Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Jobs Score. Republicans - 24 million. Democrats - 42 million

+4
NaNook
othershoe1030
Nekochan
boards of FL
8 posters

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 3]

boards of FL

boards of FL

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/09/06/bill_clinton_s_jobs_score_from_his_dnc_speech_fact_checked_.html

As should come as no surprise to anyone who's been following this presidential campaign, last night's round of convention speeches contained their fair share of half-truths and misinformation. But the most surprising fact of the night—Bill Clinton's "jobs score"—appears to check out.

Here was the quote, as it was prepared for delivery:

"Well since 1961, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24. In those 52 years, our economy produced 66 million private sector jobs. What's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 million!"


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

More cherry picking. Unfortunately for BHO his "job score" is even worse than Bushs. Here, let me say it for you partisan liberal hacks: "But it was all Bushs fault". It actually started with Clinton who repealed Glass-Steagall but don't let that little bit of history turn your head.

Nekochan

Nekochan

I'm sure that Obama would love to take credit for jobs created during the Kennedy and Clinton administrations.

boards of FL

boards of FL

nochain wrote:More cherry picking. Unfortunately for BHO his "job score" is even worse than Bushs. Here, let me say it for you partisan liberal hacks: "But it was all Bushs fault". It actually started with Clinton who repealed Glass-Steagall but don't let that little bit of history turn your head.

Actually, you're wrong about that. Over the entire Bush presidency we lost over 600 thousand private sector jobs. In contrast, we have gained over 300 thousand private sector jobs so far during the Obama presidency. Further, we have gained 4.5 million jobs since the bottom of the recession, which Obama inherited. Stand corrected.

PolitiFact has also confirmed Clinton's job score numbers and also confirms that you're wrong with respect to the Bush vs Obama job score.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/06/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-says-democratic-presidents-top-republ/

Let me guess, Obama's fault?


_________________
I approve this message.

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

nochain wrote:More cherry picking. Unfortunately for BHO his "job score" is even worse than Bushs. Here, let me say it for you partisan liberal hacks: "But it was all Bushs fault". It actually started with Clinton who repealed Glass-Steagall but don't let that little bit of history turn your head.


You're right. I agree with you about the mess the repeal of the Glass-Steagall law caused. I don't know why Clinton got talked into that. In retrospect it sure would have saved a lot of problems.

Now they're trying to re-regulate Wall Street. Now the lobbyists for the financial sector are stronger than ever and the big banks are bigger than they were before the meltdown.

That doesn't change the jobs numbers that Boards was talking about though. The Republicans have to own that.

Guest


Guest

There's no way to verify this data. All we have is bloombergs word. I looked at bloombergs article about this and no actual real data was presented. not only that, why start at 1961? Why not go all the way back to the other great depression?

NaNook

NaNook

Remember, Obama was the lead lawyer on a class action suit against Citi for redlining. Clinton pushed low income homeownership....Citi had no choice but to settle.

Here's a dirty little secret, how many GM car loans are sub-prime? People might want to look around, the default rates will probably start to hit in 2013, after the election.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Of course all the posts so far in this thread, the claims that democrat politicians create the most jobs and the counterclaims that republican politicians create the most jobs, is all predicated on the premise that jobs are created by politicians.
I realize that democrat politicians and republican politicians and their media mouthpieces on fox news and msnbc believe this to be true. But somehow I think the U.S. economy and the jobs it creates is all a tad more complex than the rhetoric of politicians and sean hannitys and Ed Schultzes.
But I guess since they're all well known celebrities it must be true.

Guest


Guest

NaNook wrote:Remember, Obama was the lead lawyer on a class action suit against Citi for redlining. Clinton pushed low income homeownership....Citi had no choice but to settle.

Here's a dirty little secret, how many GM car loans are sub-prime? People might want to look around, the default rates will probably start to hit in 2013, after the election.


it wont matter.

thanks to the new mantra of "let gov" and the 1% owes me so Ill take it" crowd. No one wants to work anymore. This mentality has set in and the fruits of its labor are starting to be seen.

May God bless the future generations who think the gov will actually be able to take care of anybody with money they grow on trees when the tax paying working population is dwindeled down to nothing.

