mimo2005

Bush created 4.8 million jobs ,Clinton created 23 million.


Bush borrowed 5 trillion dollars to make only 4 million jobs.

Clinton borrowed perhaps 1.5 trillion and turned the deficit into a surplus, raised average middle class income, AND created 23 million jobs.

1.5 trillion over 8 years ain't so bad compared to the Reagan, Bush Sr or Bush Jr


http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/22/...ed-23-million/

yustr

But, but, but...republicans are strong on the economy. Aren't they???

RedScott

Bill Gates and Sam Walton did more to create jobs in the 90's than Bill Clinton. It's pretty silly to claim any politician does anything to create jobs.

Chode

So, apart from your unsubstantiated claims about Gates and Walton, Red, don't you find it just a tiny bit absurd to think that none of the money our Government spends creates even a single new job?

Let me get this straight. Your position is that defense spending doesn't create jobs, no matter how many R&D projects are funded. Buying new weapons systems doesn't create jobs either. Fiscal policies that put more disposable income in the pockets of working Americans don't result in spending that translates into new demand for existing products and services and demand for new goodies. Heck, I suppose that even more mundane spending for new roads, prisons, FDA inspectors, etc doesn't create jobs. Ever heard of WPA?

RedScott

Governments can't create jobs. They can only steal from one group of people to pay others for a service. The people they steal the money from will, of course, do the same thing with the money if it wasn't stolen from them in the first place.
As for my claims about Gates and Walton being unsubstantiated.....is that suppose to be a joke? Actual innovation, brought on my market entropenuers provides jobs for everyone. Can you seriously not think of anyone who is employed due to the fact that personal computing is as developed and easily available as it is?

mimo2005

Good leader+ good policies + Fair Justice system = Trust and Prosperity.

Crazy leader + bad policies + Weak Justice system = TroubleS

RedScott

Yes, obviously a government can cause more or less damage depending on who is in charge, but that doesn't mean it is creating anything.

Drew1369

What I find funny is that the majority of the job increases were in '99 when it was a republican controled congress... so I believe congress did all the work.

And these were also the time when Clinton was doing dereugulation of the markets that Bush was being blamed for with the downturn, so you could actually say that many of the jobs lost during Bushes term was all Clintons fault as well.

So lets look at this... the president doesn't create jobs, the president doesn't get rid of jobs.

A company creates the jobs...

Now government agencies does create jobs as well... there are different agencies that employ people... however the federal government does not employ 23 million people, so Clinton didn't do anything.

sobeit

you are right, the president does not create jobs but they do help with creating the market for those jobs by their policies, by the bills they sign or veto, or by just speaking the right words.

I bet if the numbers were the other way around, everyone would be praising Bush for his ability to create jobs.

Drew1369

And those that hate Bush would be saying the same thing Red and me said.

RedScott

Well I do hate Bush, sooooooo.......

Chode

Oh, like that's so unusual these days!

Chode

Red, I joke about nearly everything, but in this case, not about Gates and Walton. Beyond a blanket statement that "governments can't create jobs" which I find totally ridiculous at face value, you don't seem to have any real numbers to back up your claim. I freely admit I don't know how many jobs Gates and Walton created. So, tell me.

Let's just go back to the statement that "governments can't create jobs." You really need to go back and read about the WPA! What this agency accomplished totally invalidates your argument. In fact it gave us 3.3 million reasons why you're wrong.

Let's set Sam Walton aside for a moment and just consider Gates. Did he "create" a new market or did he just piggyback his success onto a new market created by IBM and it's emulators? Let's take a model of the government "not creating jobs" that I find more relevant.

In the Beginning was ARPANET which begat DARPANET, which in turn begat the InterNet. I think this is nearly a perfect example of a military requirement (the military is part of the government) that created a whole new class of job demand and industries built around it. Perhaps the best return on defense spending since the Manhattan Project.

RedScott

Yeah, I see citing one of FDR's fascist programs that extended the Great Depression for almost a decade as validating my point, not invalidating it. See my point wasn't that government can't claim that it creates jobs, but that it can't create them. I mean if I got a REALLY big gun, and went around my neighborhood and told everyone in it that I am the government and that I needed 33% of their income OR ELSE I could in turn "create" jobs for people to do like mowing lawns maybe or digging ditches or paving roads or whatever it is that "legitimate" governments do with the money the extort.

However, in truth I haven't created anything have I? What I've done obviously isn't moral, nor is it sustainable because I haven't done anything to actually create a job. Job creation comes from market innovation and consumer demand. Those are things you can't create through the barrel of a gun, which is the only tool the State has. Innovations like the retail revolution Walton helped to spur and the PC revolution Gates helped to create. No, these men did nothing on their own, that's not what I'm claiming. I merely stated they did MORE than Bush or Clinton did to create jobs, which is nothing.

