The Angry Rich

[SanHeChuan]

The Angry Rich (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/opinion/20krugman.html?_r=1)



The Angry Rich
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: September 19, 2010

Anger is sweeping America. True, this white-hot rage is a minority phenomenon, not something that characterizes most of our fellow citizens. But the angry minority is angry indeed, consisting of people who feel that things to which they are entitled are being taken away. And they’re out for revenge.

No, I’m not talking about the Tea Partiers. I’m talking about the rich.

These are terrible times for many people in this country. Poverty, especially acute poverty, has soared in the economic slump; millions of people have lost their homes. Young people can’t find jobs; laid-off 50-somethings fear that they’ll never work again.

Yet if you want to find real political rage — the kind of rage that makes people compare President Obama to Hitler, or accuse him of treason — you won’t find it among these suffering Americans. You’ll find it instead among the very privileged, people who don’t have to worry about losing their jobs, their homes, or their health insurance, but who are outraged, outraged, at the thought of paying modestly higher taxes.

The rage of the rich has been building ever since Mr. Obama took office. At first, however, it was largely confined to Wall Street. Thus when New York magazine published an article titled “The Wail Of the 1%,” it was talking about financial wheeler-dealers whose firms had been bailed out with taxpayer funds, but were furious at suggestions that the price of these bailouts should include temporary limits on bonuses. When the billionaire Stephen Schwarzman compared an Obama proposal to the Nazi invasion of Poland, the proposal in question would have closed a tax loophole that specifically benefits fund managers like him.

Now, however, as decision time looms for the fate of the Bush tax cuts — will top tax rates go back to Clinton-era levels? — the rage of the rich has broadened, and also in some ways changed its character.

For one thing, craziness has gone mainstream. It’s one thing when a billionaire rants at a dinner event. It’s another when Forbes magazine runs a cover story alleging that the president of the United States is deliberately trying to bring America down as part of his Kenyan, “anticolonialist” agenda, that “the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s.” When it comes to defending the interests of the rich, it seems, the normal rules of civilized (and rational) discourse no longer apply.

At the same time, self-pity among the privileged has become acceptable, even fashionable.

Tax-cut advocates used to pretend that they were mainly concerned about helping typical American families. Even tax breaks for the rich were justified in terms of trickle-down economics, the claim that lower taxes at the top would make the economy stronger for everyone.

These days, however, tax-cutters are hardly even trying to make the trickle-down case. Yes, Republicans are pushing the line that raising taxes at the top would hurt small businesses, but their hearts don’t really seem in it. Instead, it has become common to hear vehement denials that people making $400,000 or $500,000 a year are rich. I mean, look at the expenses of people in that income class — the property taxes they have to pay on their expensive houses, the cost of sending their kids to elite private schools, and so on. Why, they can barely make ends meet.

And among the undeniably rich, a belligerent sense of entitlement has taken hold: it’s their money, and they have the right to keep it. “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society,” said Oliver Wendell Holmes — but that was a long time ago.

The spectacle of high-income Americans, the world’s luckiest people, wallowing in self-pity and self-righteousness would be funny, except for one thing: they may well get their way. Never mind the $700 billion price tag for extending the high-end tax breaks: virtually all Republicans and some Democrats are rushing to the aid of the oppressed affluent.

You see, the rich are different from you and me: they have more influence. It’s partly a matter of campaign contributions, but it’s also a matter of social pressure, since politicians spend a lot of time hanging out with the wealthy. So when the rich face the prospect of paying an extra 3 or 4 percent of their income in taxes, politicians feel their pain — feel it much more acutely, it’s clear, than they feel the pain of families who are losing their jobs, their houses, and their hopes.

And when the tax fight is over, one way or another, you can be sure that the people currently defending the incomes of the elite will go back to demanding cuts in Social Security and aid to the unemployed. America must make hard choices, they’ll say; we all have to be willing to make sacrifices.

But when they say “we,” they mean “you.” Sacrifice is for the little people.

[Syn7]

good ol new york times...

[MasterKiller]

Stop making things up.—1BlueBjj

[BJJ-Blue]

The top 1% of wage earners already pay 39% of all income taxes.

So a quick question for you San; How much is enough?

Source:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html

[David Jamieson]

hey bluebj how long til America collapses under the weight of it's own greed do you think?

any predictions?

[BJJ-Blue]

hey bluebj how long til America collapses under the weight of it's own greed do you think?

any predictions?

If it collapses it will be because the consumers outnumber the producers.

You keep soaking the rich and expecting utopia. The one thing you guys are completely ignorant of is that "The Rich" are the job producers.

[David Jamieson]

If it collapses it will be because the consumers outnumber the producers.