Guest


Guest

Bob wrote:Of course all the posts so far in this thread, the claims that democrat politicians create the most jobs and the counterclaims that republican politicians create the most jobs, is all predicated on the premise that jobs are created by politicians.
I realize that democrat politicians and republican politicians and their media mouthpieces on fox news and msnbc believe this to be true. But somehow I think the U.S. economy and the jobs it creates is all a tad more complex than the rhetoric of politicians and sean hannitys and Ed Schultzes.
But I guess since they're all well known celebrities it must be true.

you make a good point. Its that "we didnt make this" argument. lol

never the less, they cherry picked the date of which to start the numbers adding up. You cant do that and then turn around and say its accurate.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Bob wrote:Of course all the posts so far in this thread, the claims that democrat politicians create the most jobs and the counterclaims that republican politicians create the most jobs, is all predicated on the premise that jobs are created by politicians.
I realize that democrat politicians and republican politicians and their media mouthpieces on fox news and msnbc believe this to be true. But somehow I think the U.S. economy and the jobs it creates is all a tad more complex than the rhetoric of politicians and sean hannitys and Ed Schultzes.
But I guess since they're all well known celebrities it must be true.

If there is no correlation between politics and the creation of jobs, shouldn't we expect to see an equal number of jobs created during republican and democratic presidencies over the last 50 years? That's quite a large sample size, is it not? If almost twice as many jobs are created during the time in which democrats hold the presidency versus the time in which republicans hold the presidency, isn't it fair to say that something outside of random chance is in play there to explain such a wide discrepancy?


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

boards of FL wrote:
Bob wrote:Of course all the posts so far in this thread, the claims that democrat politicians create the most jobs and the counterclaims that republican politicians create the most jobs, is all predicated on the premise that jobs are created by politicians.
I realize that democrat politicians and republican politicians and their media mouthpieces on fox news and msnbc believe this to be true. But somehow I think the U.S. economy and the jobs it creates is all a tad more complex than the rhetoric of politicians and sean hannitys and Ed Schultzes.
But I guess since they're all well known celebrities it must be true.

If there is no correlation between politics and the creation of jobs, shouldn't we expect to see an equal number of jobs created during republican and democratic presidencies over the last 50 years? That's quite a large sample size, is it not? If almost twice as many jobs are created during the time in which democrats hold the presidency versus the time in which republicans hold the presidency, isn't it fair to say that something outside of random chance is in play there to explain such a wide discrepancy?

You cant use partial data and claim accuracy.

and either way, you also cant use the success of past presidents to try and make a current one look good.

all this is is defelction away from obama poor performance on the jobs issue. He cant run on his own record.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Chrissy8 wrote:all this is is defelction away from obama poor performance on the jobs issue. He cant run on his own record.

Sure he can, and he is. 4.5 million new jobs since the bottom of the recession.


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

boards of FL wrote:
Chrissy8 wrote:all this is is defelction away from obama poor performance on the jobs issue. He cant run on his own record.

Sure he can, and he is. 4.5 million new jobs since the bottom of the recession.

How pampered are you from your mommy and daddy boards?

because anybody that can possibly beleive that this economy and job market is good is either high, pampered, or on the gov dole<retired etc>

Guest


Guest

i guess if the president is so important to private job growth... then control of congress is even more important. scratch

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

boards of FL wrote:
Bob wrote:Of course all the posts so far in this thread, the claims that democrat politicians create the most jobs and the counterclaims that republican politicians create the most jobs, is all predicated on the premise that jobs are created by politicians.
I realize that democrat politicians and republican politicians and their media mouthpieces on fox news and msnbc believe this to be true. But somehow I think the U.S. economy and the jobs it creates is all a tad more complex than the rhetoric of politicians and sean hannitys and Ed Schultzes.
But I guess since they're all well known celebrities it must be true.

If there is no correlation between politics and the creation of jobs, shouldn't we expect to see an equal number of jobs created during republican and democratic presidencies over the last 50 years? That's quite a large sample size, is it not? If almost twice as many jobs are created during the time in which democrats hold the presidency versus the time in which republicans hold the presidency, isn't it fair to say that something outside of random chance is in play there to explain such a wide discrepancy?
Firstly, I didn't say it was due to "random chance". That's reminiscent of teo's thread yesterday. He said if existence was not caused by God, then the only other explanation is it "just happened" (another way of saying "random chance").