Chode

I owe you an apology Red, because when I was posting about the WPA, I should have also included a CCC reference. But for the sake of saving some time and effort, let's just consider it another one of FDR's "Fascist" programs. Of course, you are absolutely right. The whole concept of taking people off welfare and using them to build useful public works projects is... well, words nearly fail me, but I don't think "Fascist "is strong enough. "Satanically Depraved" might be closer I guess. I suppose some weak minded individuals might argue that in addition to creating valuable buildings, roads, etc, that CCC and WPA might have also been a big morale boost for millions of men and women who felt that their lives had no value or direction. I'm sure I speak for other forum members when I say, "Gee whiz, Red! Thanks for clearing that up for us!"

Frankly, though some other stuff in your posts confuses me. A lot of it centers around this whole concept of job "creation". I come down on the side of evolution in the "Creation" debate, so that's likely why I'm conceptually challenged. See, I'd think that if the Fish and Wildlife Service becomes concerned about declining frog populations and creates (dang it! There I go again! Of course I meant "manufactures" or maybe "hallucinates") a paid position (see, I remembered not to say "job") for Baton Rouge Parish Frog Counter, that this might be close enough to being a "real" job to be mistaken for one. Though of course it isn't. In fact, I've know bank loan officers to be taken in by this deception.

Honestly, though, I'm still confused about why a one month temporary position "created" by a business for a file clerk is a "job" and Frog Counter isn't. Here's another thing that disturbs me. Do you watch The Discovery Channel's Dirty Jobs? My kids and and I do and it usually makes us laugh. But, you know, I can't help but notice that many of these "jobs" are in fact government "positions" (?) not "jobs". I just don't think America is ready for a show called Dirty Positions, do you?

bry623

Actually FDR was the most Socialistic president we have had (hopefully it stays that way).
However, that is what the US needed at the time.

Back on topic...............
The tilte could read Republican Congress creates 18 million jobs during its 14 years in power.

RedScott

Ah, sarcasm. Funny.

Oh good, more funnies.

I don't have a TV, actually.

Chode, a question for just so I can understand your viewpoint. So you say you like frogs and think that frog counting is a legitimate and sustainable job (so long as frogs exist I suppose). If this is the case why can't the government just create more of these positions to employ the masses of unemployed and underemployed? Surely frog counting pays more than burger flipping, rite? And when the amount of people who count frogs is greater than the amount of frogs that need counting can't we just use those people to count other things? Like cows? Or Trees? Or bicycles? It seems to me there is an unlimited source of things that could be counted and since this is good work for people why stop at just frog counting? Can't everyone be a counter?




No, not socialist, fascist. And I find it somewhat offensive to imply that the country (we?) somehow NEEDED a decade long depression. FDR's policies we some of the most destructive in the history of the United States.

SABL

What would have been a better alternative to FDR's plans since his policies were so destructive to our nation?? I was not around to be a firsthand witness...my father was a child so his views are nil. I am not trying to be a "smart @ss" I just like to hear different views.

One factor that helped our country get out of the "great depression" .... get our factories up and running at full speed.... put many people back to work......WWII. How many of those jobs were not created by the government?? I don't think there was much of a demand for B-17's (or any other goods used in warfare) by the civilian population. Not the most correct way to stimulate the economy but you have to admit that it worked.... and I do realise that we did not enter WWII by choice but were forced to do so. My uncle survived Pearl Harbor on the USS Vestal which was berthed next to the USS Arizona.

Got work to do...will check back later.

RedScott

The right thing to do would be not fixing prices or wages and not increasing the burden on the producers of the country by increasing the size and scope of the federal government which produces nothing. The thing to do when bad investment fail is to not prop them up like we are doing now and did in the early part of the depression. The thing to do is let them fail so good investments can take over their place. Propping up the bad investments only turns depressions into great ones cause the investments are going to fail anyway, it'll just take longer when the Feds try and save them.

The other thing to do would have been to abolish the Federal Reserve, which is/was the source of these bad investments.

On the topic of WWII and prosperity you might want to carve some time out to check out this. -> http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...27203899463305

yustr

Red you're looking at it only one layer deep. If government "creates" work - whether for war or public buildings or whatever - those workers take their paycheck and buy stuff; cars, food, houses, etc. So even if we accept your premise that Gov't can't create jobs (which I think most of us do not) then what do you call all the rest that result?

Back on topic: As sobeit said, Presidents and Congress have to take the good with the bad. If they take credit they have to also take blame.

Bush = worst POTUS ever, by far, its not even close.