and hand it right over to the democrats.
Then of course there is a big contingent of those who won't even bother to vote but have no problem complaining about how things are. I honestly think these are the folks being stirred up by Donald Trump because they like what he is saying and if he is the primary winner they just might show up on election day. Almost anyone else and it will just be more of the same promises, promises and those who don't normally vote will just stay home again.
The FSA will win every election in this country until we get those who can't be bothered off their rears and out to vote. Sorry if I lost anyone-(FSA) Free Sheet Army.