No I didn't mean the economy creates jobs due to "random chance". What influences the economy's creation of jobs is a multitude of factors, both internal and external. Yes, political policies can be a contributing factor, but so can a great many other factors. The price of American labor in relation to the price of foreign labor is one example. Economic "bubbles" (i.e. real estate bubble and dot.com bubble). Those have a pronounced effect on the level of job creation and the level of employment/unemployment BOTH when the bubbles are expanding and in the aftermath of their bursting as I think we all should know by now. The value of our currency is very important because that greatly influences the level of our exports (which has a corresponding correlation to jobs and employment). Likewise the price of energy. The level of credit or lack of credit available to businesses which create jobs is another factor. The level of consumer confidence another (since consumer spending is what fuels most of our economy).
That's just off the top of my head.
So with all due respect, I think there's more to it than "obama creates the jobs", "bush created the jobs" or "romney will create the jobs" or that jobs are created by "random chance". lol

"Obama creates the jobs", "bush created the jobs" or "romney will create the jobs" is mostly just political rhetoric and propaganda designed to sway voters.


no stress

no stress

Bob wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Bob wrote:Of course all the posts so far in this thread, the claims that democrat politicians create the most jobs and the counterclaims that republican politicians create the most jobs, is all predicated on the premise that jobs are created by politicians.
I realize that democrat politicians and republican politicians and their media mouthpieces on fox news and msnbc believe this to be true. But somehow I think the U.S. economy and the jobs it creates is all a tad more complex than the rhetoric of politicians and sean hannitys and Ed Schultzes.
But I guess since they're all well known celebrities it must be true.

If there is no correlation between politics and the creation of jobs, shouldn't we expect to see an equal number of jobs created during republican and democratic presidencies over the last 50 years? That's quite a large sample size, is it not? If almost twice as many jobs are created during the time in which democrats hold the presidency versus the time in which republicans hold the presidency, isn't it fair to say that something outside of random chance is in play there to explain such a wide discrepancy?
Firstly, I didn't say it was due to "random chance". That's reminiscent of teo's thread yesterday. He said if existence was not caused by God, then the only other explanation is it "just happened" (another way of saying "random chance").

No I didn't mean the economy creates jobs due to "random chance". What influences the economy's creation of jobs is a multitude of factors, both internal and external. Yes, political policies can be a contributing factor, but so can a great many other factors. The price of American labor in relation to the price of foreign labor is one example. Economic "bubbles" (i.e. real estate bubble and dot.com bubble). Those have a pronounced effect on the level of job creation and the level of employment/unemployment BOTH when the bubbles are expanding and in the aftermath of their bursting as I think we all should know by now. The value of our currency is very important because that greatly influences the level of our exports (which has a corresponding correlation to jobs and employment). Likewise the price of energy. The level of credit or lack of credit available to businesses which create jobs is another factor. The level of consumer confidence another (since consumer spending is what fuels most of our economy).
That's just off the top of my head.
So with all due respect, I think there's more to it than "obama creates the jobs", "bush created the jobs" or "romney will create the jobs" or that jobs are created by "random chance". lol

"Obama creates the jobs", "bush created the jobs" or "romney will create the jobs" is mostly just political rhetoric and propaganda designed to sway voters.




Bob gets it !!! cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Gunz wrote:


Bob gets it
I only created one job. My own job. And I had to keep recreating and reinventing that job during the whole time I had it for about 35 years. If anyone besides me "created" that job it was all the people who bought stuff from me. If my memory serves me correctly, no president or any other politician ever bought a thing from me. So if any of those want to take credit for creating my job they can kiss my ass. lol

boards of FL

boards of FL

Bob wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Bob wrote:Of course all the posts so far in this thread, the claims that democrat politicians create the most jobs and the counterclaims that republican politicians create the most jobs, is all predicated on the premise that jobs are created by politicians.
I realize that democrat politicians and republican politicians and their media mouthpieces on fox news and msnbc believe this to be true. But somehow I think the U.S. economy and the jobs it creates is all a tad more complex than the rhetoric of politicians and sean hannitys and Ed Schultzes.
But I guess since they're all well known celebrities it must be true.

If there is no correlation between politics and the creation of jobs, shouldn't we expect to see an equal number of jobs created during republican and democratic presidencies over the last 50 years? That's quite a large sample size, is it not? If almost twice as many jobs are created during the time in which democrats hold the presidency versus the time in which republicans hold the presidency, isn't it fair to say that something outside of random chance is in play there to explain such a wide discrepancy?
Firstly, I didn't say it was due to "random chance". That's reminiscent of teo's thread yesterday. He said if existence was not caused by God, then the only other explanation is it "just happened" (another way of saying "random chance").

