It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Want Jobs? Vote Democrat.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 09:16 PM
link   
From American Assembler, courtesy of Daily Kos.



The numbers are the increase per year in total employment, expressed as a percent. I know, I know. American Assembler is a left-wing website. But the source of this table is the following table

Presidents and Job Growth

You can see this graphic is from the New York Times website, with a date of July 2, 2003.

Notice that jobs are created under every Democratic President faster than under any Republican President. This is no surprise. The Republican Party represents the interests of the wealthy and large corporations. Large corporations have no incentive or interest in creating jobs. Quite the opposite. Corporations have every incentive to eliminate jobs, including outsourcing and replacing workers by automated equipment.

Of course, the Republicans say they want to create jobs. They have to say that to convince a lot of working-class voters that the Republicans represent the economic interests of the working class. Otherwise, the Republicans could never win an election.

The reality is that the Democratic Party truly represents the economic interests of the working class. The jobs creation data going back to Calvin Coolidge prove that beyond any reasonable doubt.








[edit on 7/13/2004 by donguillermo]

[edit on 7/13/2004 by donguillermo]




posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Agreed, let the big corporations take care of themselves. Us common folk need all the help we can get.



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 09:55 PM
link   
I would point out, though, that the job growth attributed to Truman and Roosevelt can be linked more to the mobilization to war than any superhuman ability to create jobs.



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica
I would point out, though, that the job growth attributed to Truman and Roosevelt can be linked more to the mobilization to war than any superhuman ability to create jobs.


Agreed. I don't claim that Presidents create jobs. I tried to be very careful in my post, talking about jobs being created rather than Presidents creating jobs. Passive voice rather than active voice.

Jobs are created by the economy as a result of consumer demand. The idea that jobs are created by capitalists making investments is a myth. Yes, the investments result in new jobs being created, but the capitalists only make investments when consumer demand makes it profitable to do so. So consumer demand is the ultimate source of job creation.

This is why Bush showed his lack of economic understanding of economics when he ballyhooed his tax cuts as a job creation program. Giving rich people and corporations tax cuts does not produce much increase in consumer demand. If the tax cuts had been targeted at low-income consumers, there would have been a much larger increase in consumer demand, resulting in many more jobs being created.

Although Presidents do not create jobs, their economic policies certainly have an influence on job creation. The table in my first post makes it pretty clear that the economic policies favored by Democratic Presidents have a favorable impact on job creation.


[edit on 7/13/2004 by donguillermo]



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 10:13 PM
link   
This may be OT, but...

Reaganomics was the biggest scam ever pulled of economically by a president. Giving the rich tax breaks just means that, instead of the rich paying taxes, thus contributing to society, they'll invest the money they save. Usually this means investment in bonds, wherein the rich now profit off the government (and accordingly, the "people") which owes them interest on their bonds- the very bonds the government is forced to issue because it's no longer recieving the same money in the form of taxes. It's a corruption of the government's power for the benefit of the rich, not a stimulus to the economy.

-koji K.


[edit on 13-7-2004 by koji_K]



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Also, Bush is the first president who has ever cut taxes during wartime.
GOP Moderates Defy Bush On Taxes. I don't think anyone could accuse the Bush administration of being economically savvy. Unless you're one of the elite who benefits.



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo
Although Presidents do not create jobs, their economic policies certainly have an influence on job creation. The table in my first post makes it pretty clear that the economic policies favored by Democratic Presidents have a favorable impact on job creation.


It's not even a partisan thing. Most reasonable people favor tax cuts for lower incomes including the middle class. Kerry does! Democrats (and sane moderates) just oppose billionaire welfare.

McCain opposed Bush's tax cuts.

"60 percent of the benefits from Bush's tax cuts go to the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans, and that's not the kind of tax relief that Americans need." [Sen. John McCain, Washington Post, 1/5/00]

Who in their right mind thinks giving Paris Hilton tax cuts opens mills in your town?



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
Reaganomics was the biggest scam ever pulled of economically by a president.


It was a scam...a big fat pyramid scheme...and successfully pulled off and believed today by the people still under the voodoo mind control.

Whats' so disturbing though is they don't even try to hide it anymore. Reagen was awesome at selling the schtick.

Bush doesn't even think enough of the middle class to try to hide his bias though.

Calling the haves and the have-mores his BASE! And all the self convinced future lottery winners just dismiss that as a joke? It's not a joke you zombies. Wake up and smell how poor you are.