You keep soaking the rich and expecting utopia. The one thing you guys are completely ignorant of is that "The Rich" are the job producers.

the one thing you seem to be ignorant of is that they ain't producing no jobs in america.

what jobs? lol, you've seen the manufacturing sector literally disintegrate in your lifetime and the tech services industry is rapidly disappearing.

apparently the "rich" want you all to be working at :

a) looking after their stuff

b) running around doing each others laundry

I give you 10 years, maybe less. I'll be the guy sitting at the border making sure you guys aren't jumping our walls to get to el norte and steal our snow shoveling jobs. :D

[BJJ-Blue]

the one thing you seem to be ignorant of is that they ain't producing no jobs in america.

They aren't producing jobs right now because of what Obama is doing to them. He is saddling them with more regulations, more costs (healthcare being #1), and soon more taxes. This may be news to you, but when that happens employers cut jobs and/or stop hiring.

Do you have private sector experience by chance?


what jobs? lol, you've seen the manufacturing sector literally disintegrate in your lifetime and the tech services industry is rapidly disappearing.

Agreed. And the jobs are moving to countries where there are much less taxes and regulations. You know, places where it's cheaper for them to do business in. Make it cheaper to do business here, and the jobs will return. It's not rocket science.


apparently the "rich" want you all to be working at :

Let me let you in a little secret. The Rich want the middle class to prosper. Because when the middle class prospers, guess what they do? They buy goods and services from the rich!!! And when the middle class suffers, they stop buying goods and services from the rich.

You should research Henry Ford and his thoughts on worker's pay.


I give you 10 years, maybe less. I'll be the guy sitting at the border making sure you guys aren't jumping our walls to get to el norte and steal our snow shoveling jobs. :D

I hope you are wrong. I look at Indiana, for example. Their budget went from Red to Black once they got a GOP Governor. And New Jersey as well. They elected a VERY fiscally conservative Governor and he took them from facing a bailout to looking like they may indeed make it. And he did it primarily by cutting Gov't spending and unneeded Gov't union jobs.

We are indeed in scary times. But come November 2nd, I truly believe the Road To Recovery will truly begin (assuming the GOP wins control of at least one chamber of Congress). If they do not, you may well be right.

I do have one quick question for you though: If we indeed do collapse in 10 years and through that entire time we have a Democrat controlled Congress and only Democrat Presidents, will you still blame Bush and/or the Republicans for the collapse?

[David Jamieson]

*snip*

I do have one quick question for you though: If we indeed do collapse in 10 years and through that entire time we have a Democrat controlled Congress and only Democrat Presidents, will you still blame Bush and/or the Republicans for the collapse?

I'll let you in on a secret.

I don't care about your countries politics and I don't care for them.

I come to this off topic forum to troll te troll.

so, take that for what it's worth. :D

I'm a Canadian, I"m doing all right and I don't live from paycheque to paycheque.

But I do understand the ramifications of policy setting in any country. It's almost always long term and in regards to the mess your country is in, that is pretty much 100% bush Administration blunders.

Obama isn't the greatest economist, obviously, but hey, you got a better deal with him as far as optics went. At least the people of the world hate America just a little bit less and really, that's good for business. :p

[BJJ-Blue]

It's almost always long term and in regards to the mess your country is in, that is pretty much 100% bush Administration blunders.

LMFAO! Way to cover your bases. I really wonder if at times you truly believe the drivel you spout.


Obama isn't the greatest economist, obviously, but hey, you got a better deal with him as far as optics went. At least the people of the world hate America just a little bit less and really, that's good for business. :p

Yeah right. That nutjob leading Iran has actually railed at us more since Obama took over. And it looks like we haven't exactly made positive strides in our relationship with North Korea either.

And if it's so good for "business" why is our unemployment actually going UP since Obama took over?

[David Jamieson]

And if it's so good for "business" why is our unemployment actually going UP since Obama took over?


Because the GOP and right wingers insist on polarizing everything. They fight tooth and nail against anything American because....well, I don't know why your side of the coin hates him so, but the Right is NOT helping America at all. It is making things worse if anything with their constent resistance to any idea good or bad or otherwise.

I think it most unfortunate that there is so much partisanship based on animosity towards democrats, social programs, social initiatives etc.

It would seem the right wing is the most anti-american side of ideological thinking these days and there's no secret that many big business foks aren't democrats and support internal strife in an attempt to vilify the president and to make him look bad.

I think most people with beyond a grade 8 level of education can see that, unfortunately, like canada, about 1/3 of the adult population are stupid as posts and will act irrationally and emotionally on issues as opposed to logically and rationally.

you people need to find some middle ground. I don't think it hasn't been offered by the Obama admin, I think it has been outright rejected by the right wing.