No I didn't mean the economy creates jobs due to "random chance". What influences the economy's creation of jobs is a multitude of factors, both internal and external. Yes, political policies can be a contributing factor, but so can a great many other factors. The price of American labor in relation to the price of foreign labor is one example. Economic "bubbles" (i.e. real estate bubble and dot.com bubble). Those have a pronounced effect on the level of job creation and the level of employment/unemployment BOTH when the bubbles are expanding and in the aftermath of their bursting as I think we all should know by now. The value of our currency is very important because that greatly influences the level of our exports (which has a corresponding correlation to jobs and employment). Likewise the price of energy. The level of credit or lack of credit available to businesses which create jobs is another factor. The level of consumer confidence another (since consumer spending is what fuels most of our economy).
That's just off the top of my head.
So with all due respect, I think there's more to it than "obama creates the jobs", "bush created the jobs" or "romney will create the jobs" or that jobs are created by "random chance". lol

"Obama creates the jobs", "bush created the jobs" or "romney will create the jobs" is mostly just political rhetoric and propaganda designed to sway voters.



But how would you explain such a wide discrepancy in job creation between democratic and republican presidents? How is it that, over a 50 year observation, jobs get created twice as fast when one party holds the executive level of government rather than the other if politics has nothing to do with said job creation?


_________________
I approve this message.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

There's a politician on tv right now spewing this rhetoric to beat the band.

Let's take a look at his background to see how he "created jobs"...

Biden attended the Archmere Academy in Claymont,[13] where he was a standout halfback/wide receiver on the high school football team; he helped lead a perennially losing team to an undefeated season in his senior year.[10][14] He played on the baseball team as well.[10] During these years, he participated in an anti-segregation sit-in at a Wilmington theatre.[15] Academically, Biden was undistinguished,[10] but he was a natural leader among the students.[16] He graduated in 1961.[13]

Biden attended the University of Delaware in Newark, where he was more interested in sports and socializing than in studying,[10] although his classmates were impressed by his cramming abilities.[15] He played halfback with the Blue Hens freshman football team,[14] but he dropped a junior year plan to play for the varsity team as a defensive back, enabling him to spend more time with his out-of-state girlfriend.[14][17] He double majored in history and political science and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in 1965,[1] ranking 506th of 688 in his class.[18]

He went on to receive his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University's College of Law in 1968,[19] where by his own description he found it to be "the biggest bore in the world" and pulled many all-nighters to get by.[15][20] During his first year there, he was accused of having plagiarized 5 of 15 pages of a law review article. Biden said it was inadvertent due to his not knowing the proper rules of citation, and he was permitted to retake the course after receiving a grade of F, which was subsequently dropped from his record.[20] He was admitted to the Delaware Bar in 1969.[19]

Biden received five student draft deferments during this period, with the first coming in late 1963 and the last in early 1968, at the peak of the Vietnam War.[21] In April 1968, he was reclassified by the Selective Service System as not available for service due to having had asthma as a teenager.[21][22] Biden was not a part of the anti-Vietnam War movement; he would later say that at the time he was preoccupied with marriage and law school, and that he "wore sports coats ... not tie-dyed".[23]

Negative impressions of drinking alcohol in the Biden and Finnegan families and in the neighborhood led to Joe Biden becoming a teetotaler.[10][24] Biden suffered from stuttering through much of his childhood and into his twenties;[25] he overcame it via long hours spent reciting poetry in front of a mirror.[16]

On August 27, 1966, Biden, then a law student, married Neilia Hunter, who was from an affluent background in Skaneateles, New York and had attended Syracuse University.[1][10][26] They had met in 1964 while on spring break in the Bahamas, and he had overcome her parents' initial reluctance for her to be dating a Roman Catholic.[27] They had three children, Joseph R. "Beau" Biden III (born 1969), Robert Hunter (born 1970), and Naomi Christina (born 1971).[1]

In 1969, Biden began practicing law in Wilmington, Delaware
, first as a public defender and then with his own firm, Biden and Walsh.[15] Corporate law, however, did not appeal to him and criminal law did not pay well.[10] He supplemented his income by managing properties.[28] He ran as a Democrat for the New Castle County Council on a liberal platform that included support for public housing in the suburban area.[15] He won by a solid margin in the usually Republican district,[15] and served from 1970 to 1972[19] while continuing his private law practice as well.[29]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden

So there we have it. He started practicing law in 1969. And then in 1970 he became a career politician which he has been to this day.
In all fairness, he did "manage properties" between 1969 and 1970. So I guess that's when he acquired his expertise in creating jobs. lol

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

boards of FL wrote:
But how would you explain such a wide discrepancy in job creation between democratic and republican presidents? How is it that, over a 50 year observation, jobs get created twice as fast when one party holds the executive level of government rather than the other if politics has nothing to do with said job creation?

