The Entitlement Mentality - The GOP Edition

[Adam]

 

 

He creates the environment for hiring. to say he doesn't is... ignorant.

That is a commonly held misconception. The president can help create temporary jobs, but that doesn't fix the problem

 

Libs are still running against Bush.

Yes, they are. And they will be doing that for a long time. I also heard President Carter's name mentioned quite a bit during the election.

[3rdnlng]

 

 

I believe we are already discussing supply side economics on another thread. But things like ACA don't exactly create the conditions for mass hiring.

 

This thread.

[sodbuster]

This thread.

Oh yeah...

That is a commonly held misconception. The president can help create temporary jobs, but that doesn't fix the problem

Tell that to the Gipper. If you don't tax the profit out of businesses, they won't go elsewhere to set up shop. You can see it in a smaller scale from state to state.

[Adam]

Oh yeah...

 

Tell that to the Gipper. If you don't tax the profit out of businesses, they won't go elsewhere to set up shop. You can see it in a smaller scale from state to state.

And if you don't have a war tax, you don't have a war. And if you don't have money, you don't have entitlements. It goes on and on,, but nobody wants to hear it. Unfortunately, they want have a choice, soon.

[keepthefaith]

Did you slam Bush when he ran up the deficet? Or when the unemployment rate jumped up?

 

I did. Bush was particularly disappointing in his 2nd term even before the financial meltdown. He ignored a number of issues but remember, Nancy Pelosi and co. would have never approved a budget full of as she calls them "draconian cuts". Young people who voted significantly for Obama are falling into the Democrat trap of expanding entitlements. My generation (baby boomers) have been in power for decades and will continue to be in power for years to come and when it's time to turn the the country over to the next generation, todays 30 and under, we will be spending $1 trillion a year just to service the $30 trillion or so of debt that will be on the books then. That and all us old farts are gonna want our monthly SS checks, our organ and body part replacements and oh by the way we won't be contributing economically any longer except for making the pharm companies and the ones that make those wrap around sunglasses rich. All you 30 and unders, keep voting as you do and you're fu(&ed. The Democrat party basically guarantees the destruction of your prosperity.

[Adam]

 

 

I did. Bush was particularly disappointing in his 2nd term even before the financial meltdown. He ignored a number of issues but remember, Nancy Pelosi and co. would have never approved a budget full of as she calls them "draconian cuts". Young people who voted significantly for Obama are falling into the Democrat trap of expanding entitlements. My generation (baby boomers) have been in power for decades and will continue to be in power for years to come and when it's time to turn the the country over to the next generation, todays 30 and under, we will be spending $1 trillion a year just to service the $30 trillion or so of debt that will be on the books then. That and all us old farts are gonna want our monthly SS checks, our organ and body part replacements and oh by the way we won't be contributing economically any longer except for making the pharm companies and the ones that make those wrap around sunglasses rich. All you 30 and unders, keep voting as you do and you're fu(&ed. The Democrat party basically guarantees the destruction of your prosperity.

The either the economic destruction party or the "voice of god" party. Hate to say it, but the later didn't get beat by the democrats in the last two elections. It assaulted the ndependents and got its butt kicked two straight times. Take on the independents and you will lose. It won't be a contest. That is what America is and will forever be.

[Doc]

Just curious, what was the unemployment rate when Bush took over in 2002? What was it when he left? Can you answer that?

What is the unemployment rate now? What was it when Barry took over and promised to get it under 6%?

[outsidethebox]

 

What is the unemployment rate now? What was it when Barry took over and promised to get it under 6%?

google is your friend.

[Doc]

google is your friend.

I know the answer. Do you? What was it when Barry took over, when he promised to get it under 6%, and what is it now? Will it be higher or lower next month? Next year?

[keepthefaith]

The either the economic destruction party or the "voice of god" party. Hate to say it, but the later didn't get beat by the democrats in the last two elections. It assaulted the ndependents and got its butt kicked two straight times. Take on the independents and you will lose. It won't be a contest. That is what America is and will forever be.

 

You've completely missed the point. For the first time in a while, baby boomers put a candidate on the ticket that at least campaigned on reducing spending, balancing the budget and growing the economy. America rejected that candidate and it was the younger generation (which has the most to gain or lose from fiscal policy) to a great extent that put Barry back into office. Forget party. Forget religion. Break down the issues we have as a country and which candidate addressed those with better solutions? That debate is a no-brainer, but many baby boomers have no shame for the fiscal mess on hand and the younger generation is clueless to a great extent on the depth and consequences of the problem. The previous generation (to boomers) left a $1 trillion debt in 1982. Boomers had a big party for 30 years. The next generation is fu(&ed. All you under 35's, WAKE UP!