[MasterKiller]

IRS data shows that a whopping 2,840 households earning at least $1 million in 2008 also filed for government unemployment payments that year.

Boy, talk about a sense of entitlement...

[David Jamieson]

Boy, talk about a sense of entitlement...

not to mention that in a country of 1/3 of a billion people, 2840 households can hardly be called "whopping".

It's minuscule. But your point is valid.

[BJJ-Blue]

It would seem the right wing is the most anti-american side of ideological thinking these days and there's no secret that many big business foks aren't democrats and support internal strife in an attempt to vilify the president and to make him look bad.

Wrong yet again. Actually big business gave more to Democrats in 2008.


I think most people with beyond a grade 8 level of education can see that,

So when did you drop out, 5th Grade perhaps?


unfortunately, like canada, about 1/3 of the adult population are stupid as posts and will act irrationally and emotionally on issues as opposed to logically and rationally.

Like the inner city people in places like Detroit who mindlessly vote (D) despite them destroying their cities for decades simply because they've been told for years that the other guys are all racists?


you people need to find some middle ground. I don't think it hasn't been offered by the Obama admin, I think it has been outright rejected by the right wing.

Wow, you got one right! Seeing you believe that, wouldn't you agree if Obama had moved more the center the Republicans would have worked with him more?

I mean if we get a ultra-right wing President, I'd fully expect most (if not all) of the Congressional Democrats to fight him tooth-and-nail. It's common sense.

[BJJ-Blue]

Boy, talk about a sense of entitlement...

Unemployment benefits are much different than welfare.

[David Jamieson]

Wow, you got one right! Seeing you believe that, wouldn't you agree if Obama had moved more the center the Republicans would have worked with him more?




No, i think you haven't been paying attention at all. Obama is center and slightly left. He has openly spoken with republicans and been openly rejected by them.

not even on policy points.

I think today's republicans aren't republicans at all, aren't conservatives at all. I think the whole GOP has been usurped by a much darker group of people who fall into various undesirable categories. Neo-Cons have ruined your country in case you didn't notice.

But, you are blind from all teh foaming at your mouth that spews into your eyes.

I think you're just a shill anyway. Like many others out there making sure the stupid dull witted message of right wing america gets repeated over and over again simply because bush told you that's how to make a lie stick.

well, as that is a stupid idea, it doesn't work and you will be confronted on the stupid lies you reiterate.

anyway... GO ahead, break down and start using epithets again seeing as you have zero valid points to use instead. :p

[Reality_Check]

They aren't producing jobs right now because of what Obama is doing to them. He is saddling them with more regulations, more costs (healthcare being #1), and soon more taxes. This may be news to you, but when that happens employers cut jobs and/or stop hiring.

So, why were there only 3 million jobs created during the 8 year term of George W. Bush? The rich were saddled with lower taxes and fewer regulations.

There were over 23 million jobs created during Bill Clinton's 8 years, when the rich were saddled with higher taxes.

Heck there were 10.5 million jobs created during Jimmy Carter's 4 years in office.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

So, why weren't the rich producing jobs during George W. Bush's terms?

[BJJ-Blue]

No, i think you haven't been paying attention at all. Obama is center and slightly left. He has openly spoken with republicans and been openly rejected by them.

LMFAO!!!! First off, he's a socialist. If he is "center and slightly left", please give me an example of a Democrat who you say is further left.

Second, he himself locked the Republicans out of the healthcare negotiations. Of course when you are bribing Senators, you really don't want the opposition to be sitting there watching you.


I think today's republicans aren't republicans at all, aren't conservatives at all. I think the whole GOP has been usurped by a much darker group of people who fall into various undesirable categories. Neo-Cons have ruined your country in case you didn't notice.

I agree they have not been conservatives for the most part. They have behaved like Democrat Lite. Calling them NeoCon is laughable. But coming from someone who says Obama is "slightly left", I'm not surprised.


I think you're just a shill anyway. Like many others out there making sure the stupid dull witted message of right wing america gets repeated over and over again simply because bush told you that's how to make a lie stick.

Actually I'm asking my own questions I myself thought of. And you can't answer them because you will look even more foolish trying. Notice I regularly answer yours, yet you wont touch mine with a ten foot pole.


well, as that is a stupid idea, it doesn't work and you will be confronted on the stupid lies you reiterate.

Great! You can start by answering/refuting this "lie":

Why are rich, educated blue States like New York and California teetering on bankruptcy while uneducated, redneck red States like Mississippi and Alabama and Texas ;) are not in that same boat?

Good luck debunking that "stupid dull witted message".


anyway... GO ahead, break down and start using epithets again seeing as you have zero valid points to use instead. :p

So says the guy who openly admits to trolling the site.