Random chance. lol

The creation of jobs doesn't happen by "random chance". It happens because of an elaborate and complex set of economic variables (like some I outlined in the earlier post).
But the number of jobs created when each political party is in office could very well be explained mostly by coincidence.
If you're going to convince me that it was due to the different policies of the two parties (or the two parties' presidents) then you really need to explain which policies and how those policies led to either more or less job creation.

Sal

Sal

Bob wrote:It happens because of an elaborate and complex set of economic variables

So it's luck, Bob? Is that what you're saying? Over that long a time period?

Bill Clinton has summoned you to his office for an arithmetic lesson.


Jobs Score.  Republicans - 24 million.  Democrats - 42 million ECysq

boards of FL

boards of FL

Bob wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
But how would you explain such a wide discrepancy in job creation between democratic and republican presidents? How is it that, over a 50 year observation, jobs get created twice as fast when one party holds the executive level of government rather than the other if politics has nothing to do with said job creation?

Random chance. lol

The creation of jobs doesn't happen by "random chance". It happens because of an elaborate and complex set of economic variables (like some I outlined in the earlier post).
But the number of jobs created when each political party is in office could very well be explained mostly by coincidence.
If you're going to convince me that it was due to the different policies of the two parties (or the two parties' presidents) then you really need to explain which policies and how those policies led to either more or less job creation.

Coincidence? Over a 50 year sample size? That results in twice as many jobs created on a scale on the order of tens of millions?

What?

And to clarify, Bob, I never said jobs are created by random chance either. I asked how could you possibly explain such a strong correlation between political party at the executive level and job creation...random chance? It was a rhetorical question. Oddly enough, you're now telling me that this can be explained by "pure coincidence" Pure coincidence and random chance are the same thing.


_________________
I approve this message.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

boards of FL wrote:
Bob wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
But how would you explain such a wide discrepancy in job creation between democratic and republican presidents? How is it that, over a 50 year observation, jobs get created twice as fast when one party holds the executive level of government rather than the other if politics has nothing to do with said job creation?

Random chance. lol

The creation of jobs doesn't happen by "random chance". It happens because of an elaborate and complex set of economic variables (like some I outlined in the earlier post).
But the number of jobs created when each political party is in office could very well be explained mostly by coincidence.
If you're going to convince me that it was due to the different policies of the two parties (or the two parties' presidents) then you really need to explain which policies and how those policies led to either more or less job creation.

Coincidence? Over a 50 year sample size? That results in twice as many jobs created on a scale on the order of tens of millions?

What?

And to clarify, Bob, I never said jobs are created by random chance either. I asked how could you possibly explain such a strong correlation between political party at the executive level and job creation...random chance? It was a rhetorical question. Oddly enough, you're now telling me that this can be explained by "pure coincidence" Pure coincidence and random chance are the same thing.

My apologies, Will. It's not the first time I've done that. Due to an unfortunate combination of a reading comprehension problem and old age I do sometimes have a tendency to misunderstand the words of others. And I did this time.
I now realize that your use of "random chance" was not suggesting that's how jobs are created, but was only referring to an explanation for your original premise.

But yes my reply to your last post does still stand. I do indeed think it could be explained by nothing much more than coincidence.
As I said, to convince me otherwise I need you to outline what you understand to be the differences in the pertinent policies of the two political parties and how those differences led to more or led to less job creation.
Because in the absence of that, coincidence is just as likely an explanation as anything else.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

boards of FL wrote: Over a 50 year sample size? That results in twice as many jobs created on a scale on the order of tens of millions?

Over a 15 year sample size, Fox news has consistently garnered twice as many viewers as CNN or MSNBC.
Over a 20 year sample size, Limbaugh and Hannity have consistently attracted larger audiences than anything else in radio.
During that same period, the average human lifespan was increasing at the same time.
Should we draw the conclusion from this that their rhetoric is responsible for the average human lifespan increasing during that same time?

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 3]

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum