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.
Originally posted by sheepslayer247
Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Originally posted by wascurious
Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Same with republican administrations where policies were enacted, then the democrat gets elected - he takes all the credit for the results of the Republican efforts.
Such as?
Taking this into consideration, it is likely that the opposite is true - democrats have done more to destroy jobs and republicans have done more to create jobs.
Taking your factless example of an idea you have based on so far what seems to be nothing into consideration? Why would you.
Your response is typical lefty propaganda - forcing someone to "prove" something that doesn't need proving. If you have a brain in your skull you will know what I am talking about. The people with brains DO know what I am talking about, so I will disregard your response.
How is that response "lefty propaganda"? You made a specific claim, that democrats have done more to destroy jobs and republicans have done more to create jobs. Do you have evidence to back up that claim, or are we supposed to use our "special" mind power to just believe it?
Because anyone with a brain would not believe a word you or I say unless it's backed up with evidence. Do you have that evidence?
So since you have a brain, and the rest of us do not....I would be grateful if you could provide some substance to your statement. Because as you know, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
Originally posted by thesungod
reply to post by RealSpoke
Which Scott Walker also did and Wisconsin is stealing all sorts of jobs from Illinois. In all fairness though Minnesota is booming in comparison to Illinois also.
Worked in Wisconsin, not in NJ. Why?
As for Reaganomics, well if you read my post I provided sources and papers pre-clinton that shows that trickle-down does work it can just take time. Again I cited sources POTUS 41 and POTUS 42 got a ray of sunshine from the Reagan era and a tech boom. You got any numbers to back your claims or just "Real Speak"?
Originally posted by buster2010
Bill Clinton Is Right: The Economy Really Does Do Better Under Democrats
Clinton pointed out that under Democratic presidents since 1961, the economy has added 42 million private-sector jobs, while under Republicans it has added just 24 million. He used the same concept to argue that President Obama has outscored both congressional Republicans and his GOP presidential opponent, Mitt Romney, in terms of creating jobs. Clinton has some intriguing facts on his side. Aside from a rounding error, his historical numbers are accurate (figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the tally under Democrats since 1961 rounds to 41 million, not 42 million). I crunched the numbers a few different ways to see if Clinton was cherry-picking the best numbers. His figures measure job gains from the month a president took office until the month he left. Since it takes a year or so for any president's policies to go into effect, I also measured job gains from one year after each president took office till one year after he left. Here's the score by that measure: Democrats: 38 million new jobs, Republicans, 27 million.
No wonder the GOP hates fact checking. It shows how much they fail at their jobs small wonder why they always scream Reagan created 16 million jobs.
Originally posted by buster2010
Bill Clinton Is Right: The Economy Really Does Do Better Under Democrats
Clinton pointed out that under Democratic presidents since 1961, the economy has added 42 million private-sector jobs, while under Republicans it has added just 24 million. He used the same concept to argue that President Obama has outscored both congressional Republicans and his GOP presidential opponent, Mitt Romney, in terms of creating jobs. Clinton has some intriguing facts on his side. Aside from a rounding error, his historical numbers are accurate (figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the tally under Democrats since 1961 rounds to 41 million, not 42 million). I crunched the numbers a few different ways to see if Clinton was cherry-picking the best numbers. His figures measure job gains from the month a president took office until the month he left. Since it takes a year or so for any president's policies to go into effect, I also measured job gains from one year after each president took office till one year after he left. Here's the score by that measure: Democrats: 38 million new jobs, Republicans, 27 million.
No wonder the GOP hates fact checking. It shows how much they fail at their jobs small wonder why they always scream Reagan created 16 million jobs.
Maybe that's because Democrat policies tend to implode under GOP president. A great example is the tech and housing bubble that didn't affect Clinton, but his predecessor Bush. But hey, I don't expect such partisan shills to look objectively at any inconvenient facts.
Why are you guys so willing to accept propaganda when it comes from left wing sources?
Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by PvtHudson
Maybe that's because Democrat policies tend to implode under GOP president. A great example is the tech and housing bubble that didn't affect Clinton, but his predecessor Bush. But hey, I don't expect such partisan shills to look objectively at any inconvenient facts.
Do you know what you just did here?
You admitted that the GOP has a worse track record.....and tried to blame the Dems!
Damn them inconvenient facts.
Who's not looking at this objectively like a partisan shill?
Why are you guys so willing to accept propaganda when it comes from left wing sources?
Why can't you accept fact when it's right in front of your face?edit on 7-9-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)edit on 7-9-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by thesungod
reply to post by milominderbinder
Ummm...
As for WI unemployment. Turn off the TV and try reading instead. DLS for WI
It's improving overall up your way.
The Southern Illinoisian
Back in 2011 they knew it was starting.
Multi-Million corp moving to WI
Here's one that moved in 2011
A manufacturer
Another one
Once again show numbers to refute Reaganomics or move on. I want numbers, not opinions.
I will say this again. I am not a right winger or a left winger. I hate all the lying politicians. B-rock, Mittens and the Doc should all go the way of the dinosaurs imo.
Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by PvtHudson
Maybe that's because Democrat policies tend to implode under GOP president. A great example is the tech and housing bubble that didn't affect Clinton, but his predecessor Bush. But hey, I don't expect such partisan shills to look objectively at any inconvenient facts.
Do you know what you just did here?
You admitted that the GOP has a worse track record.....and tried to blame the Dems!
Damn them inconvenient facts.
Who's not looking at this objectively like a partisan shill?
Why are you guys so willing to accept propaganda when it comes from left wing sources?
Why can't you accept fact when it's right in front of your face?edit on 7-9-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)edit on 7-9-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by thesungod
reply to post by milominderbinder
Also if you'd like I'll pull the numbers of Jim Doyle and Barbara Lawton's (Dems) tenure as WI Governor and LT. if you'd like.
We can compare those to Scott Walker and Rebecca Kleefisch (Repubs).
You will be HIGHLY disappointed in both compared to the Tommy Thompson and Scott McCallum years (Repubs.)
Originally posted by PvtHudson
Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by PvtHudson
Maybe that's because Democrat policies tend to implode under GOP president. A great example is the tech and housing bubble that didn't affect Clinton, but his predecessor Bush. But hey, I don't expect such partisan shills to look objectively at any inconvenient facts.
Do you know what you just did here?
You admitted that the GOP has a worse track record.....and tried to blame the Dems!
Damn them inconvenient facts.
Who's not looking at this objectively like a partisan shill?
Why are you guys so willing to accept propaganda when it comes from left wing sources?
Why can't you accept fact when it's right in front of your face?edit on 7-9-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)edit on 7-9-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)
How is the sub prime loan implosion (Clinton policy, which was helped along by Obama), Bush's fault? What you're giving people here is not facts, but rather spin and opinion from left wing Democrats posing as journalists in the media.edit on 7-9-2012 by PvtHudson because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by milominderbinder
Originally posted by thesungod
reply to post by milominderbinder
Also if you'd like I'll pull the numbers of Jim Doyle and Barbara Lawton's (Dems) tenure as WI Governor and LT. if you'd like.
We can compare those to Scott Walker and Rebecca Kleefisch (Repubs).
You will be HIGHLY disappointed in both compared to the Tommy Thompson and Scott McCallum years (Repubs.)
Well...of course. Eisenhower had some really good employment stats as well...but that doesn't mean that therefore Scott Walker's "plan" is sound. C'mon...TOMMY THOMPSON?? Seriously? The guy was governor from 1987-2001 during the longest sustained economic boom in the richest country that the world have ever seen....I should hope he had decent employment numbers.