I have a valid point about blue States facing bankruptcy though. Unless you can refute it. ;)

[BJJ-Blue]

So, why were there only 3 million jobs created during the 8 year term of George W. Bush? The rich were saddled with lower taxes and fewer regulations.


So, why weren't the rich producing jobs during George W. Bush's terms?

Which one is it? :confused:


...there only 3 million jobs created during the 8 year term of George W. Bush...

There were over 23 million jobs created during Bill Clinton's 8 years, when the rich were saddled with higher taxes.

Heck there were 10.5 million jobs created during Jimmy Carter's 4 years in office.

And how many have been LOST under Obama?

[solo1]

The Angry Rich (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/opinion/20krugman.html?_r=1)

Paul Krugman? seriously? this guy is supposed to be considered an unbiased "journalist"? hes a shill for Obama and the left and has been for years. Sorry but Krugman is a ball gargling douch nozzle.

[KC Elbows]

Calling them NeoCon is laughable.

You realize that actual neo-conservatism is pro-big government, pro-bureaucracy, and anti transparency in government, right?

I mean, this isn't coming from me as someone on the left, these are bedrocks of neo-conservatism, as it arose from Trotskyite philosophy and grew.

Not arguing here, I'm just curious in what way what was described is not in keeping with neo-con political thought, even in the versions as followed by Wolfowitz, Cheney, et al? There's a big reason for the 'neo' in there. Even Wolfowitz paper is rife with the types of neo-con readings that are the bedrock of neo-conservatism, where there is one reading for the masses, and one for the rulers(again, a philosophy directly touted by neo-cons, not me casting aspursions).

[David Jamieson]

1badbluebj -

are you actually crying about my comments because I troll you?

You deserve to be trolled. You're a neo-con shill posting neo-con garbage into forums that are entirely irrelevant to that stuff.

At least I'm transparent about my intentions here in off topic 1badbj rant land, which you have been busy at turning into muck land in a hope of posting neo-con positive propaganda content into this site in the hopes that positive neo-con rants show up in search engines as if they were actually a voice of majority.

Well, you fail. lol. But I guess if you need to collect money from your handlers for your positive endorsements of fascist policies and hubris filled folk, then you gotta do what you gotta do.

:D

[Reality_Check]

Which one is it? :confused:

Fair enough, my question wasn't clear.

You claimed that the "producers" are not creating jobs for fear of tax increases. I showed that they produced nearly 8 times as many jobs under the Clinton Administration (with its higher taxes) than the George W. Bush Adminstration. I also pointed out that the Carter Administration (which you hold up as "worst Administration evar") produced 3 times the jobs, in half the time.

So, why did these producers produce significantly fewer jobs under the Bush Administration, and it's lower taxes?

[David Jamieson]

LMFAO!!!! First off, he's a socialist. If he is "center and slightly left", please give me an example of a Democrat who you say is further left.

Second, he himself locked the Republicans out of the healthcare negotiations. Of course when you are bribing Senators, you really don't want the opposition to be sitting there watching you.

a) you clearly don't understand what socialism is if you think Obama is one.

b) nobody locked out a minority. they had their vote, they were minority and didn't get to block it. Apparently, you fail to understand how democracy works as well.




I agree they have not been conservatives for the most part. They have behaved like Democrat Lite. Calling them NeoCon is laughable. But coming from someone who says Obama is "slightly left", I'm not surprised.

You are in denial about your fascist friends of a feather lol




Actually I'm asking my own questions I myself thought of. And you can't answer them because you will look even more foolish trying. Notice I regularly answer yours, yet you wont touch mine with a ten foot pole.

you haven't asked anything I haven't answered really, you just can't accept the truth because it doesn't fit with your narrow and unrealistic paradigm.




Great! You can start by answering/refuting this "lie":

Why are rich, educated blue States like New York and California teetering on bankruptcy while uneducated, redneck red States like Mississippi and Alabama and Texas ;) are not in that same boat?

do you understand population demographics? apparently, this is yet another thing you fail to grasp.


Good luck debunking that "stupid dull witted message".
I have no problem debunking your stupid dull witted messages. It's quite easy. I guess you are the one who doesn't recognize how stupid and dull witted the message you give is...but seeing as there is self evident aspects to that, so be it.




So says the guy who openly admits to trolling the site.

I have a valid point about blue States facing bankruptcy though. Unless you can refute it. ;)

Your point is not valid. You can't grasp the population sizes of the various states and the various economic realities that follow those numbers. A little simple math is all it takes for your weak and not very well thought out argument to crash and burn.

should I call the wahmbulance for you. It looks like your feeling got hurt there. Maybe you need time to be alone with your thought.

[BJJ-Blue]

You realize that actual neo-conservatism is pro-big government, pro-bureaucracy, and anti transparency in government, right?

So that would make Obama a neocon.

[BJJ-Blue]

1badbluebj -

are you actually crying about my comments because I troll you?

No, I just want you to answer a simple question. I have the knowledge to answer yours. Have I asked a question you are not intelligent to answer? Have a made a statement you cannot refute? ;)

[BJJ-Blue]

b) nobody locked out a minority. they had their vote, they were minority and didn't get to block it. Apparently, you fail to understand how democracy works as well.

You fail to understand facts.

"But rather than taking the political risk of bringing the motion to a vote, Democrats pulled off what appeared to be a stunt of their own: When the time came for the scheduled vote last Thursday, they huddled in a back room -- denying Republicans the quorum they needed to take action.

Then things got interesting. Republican staff members had secretly set up a video camera outside the committee room. The camera captured a stream of Democrats leaving through a side door of the very committee room they were scheduled to be in -- calling into question Democrats' claim that a scheduling conflict involving another committee meeting prevented their attendance.

Republicans put the video on YouTube, juxtaposing the empty chairs and the Democrats filing out of the room. They put it all to the tune of "Hit the Road, Jack."

Not everyone was laughing. On Tuesday, the committee's Democrats let the Republicans know that their keys wouldn't work in the hearing room anymore. They'd had the locks changed.

Why? "Because they [Republicans] don't know how to behave," Chairman Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y., told Politico. Towns' office did not respond to request for comment. "

Look like I back up my assertions. This happened in the sub-prime issue, not healthcare though. I was mistaken about the issue, but my point that Democrats locked out Republicans is 100% true.

Source, with complete article:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/10/dems-lock-out-republicans-literally.html


You are in denial about your fascist friends of a feather lol

Do you even know what a fascist is? Fascism is when Gov't controls private industries, ie nationalizing. You know, like Obama has done with General Motors.


you haven't asked anything I haven't answered really, you just can't accept the truth because it doesn't fit with your narrow and unrealistic paradigm.

Maybe you failed to see it the first few times. :rolleyes: Ok, I'll just re-post it:

Why are rich, educated blue States like New York and California teetering on bankruptcy while uneducated, redneck red States like Mississippi and Alabama and Texas are not in that same boat?


do you understand population demographics? apparently, this is yet another thing you fail to grasp.

Last time I brought up demographics, I was called a racist and the thread was locked.


I have no problem debunking your stupid dull witted messages. It's quite easy.

Great! I'll be waiting for you to answer the question I asked above.


Your point is not valid. You can't grasp the population sizes of the various states and the various economic realities that follow those numbers. A little simple math is all it takes for your weak and not very well thought out argument to crash and burn.

So then you will explain it to me like I've been asking you to do the last few days, right?


should I call the wahmbulance for you.

No need to call it, just answer the question I asked about certain blue States facing bankruptcy.

[BJJ-Blue]

You claimed that the "producers" are not creating jobs for fear of tax increases. I showed that they produced nearly 8 times as many jobs under the Clinton Administration (with its higher taxes) than the George W. Bush Adminstration.

Clinton's jobs were mostly created via the Dot-com boom. And Clinton actually cut capital gains taxes. Since capital gains includes stock market profits, alot of investing went on in the stock market at that time, and the Dot-coms were the biggest gainers by far, until the Dot-com bubble burst shortly before GW Bush took office.

I notice you did not include jobs created during the Reagan Administration. Is there a reason for that? Also, if you include the data as to what those created jobs actually paid the workers, you would see alot of Carter's jobs created were lower income bracket jobs, while Reagan created alot of middle class and higher income bracket jobs.

[MasterKiller]

Do you even know what a fascist is? Fascism is when Gov't controls private industries, ie nationalizing. You know, like Obama has done with General Motors

In September 2008 the Big Three asked for $50 billion to pay for health care expenses and avoid bankruptcy and ensuing layoffs, and Congress worked out a 25$ billion loan. By December, President Bush had agreed to an emergency bailout of $17.4 billion to be distributed by the next administration in January and February. In early 2009, the prospect of avoiding bankruptcy by General Motors and Chrysler continued to wane as new financial information about the scale of the 2008 losses came in. Ultimately, poor management and business practices forced Chrysler and General Motors into bankruptcy. Chrysler filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on May 1, 2009 followed by General Motors a month later.

[BJJ-Blue]

In September 2008 the Big Three asked for $50 billion to pay for health care expenses and avoid bankruptcy and ensuing layoffs, and Congress worked out a 25$ billion loan. By December, President Bush had agreed to an emergency bailout of $17.4 billion to be distributed by the next administration in January and February. In early 2009, the prospect of avoiding bankruptcy by General Motors and Chrysler continued to wane as new financial information about the scale of the 2008 losses came in. Ultimately, poor management and business practices forced Chrysler and General Motors into bankruptcy. Chrysler filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on May 1, 2009 followed by General Motors a month later.

And my point still stands. Notice Bush's bailout did not involve the Federal Gov't taking over a controlling share of GM. Nor did Bush fire the GM CEO at the time and replace him with a CEO of his choosing.

Second, I was against any bailout, whether done by Bush or Obama. Again I show I'm consistant.

[MasterKiller]

"But rather than taking the political risk of bringing the motion to a vote, Democrats pulled off what appeared to be a stunt of their own: When the time came for the scheduled vote last Thursday, they huddled in a back room -- denying Republicans the quorum they needed to take action.

I wonder why....:rolleyes:

http://www.truthout.org/files/images/fil_wide.jpg

[BJJ-Blue]

I wonder why....:rolleyes:

So you feel it's completely ok for the majority to lock out the minority from debate?

And keep in mind, in my example the Democrats did the lockout to PREVENT a vote. The Republicans were not trying to filibuster in that example.

[Hardwork108]

The Angry Rich (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/opinion/20krugman.html?_r=1)


The Obama Deception:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw





.

[Reality_Check]

Clinton's jobs were mostly created via the Dot-com boom. And Clinton actually cut capital gains taxes. Since capital gains includes stock market profits, alot of investing went on in the stock market at that time, and the Dot-coms were the biggest gainers by far, until the Dot-com bubble burst shortly before GW Bush took office.

I notice you did not include jobs created during the Reagan Administration. Is there a reason for that? Also, if you include the data as to what those created jobs actually paid the workers, you would see alot of Carter's jobs created were lower income bracket jobs, while Reagan created alot of middle class and higher income bracket jobs.

I notice that you did not answer my question. Why was job creation so poor under the Administration of George W. Bush?

[David Jamieson]

a filibuster is not debate, it is and always has been abused as a stalling tactic so that bills can die on the floor.

there is no honour in what the GOP has been doing in that respect and it is showing the neo-con true colours.

I think the majority fo the USA don't care much for the loud little group of fascists trying to push their crap around. :-)

good for america and good for her representatives for finally getting a handle on how to deal with these goon squads.

thats' politics for you. :D

[BJJ-Blue]

I notice that you did not answer my question. Why was job creation so poor under the Administration of George W. Bush?

Because it wasn't. You're just repeating talking points and not presenting us with any data. Here, I'll show you some data proving my assertions:

http://keithhennessey.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/employment-comparison-43-44.png

"You can see two yellow dots in January 2001 and January 2009, and a thin yellow line extended so we can measure the difference between the two. The red arrows show that, if you measure only endpoint to endpoint, 1.1 million net net jobs were created during the Bush Administration (I’m using the payroll survey in all cases).

But this analysis misses most of the story. We can see a steady employment decline from early 2001 through mid-2003, followed by a steady, strong, and sustained period of job growth for almost four years. This 46 month period is the second longest in recorded history for sustained job creation in the U.S., and more than eight million jobs were created during this period (the white arrows). A mild recession began in late 2007, followed by a severe contraction in the second half of 2008 and continuing into the Obama Presidency."

Source (entire article):
http://keithhennessey.com/2010/06/08/compare-employment/

Also, unemployment averaged 5.3% during the 8 years of GW Bush's Presidency. Obama is averaging 9.5%.

And don't forget this one either: When Obama took office there were 32 million Americans on food stamps. In July that number hit 41.8 million, a record number.

Source - US Dept of Agriculture
http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/29SNAPcurrPP.htm

[BJJ-Blue]

a filibuster is not debate, it is and always has been abused as a stalling tactic so that bills can die on the floor.

But as my example showed, it was not a filibuster, but the MAJORITY not allowing a vote to happen.


there is no honour in what the GOP has been doing in that respect and it is showing the neo-con true colours.

Here is a great article on Democrat vs GOP filibusters. It has too much info to cut and paste, so just read it please and then comment on the parts you deem relevant. I will post excerps if you keep going down this road though, so I'd suggest you read it.

http://www.slate.com/id/2244060/


I think the majority fo the USA don't care much for the loud little group of fascists trying to push their crap around. :-)

My above link has data disproving that assertion.


thats' politics for you. :D

And so apparantly is bribing Senators and locking out the opposition from debate.

[David Jamieson]

"debate" is not "vote"

were they locked out of the vote? were they?

[Reality_Check]

Because it wasn't. You're just repeating talking points and not presenting us with any data. Here, I'll show you some data proving my assertions:

http://keithhennessey.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/employment-comparison-43-44.png

"You can see two yellow dots in January 2001 and January 2009, and a thin yellow line extended so we can measure the difference between the two. The red arrows show that, if you measure only endpoint to endpoint, 1.1 million net net jobs were created during the Bush Administration (I’m using the payroll survey in all cases).