Edited November 12, 2012 by keepthefaith

[RI Bills Fan]

Unemployment rates by President

 

Reagan: 1981 - 7.6% to 1989 - 5.3%

 

Bush 1 1989 - 5.3% to 1993 - 6.9%

 

Clinton 1993 - 6.9% to 2001 - 4.7%

 

Bush 2 2001 - 4.7% to 2009 - 9.3%

 

Obama 2009 - 9.3% to 2011 - 8.9%

 

http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm

Edited November 12, 2012 by RI Bills Fan

[3rdnlng]

Unemployment rates by President

 

Reagan: 1981 - 7.6% to 1989 - 5.3%

 

Bush 1 1989 - 5.3% to 1993 - 7.5%

 

Clinton 1993 - 7.5% to 2001 - 4.7%

 

Bush 2 2001 - 4.7% to 2009 - 9.3%

 

Obama 2009 - 9.3% to 2011 - 8.9%

 

http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm

 

 

From your link, a slightly more honest picture:

 

 

 

Annual average unemployment rate, civilian labor force 16 years and over (percent)

Year Annual

1948 3.8

1949 5.9

1950 5.3

1951 3.3

1952 3.0

1953 2.9

1954 5.5

1955 4.4

1956 4.1

1957 4.3

1958 6.8

1959 5.5

1960 5.5

1961 6.7

1962 5.5

1963 5.7

1964 5.2

1965 4.5

1966 3.8

1967 3.8

1968 3.6

1969 3.5

1970 4.9

1971 5.9

1972 5.6

1973 4.9

1974 5.6

1975 8.5

1976 7.7

1977 7.1

1978 6.1

1979 5.8

1980 7.1

1981 7.6

1982 9.7

1983 9.6

1984 7.5

1985 7.2

1986 7.0

1987 6.2

1988 5.5

1989 5.3

1990 5.6

1991 6.8

1992 7.5

1993 6.9

1994 6.1

1995 5.6

1996 5.4

1997 4.9

1998 4.5

1999 4.2

2000 4.0

2001 4.7

2002 5.8

2003 6.0

2004 5.5

2005 5.1

2006 4.6

2007 4.6

2008 5.8

2009 9.3

2010 9.6

2011 8.9

 

 

 

 

[RI Bills Fan]

From your link, a slightly more honest picture:

 

 

Okay, I'll bite. How can the exact same info presented in a different format be more honest?

 

I understand Why you don't like the way I presented the info, But how can you claim what I posted was less honest than what you posted?

 

[edit] I just noticed that I made a mistake on my original post. it has been corrected. The correct % in 1993 was 6.9% not 7.5%

Edited November 12, 2012 by RI Bills Fan

[3rdnlng]

 

 

Okay, I'll bite. How can the exact same info presented in a different format be more honest?

 

I understand Why you don't like the way I presented the info, But how can you claim what I posted was less honest than what you posted?

 

I claimed that the picture you presented was less honest. Let's say a president comes in to office and the unemployment rate is 5% and leaves it 8 years later with a rate of 4%, but in the 7 years in between it was 10%. The way you presented the figures it would appear that he/she had a very good presidency unemployment wise. On the other hand, the way I presented the info gives a much better picture of unemployment throughout his/her presidency.

[Jauronimo]

...

 

So you don't actually know what trickle-down economics are or how they work?

 

OK... Who else?

Trickle down isn't an economic theory. Its a term successfully used by the libs and dems to dismiss and marginalize supply side economic theory. Can we please stop using their bull **** lexicon?

[Doc]

I claimed that the picture you presented was less honest. Let's say a president comes in to office and the unemployment rate is 5% and leaves it 8 years later with a rate of 4%, but in the 7 years in between it was 10%. The way you presented the figures it would appear that he/she had a very good presidency unemployment wise. On the other hand, the way I presented the info gives a much better picture of unemployment throughout his/her presidency.

And this doesn't even take into account the fact that many people have left the workforce, which artificially lowers the unemployment rate. Nevermind those who are under-employed (part-timers, which will increase significantly because of Obamacare).

[3rdnlng]

 

And this doesn't even take into account the fact that many people have left the workforce, which artificially lowers the unemployment rate. Nevermind those who are under-employed (part-timers, which will increase significantly because of Obamacare).

 

I wasn't trying to bash Obama or praise Bush. I was simply telling Rhode Island Red that the way he presented the statistics from that link gave a dishonest and incomplete picture of unemployment figures. He could have just posted what I did from his link, but went out of his way to come up with his own way to post the information.

[RI Bills Fan]

I wasn't trying to bash Obama or praise Bush. I was simply telling Rhode Island Red that the way he presented the statistics from that link gave a dishonest and incomplete picture of unemployment figures. He could have just posted what I did from his link, but went out of his way to come up with his own way to post the information.

 

Like I said, I understand why you don't like how I posted the figures. What I don't understand is how I'm being dishonest (according to you).

 

I claimed that the picture you presented was less honest. Let's say a president comes in to office and the unemployment rate is 5% and leaves it 8 years later with a rate of 4%, but in the 7 years in between it was 10%. The way you presented the figures it would appear that he/she had a very good presidency unemployment wise. On the other hand, the way I presented the info gives a much better picture of unemployment throughout his/her presidency.

 

By your logic. Obama's first four years are more successful than Reagan's (on employment).

 

And this doesn't even take into account the fact that many people have left the workforce, which artificially lowers the unemployment rate. Nevermind those who are under-employed (part-timers, which will increase significantly because of Obamacare).

 

Why do Republicans only bring this up during Democratic Administrations? And the Obamacare rant is just a little premature. Let's at least wait until ACA is fully implemented. Kind of like how Romneycare was supposed to tank the Massachusetts economy, but didn't.

 

Trickle down isn't an economic theory. Its a term successfully used by the libs and dems to dismiss and marginalize supply side economic theory. Can we please stop using their bull **** lexicon?

 

A non-partisan explanation of "Trickle Down Economic Theory"

 

In a nu­tshell, trickle-down theory is based on the premise that within an economy, giving tax breaks to the top earners makes them more likely to earn more. Top earners invest that extra money in productive economic activities or spend more of their time at the high-paying trade they do best (whether that be creating inventions or performing heart surgeries). Either way, these activities will be productive, reinvigorate economic growth and, in the end, generate more tax revenue from these earners and the people they've helped. According to the theory, this boost in growth will ultimately help those in lower income brackets as well. Although trickle-down economics is often associated with the policies of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, the theory dates back to the 1920s. The name also has roots in the '20s, when humorist Will Rogers coined the term, saying, "The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes it would trickle down to the needy" [source: Shafritz].

 

http://money.howstuf...n-economics.htm

[3rdnlng]

 

 

Like I said, I understand why you don't like how I posted the figures. What I don't understand is how I'm being dishonest (according to you).

 

 

 

By your logic. Obama's first four years are more successful than Reagan's (on employment).

 

 

 

Why do Republicans only bring this up during Democratic Administrations? And the Obamacare rant is just a little premature. Let's at least wait until ACA is fully implemented. Kind of like how Romneycare was supposed to tank the Massachusetts economy, but didn't.

 

 

 

A non-partisan explanation of "Trickle Down Economic Theory"

 

In a nu­tshell, trickle-down theory is based on the premise that within an economy, giving tax breaks to the top earners makes them more likely to earn more. Top earners invest that extra money in productive economic activities or spend more of their time at the high-paying trade they do best (whether that be creating inventions or performing heart surgeries). Either way, these activities will be productive, reinvigorate economic growth and, in the end, generate more tax revenue from these earners and the people they've helped. According to the theory, this boost in growth will ultimately help those in lower income brackets as well. Although trickle-down economics is often associated with the policies of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, the theory dates back to the 1920s. The name also has roots in the '20s, when humorist Will Rogers coined the term, saying, "The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes it would trickle down to the needy" [source: Shafritz].

 

http://money.howstuf...n-economics.htm

 

When you don't give the whole picture, your figures can be misleading. It is easy to bend or twist statistics. From the end of 2008 until the fall of 2012 gas prices have doubled. Is that an honest statement? Is it misleading? Does it give the whole picture?

Edited November 12, 2012 by 3rdnlng

[RI Bills Fan]

When you don't give the whole picture, your figures can be misleading. It is easy to bend or twist statistics. From the end of 2008 until the fall of 2012 gas prices have doubled. Is that an honest statement?

 

It is an honest statement. So?

 

Which version of the whole picture will you accept? There are four different equally valid versions (depending on an individual's subjective point of view), the R Version, the D version, the L/I version, and the truth (which can be found buried somewhere in the middle of the other three). Which of those do you believe my original post reflected?