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
_
Reaganomics was the biggest scam ever pulled of economically by a president. Giving the rich tax breaks just means that, instead of the rich paying taxes, thus contributing to society, they'll invest the money they save. Usually this means investment in bonds, wherein the rich now profit off the government (and accordingly, the "people") which owes them interest on their bonds- the very bonds the government is forced to issue because it's no longer recieving the same money in the form of taxes. It's a corruption of the government's power for the benefit of the rich, not a stimulus to the economy.


Exactly, koji_K. But it is worse than you describe. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I believe interest income from Federal Bonds and Treasury Notes is exempt from federal income taxes. If I am correct, that gives the rich a vested interest in having a large national debt, so they can shelter their income from federal income taxes.

The following graph is shocking.



You can right-click on the graphic and look at Properties for the source url. The graph shows national debt as a percentage of GDP. Notice the steady decline for all Presidents from Truman through Carter. Then, under Reagan and the first President Bush, there is a rapid continuous increase. Under Clinton, the graph resumes its normal downward course, meaning the national debt is becoming a smaller and smaller burden on the national economy. Then, under the second President Bush, the graph resumes a rapid upward course.

This is the smoking gun, folks. The economic policies of the last three Republican Presidents clearly favor rapidly increasing the national debt. What they are trying to do is bankrupt the federal government by increasing debt and decreasing tax revenues to the point that the government cannot even meet its basic financial obligations, like interest payments on the debt and payments for entitlements like social security.

If you think I am being paranoid, do some research on Grover Norquist, who is the intellectual mentor on economics for modern Republicans.



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 10:56 PM
link   
here's a CRS report, the gist of which reducing the national debt would be a good thing:

www.policy.house.gov...

-koji K.



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

Calling the haves and the have-mores his BASE! And all the self convinced future lottery winners just dismiss that as a joke? It's not a joke you zombies. Wake up and smell how poor you are.


amen to that. i truly pity all those milita nuts going on about how income tax is constitutionally prohibited etc etc... brainwashed by their ultra-right-wing radio hosts to provide a voter base for the rich who want tax cuts, never realizing they're shooting themselves in the foot.

-koji K.

[edit on 13-7-2004 by koji_K]



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I believe interest income from Federal Bonds and Treasury Notes is exempt from federal income taxes. If I am correct, that gives the rich a vested interest in having a large national debt, so they can shelter their income from federal income taxes.


Heads up. Bonds and Treasury notes are subject to federal income tax. No benefit for the rich.



Taxation of interest. Interest income from Treasury bills, notes, and bonds is subject to federal income tax, but is exempt from all state and local income taxes. You should receive Form 1099INT showing the amount of interest (in box 3) that was paid to you for the year.


Guess its just the states that are out to protect the wealthy and run up the national debt.



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Hey don, you keep talking about tax cuts for the rich.... I received a tax cut and I don't consider myself rich... So why don't you tell me where "rich" begins? $50,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? Or is it anyone that makes more than you? Really would like to know.



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 11:15 PM
link   


McCain opposed Bush's tax cuts.

"60 percent of the benefits from Bush's tax cuts go to the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans, and that's not the kind of tax relief that Americans need." [Sen. John McCain, Washington Post, 1/5/00]


That's an interesting statistic you point out, RANT, seeing as how taxpayers in the top 10% income-wise (adjusted gross income greater than $92,663 for TY 2002) pay over 60% of the taxes. (data available from the IRS)

That's not fair! I mean, they're making all their money by exploiting the working class, so they should have to pay for a majority of the programs which mostly help those who make less. It's not fair for them to keep more of the money they work hard for. They OWE it to us who make less to pay for our social programs. It is THEIR responsibility to feed and clothe our children, because we just don't make enough. That money is supposed to help ME, not THEM, because I DESERVE IT!

How about this: let's collect everyone's income, and give every citizen an equal share. Redistribution of wealth at its best. That way, nobody has any motivation to do work, since we can all live off the backs of those who do work. The result: total economic collapse. Whoopee, our greed has destroyed America! Back to the slums we go.

Now, as to the question at hand. You want jobs? Support Americans, not Chinese. I challenge anyone reading this to take a look at the tags or stickers on everything in your house. What percentage of it says "Made in America?" I'd guess it's somewhere on the order of 5-10%. I admit, I'm as guilty of this as the next man. But don't complain about jobs going overseas when it's YOUR MONEY going overseas. A couple years ago, when people were complaining about how bad the recession was, I'd walk into Best Buy and say, "What recession?" The place never looked busier.

People love to find a scapegoat for their problems. It's the president's fault that I lost my job! Because of him I can't buy a Corvette! Why can the rich buy a 50,000 square foot mansion and I have to live in a two-bedroom house? It's not fair! Welcome to the adult version of a temper tantrum. Remember what your mom used to say, "Don't point at people, because you have one finger pointed at them and three back at yourself." Blame yourself; the president can't change your life. Take responsibility for your actions.