But this analysis misses most of the story. We can see a steady employment decline from early 2001 through mid-2003, followed by a steady, strong, and sustained period of job growth for almost four years. This 46 month period is the second longest in recorded history for sustained job creation in the U.S., and more than eight million jobs were created during this period (the white arrows). A mild recession began in late 2007, followed by a severe contraction in the second half of 2008 and continuing into the Obama Presidency."

Source (entire article):
http://keithhennessey.com/2010/06/08/compare-employment/

Also, unemployment averaged 5.3% during the 8 years of GW Bush's Presidency. Obama is averaging 9.5%.

And don't forget this one either: When Obama took office there were 32 million Americans on food stamps. In July that number hit 41.8 million, a record number.

Source - US Dept of Agriculture
http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/29SNAPcurrPP.htm

The Bush Administration ran for 96 months, not 46 months. So, his net job growth was significantly below his contemporaries (1.1 million by your own link). Oh, and my evidence came from the Wall Street Journal, not exactly a bastion of liberal talking points....quite the opposite in fact. Even though his 46 month stretch created 8 million jobs, it was still well below the amount created by Jimmy Carter in 48 months.

Regarding your source:

http://keithhennessey.com/about-2/


I served as the senior White House economic advisor to President George W. Bush...

From August 2002 through the end of 2007, I served as Deputy Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Deputy Director of the National Economic Council at the White House....

I’m now taking some time off to recover from 6+ years in the White House.

Might he be biased?

[BJJ-Blue]

"debate" is not "vote"

were they locked out of the vote? were they?

They were locked out of a debate, and the majoity refused to allow a vote on the floor. Ask yourself, why would a majority fear having a vote...

[BJJ-Blue]

The bottom line is that Bush created jobs, while Obama has lost jobs.


Might he be biased?

Bias or not, facts are facts.

[Reality_Check]

The bottom line is that Bush created jobs, while Obama has lost jobs.

Bias or not, facts are facts.

Biased in so far as Mr. Hennessey completely ignored the 3.6 million jobs lost from January 2008 through January 2009.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/06/news/economy/jobs_january/index.htm


The latest job loss is the worst since December 1974, and brings job losses to 1.8 million in just the last three months, or half of the 3.6 million jobs that have been lost since the beginning of 2008.

So, his choice of a subset of the entire Bush Administration is evidence of his bias.

Regardless, President Bush created fewer jobs in his 8 years in office than Presidents Carter (in 4 years), Reagan and Clinton. By your own rationale re: lower taxes and less regulation, that shouldn't have happened. Clearly you were seriously wrong.

Oh, and since you posted a chart, I'll post one too:

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4caf52567f8b9a8365790700/jobs.png

[BJJ-Blue]

Even though his 46 month stretch created 8 million jobs, it was still well below the amount created by Jimmy Carter in 48 months.

And let's take a look at those jobs Carter created:

Percentage of jobs created paying under $7k/yr: Carter 41.77
Percentage of jobs created paying over $28k/yr Carter -9.9

Source (US Dept of Labor figures):
http://web2.uconn.edu/cunningham/econ309/Reaganomics.ppt#263,8,Results (4)

[BJJ-Blue]

Biased in so far as Mr. Hennessey completely ignored the 3.6 million jobs lost from January 2008 through January 2009.

You must have missed this part: "A mild recession began in late 2007, followed by a severe contraction in the second half of 2008 and continuing into the Obama Presidency."

He didn't ignore it, you just missed his comment on it.


So, his choice of a subset of the entire Bush Administration is evidence of his bias.

He used the ENTIRE 8 years of data. You just missed that part. :rolleyes:


Regardless, President Bush created fewer jobs in his 8 years in office than Presidents Carter (in 4 years), Reagan and Clinton. By your own rationale re: lower taxes and less regulation, that shouldn't have happened. Clearly you were seriously wrong.

So what? Carter's job creation created over 40% of hamburger-flipper jobs.

And you still haven't addressed why we have SHED JOBS over Obama's ENTIRE TIME in office.

[Reality_Check]

You must have missed this part: "A mild recession began in late 2007, followed by a severe contraction in the second half of 2008 and continuing into the Obama Presidency."

He didn't ignore it, you just missed his comment on it.



He used the ENTIRE 8 years of data. You just missed that part. :rolleyes:



So what? Carter's job creation created over 40% of hamburger-flipper jobs.

And you still haven't addressed why we have SHED JOBS over Obama's ENTIRE TIME in office.

No, his whole point was to highlight the 46 month stretch where 8 million jobs were created, in order to attempt to undermine the fact that the Bush Administration had a horrible record on job creation. "...facts are facts"

As my chart clearly demonstrated, the Obama Administration was/is dealing with the fallout from the Great Recession. It even took Paul Volker time to get inflation under control and for the job gains of the Reagan Administration to begin. Is there job creation going on? Yes. Is it enough? No.

[Reality_Check]

And let's take a look at those jobs Carter created:

Percentage of jobs created paying under $7k/yr: Carter 41.77
Percentage of jobs created paying over $28k/yr Carter -9.9

Source (US Dept of Labor figures):
http://web2.uconn.edu/cunningham/econ309/Reaganomics.ppt#263,8,Results (4)

Could you please point to where your data came from in the PowerPoint slide show to which you linked?

[BJJ-Blue]

Could you please point to where your data came from in the PowerPoint slide show to which you linked?

My bad.

Here is another link: http://palrepublican.tripod.com/id21.html

That article uses Bureau of Labor Statistics found here:
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls

[BJJ-Blue]

No, his whole point was to highlight the 46 month stretch where 8 million jobs were created, in order to attempt to undermine the fact that the Bush Administration had a horrible record on job creation. "...facts are facts"

And the fact is Bush created jobs. And Obama has not.


As my chart clearly demonstrated, the Obama Administration was/is dealing with the fallout from the Great Recession. It even took Paul Volker time to get inflation under control and for the job gains of the Reagan Administration to begin. Is there job creation going on? Yes. Is it enough? No.

We were told the 'Stimulus' would keep unemployment under 8% and that there were millions of "shovel ready" jobs ready to go once it passed. We were also told (by Joe Biden) that this past summer was going to be "The Summer of Recovery", yet unemployment remained the same throughout and even after the summer.

And how can you say there is job creation going on when the unemployment rate is much higher now than when Obama took office? :confused:

[Reality_Check]

And the fact is Bush created jobs. And Obama has not.

We were told the 'Stimulus' would keep unemployment under 8% and that there were millions of "shovel ready" jobs ready to go once it passed. We were also told (by Joe Biden) that this past summer was going to be "The Summer of Recovery", yet unemployment remained the same throughout and even after the summer.

And how can you say there is job creation going on when the unemployment rate is much higher now than when Obama took office? :confused:

I never said the Bush Administration didn't create jobs. I just said they did a terrible job...especially as compared to his contemporaries.

Regarding the stimulus:

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4caf52567f8b9a8365790700/jobs.png

This is also quite interesting:

http://www.sonecon.com/blog/?p=451


Of course, there’s also lots of finger-pointing about the economy, including the audacious claim that the fault for the high unemployment lies in the Administration’s economic policies, especially the stimulus.

Since that claim has some popular traction, and even support from a handful of muddled conservative economists, let’s test it with the hard data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

From December 2007 to July 2009 – the last year of the Bush second term and the first six months of the Obama presidency, before his policies could affect the economy – private sector employment crashed from 115,574,000 jobs to 107,778,000 jobs. Employment continued to fall, however, for the next six months, reaching a low of 107,107,000 jobs in December of 2009. So, out of 8,467,000 private sector jobs lost in this dismal cycle, 7,796,000 of those jobs or 92 percent were lost on the Republicans’ watch or under the sway of their policies. Some 671,000 additional jobs were lost as the stimulus and other moves by the administration kicked in, but 630,000 jobs then came back in the following six months. The tally, to date: Mr. Obama can be held accountable for the net loss of 41,000 jobs (671,000 – 630,000), while the Republicans should be held responsible for the net losses of 7,796,000 jobs.

Were the benefits of the stimulus overstated? Yes. That doesn't mean it hasn't staunched some of the bleeding from 8 years of irresponsible Republican policies.

[BJJ-Blue]

I'll be the first to admit Bush was not my favorite President. But I still say he got a raw deal. The sub-prime bubble blew up in his face, and he had ZERO to do with it. Heck, in 2004 he and the GOP actually tried to fix the mess but were stopped by Democrats led primarily Barney Frank. And it was Frank, not GW Bush, who famously stated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were doing just fine only a short time before the housing bubble imploded.

[BJJ-Blue]

Were the benefits of the stimulus overstated? Yes. That doesn't mean it hasn't staunched some of the bleeding from 8 years of irresponsible Republican policies.

Oh, come on now. You can't really believe that.

We were told there were millions of "shovel ready" jobs. Care to point us in the direction of those jobs? Even FDR's New Deal policies made unemployment go down while he was blowing through the money. Obama blew through more money than FDR ever even dreamed of spending, yet unemployment actually went up!

Speaking of results being overstated, don't make me bring up Obamacare. Anyone watching the news last week can see the ticking time bomb that disaster is gonna drop on our economy.