Why don't we just stick to the "facts" where you just provided a link that CLEARLY shows Walker's policies are resulting in LESS JOBS and attempted to pitch it as "job growth"...presumably because you didn't even take the time to look at the very tables you assumed MUST be showing how wonderful trickle-down economics is.
Yeah...I'm the one who's been "watching too much TV". Right.
You know why "trickle-down" economics was dubbed "voodoo economics"? Because the very concept of supply-side economics in 1980 stood in stark and utter contrast to the sum total of all knowledge of economics theretofore previously compiled. If you would have answered the factor which "creates" jobs is the SUPPLY of jobs rather than the DEMAND for the products or services being offerred on an Econ test at ANY UNIVERSITY IN THE FREE WORLD in 1980 YOU WOULD HAVE FAILED THE COURSE because the concept was UTTERLY ALIEN.
But hey...we tried it...right? Even Clinton was far friendlier to "supply-side" thinking than any previous Democratic president. Now...look at a graph of the national debt and deficit spending from 1980 to the present and see if you notice any correlation with "Reaganomics" (HINT: The wild spike at an upwards 75-degree angle is a bad thing).
Originally posted by thesungod
reply to post by milominderbinder
The DLS statistics show an overall improvement, huge losses in only Construction and Leisure & Hospitality, which is down EVERYWHERE. Which your saying is spiking in WI because of the Summer. I show a -10% loss compared to last year in construction and improves again to -7.7%. How is there a boom in the construction industry in WI? The boom was a whopping 2%?
Leisure and Hospitality show a -6.7% loss with building trend. Next biggest loss is mining with -3.4%. All the others are trending steady or up.
If your really a data analysts these things should be plain to you. Look at the trends, not just the top number.
Once again, nothing to disprove "starving the beast" or "supply-side economics". Opinions and no facts. 8 years of Reagan contributed heavily to POTUS 41 and POTUS 42 success.
Originally posted by thesungod
Originally posted by milominderbinder
Originally posted by thesungod
reply to post by milominderbinder
Also if you'd like I'll pull the numbers of Jim Doyle and Barbara Lawton's (Dems) tenure as WI Governor and LT. if you'd like.
We can compare those to Scott Walker and Rebecca Kleefisch (Repubs).
You will be HIGHLY disappointed in both compared to the Tommy Thompson and Scott McCallum years (Repubs.)
Well...of course. Eisenhower had some really good employment stats as well...but that doesn't mean that therefore Scott Walker's "plan" is sound. C'mon...TOMMY THOMPSON?? Seriously? The guy was governor from 1987-2001 during the longest sustained economic boom in the richest country that the world have ever seen....I should hope he had decent employment numbers.
Why don't we just stick to the "facts" where you just provided a link that CLEARLY shows Walker's policies are resulting in LESS JOBS and attempted to pitch it as "job growth"...presumably because you didn't even take the time to look at the very tables you assumed MUST be showing how wonderful trickle-down economics is.
Yeah...I'm the one who's been "watching too much TV". Right.
You know why "trickle-down" economics was dubbed "voodoo economics"? Because the very concept of supply-side economics in 1980 stood in stark and utter contrast to the sum total of all knowledge of economics theretofore previously compiled. If you would have answered the factor which "creates" jobs is the SUPPLY of jobs rather than the DEMAND for the products or services being offerred on an Econ test at ANY UNIVERSITY IN THE FREE WORLD in 1980 YOU WOULD HAVE FAILED THE COURSE because the concept was UTTERLY ALIEN.
But hey...we tried it...right? Even Clinton was far friendlier to "supply-side" thinking than any previous Democratic president. Now...look at a graph of the national debt and deficit spending from 1980 to the present and see if you notice any correlation with "Reaganomics" (HINT: The wild spike at an upwards 75-degree angle is a bad thing).
You may wanna look above that post and then edit this one. And still no links to facts just your talk. I have provided link after link after number after number. Care to try PROVING anything your saying?edit on 7-9-2012 by thesungod because: (no reason given)