* steps off soapbox and disappears into crowd *



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 11:22 PM
link   
This thread just proves that stats without analysis or explanation are pretty much worthless.

You can easily say that under GOP administrations the workforce becomes more efficient and that extraneous jobs are weeded out of the system. I mean, just look at FDR's number... yes, it's high, but how much of that are jobs where a guy digs a ditch and then fills it up again. To be honest... any president could have a 100% employment rate (the government merely has to pay people to play tic tac toe or something)... the trick is creating jobs that are actually valuable and not actually a drain on society (for instance, if a city hires three men to do the job of one man... those extra two jobs are inevitably weighing the economy down).



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Or perhaps it is the angst of those who live on Ramen noodles for years, own no vehicles, use rabbit ears,dialup, and discounted books for enlightenment. No matter how 'fair' we set the system there will always be those who are doing good to survive, those who are comfortable, and those who know no pain. As long as mankind continues to think this concept through to help all humanity eventually an answer may come.



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 11:39 PM
link   
i agree people should be able to keep what they build themselves and what they put effort into. and i also feel that people should take some responsibility for their welfare and not depend on handouts.

BUT

i also don't mind donating a portion of my earnings for the public good, even if it means some people get a "free ride"... if you can call it that, because there is often a big difference in quality between what the government provides and what can be done with money.

why can't we find a happy medium? i've seen it work. many countries have high rates of taxes but a decent standard of living, while providing health care and higher education for all their citizens.

-koji K.



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crysstaafur
Or perhaps it is the angst of those who live on Ramen noodles for years, own no vehicles, use rabbit ears,dialup, and discounted books for enlightenment.


Sounds like paradise compared tto the rowhouses of Baltimore.

Its funny when people campaign for the poor and when the "poor" they describe are more like lower middle class.

oooh dialup the horror!

oooh used books the pain!

Try sharing a hosue with 2X its allowed occupancy

or

A house with no running water.



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by PurdueNuc


McCain opposed Bush's tax cuts.

"60 percent of the benefits from Bush's tax cuts go to the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans, and that's not the kind of tax relief that Americans need." [Sen. John McCain, Washington Post, 1/5/00]


That's an interesting statistic you point out, RANT, seeing as how taxpayers in the top 10% income-wise (adjusted gross income greater than $92,663 for TY 2002) pay over 60% of the taxes. (data available from the IRS)

That's not fair! I mean, they're making all their money by exploiting the working class, so they should have to pay for a majority of the programs which mostly help those who make less. It's not fair for them to keep more of the money they work hard for. They OWE it to us who make less to pay for our social programs. It is THEIR responsibility to feed and clothe our children, because we just don't make enough. That money is supposed to help ME, not THEM, because I DESERVE IT!


No I pay my own social security, unemployment, entitlements and relative tax burden. As they should. If you can't even admit the top 10% you cite benefit from AT LEAST 60% worth of all the money poured into defense of economic interests around the world and the infrastucture of capitalism, then I just give up. I don't want Paris Hilton's money. Nor do I want it redistributed. That's a pretty tired fallacy. McCain gets it. What's your problem?

Even if we had a flat tax, then the top 10% would still pay most of the taxes. I guess you don't think that's fair either. Well I don't either, as those that stand to reap the rewards owe more. We have a progressive tax rate because they OWE more to the government that exists to make their life easier IMO. Not because of "welfare queens".

What is this rabid defense of Paris Hilton's tax cuts anyway? I seriously don't get it. Kerry isn't repealing your tax cut, or mine, or Agent47's, or anyone any of us know. Just George Bush's self described base of "have-mores" bringing us back to the levels of government solvency in the 90's.

If the Leona Helmsley's of the world even paid their taxes, maybe it wouldn't be such a problem. But as it stands it is. Pardon my Cheney, but **** Ken Lay. I want his tax cut repealed too. And Mike Moores. And Ted Turners. Crimony. Find a real cause to fall on the sword for.

The elite don't need your help, no matter how much Rush Limbaugh cries poor. What a damn joke.



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 12:38 AM
link   
just an illustration Agent 47. I think we concur that the plight of the poor is indeed one of the worst ravages of humankind and that it will be around to haunt us constantly no matter where the line is drawn. Moving onto topic,
I still concur that capitalism when not toyed with can eventually raise standards for all, we are still only two centuries into this 'grand experiment'. Reaganomics taught us this in a negative way. I hope this century will be a turn around period for the U.S. for the positive.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join