12

BLS says Obama created as many jobs as Reagan

Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 6 months ago to Business
43 comments | Share | Flag

Seems to me that the BLS is a few letters short of BulLS___...


All Comments

  • Posted by $ 8 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Correct. I believe the last report I read was that the regulatory burden on business the past year was $1.6 trillion. And that's been more than doubled since Obama took office.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by bsmith51 8 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Regulation particularly cripples the smaller companies that can't afford to navigate through it. Big companies shrug and add more lawyers to their already bloated departments of regulatory compliance.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by bsmith51 8 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Humor can be a dangerous thing. Some people just don't get it.
    Do you really think someone in the Gulch is going to make a case for government creating jobs? Maybe you think I'm a troll. But thanks for the fairly incoherent rant.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 8 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There's no need for such language.

    And it was pretty obvious to me that the post was sarcastic.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Bull Shit. Neither one created jobs in China they created opportunities in the case of Reagan in the case of Obama? We're still trying to figure out his new formula for creating something out of nothing such as the unemployment rate. Ahh I 've got it. He created an 18 trillion dollar national debt and ....wait a minute he had to have help doing that. He also was directly involved in devaluing my retirement fund. Now if you read Yakoff Lakoff's description of retirement and pensions Obama is a thief and so was Bush. In China? Sure thing. he created jobs for 500 plus people doing five year maintenance on our ship...which in the USA put 100 union people out of work. Small loss there. They were instrumental in helping Obama create jobless ship yards . Wow you are right he didn't do it by himself. Can't count the plusses if any without 'fessing up the minuses. So far it's pensioneers and old people minus 30% Obama flying to Paris for a dinner date. It didn't take a village. Just one aircraft crew.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 8 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Looterism incarnate: the idea that one should directly profit from someone else's labor without remuneration.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by broskjold22 8 years, 6 months ago
    "There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me—because they want to give something back. They know they didn't—look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own... If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

    Altruism at its most virulent.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 8 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    In the end, you really have to get down to policies and who championed them. No one can question the fact that it was Ronald Reagan who led the move to reduce the absurdly high tax rates of the 70's. Clinton never championed a tax reduction policy however - that was a result of the Republican House led by Newt Gingrich. Clinton raised taxes.

    Bush I also raised taxes just before Clinton. But they were relatively minor and the system was still enjoying the huge surge from Reagan's cuts, so we didn't really see much of any effect.

    Bush II was much like his father. He agreed with the Democrats on the expansion of the welfare state as long as they gave him money for defense spending. I don't defend Bush II one bit in this regard, but the real policies that got us in trouble emanated from the Democratic Congress, including all the banking reforms that led to the financial crisis and the dishonest reporting by Barney Frank about Fannie/Freddie.

    Obama had a Democratic Senate for the first two years of his Presidency and he passed massive spending bills and regulatory expansion - all of which have prolonged the crash that happened just prior to him entering office. And he hasn't let his foot up. Regulatory expansion has hit an all-time high under Obama when measured in terms of regulatory burden, which hit $1.6 trillion last year if I am not mistaken.

    Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" points all this out pretty plainly and economists can point directly to the expanded State as a huge depressing factor on our economy right now. Is the rest of the world also in a similar situation? Yes, because we are all connected and they are pursuing the same bad policies!

    This isn't merely cyclical fluctuations. Our economy is largely the part of government policy. When they take a heavy-handed approach as they are doing now, the burdens on the economy prevent it from growing and expanding the way it could if those burdens were lifted.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 8 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Just "Half Looped"??? I have no idea who you are talking or responding to or what you are trying to say.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    and if you don't care for my comment...hit the ignore button. It's easier than looking in the mirror and rehearsing a Nuremburg defense for your progeny when they ask.. How come you sold out your country and subjected us to this....
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You are right in supporting the left except for one detail. The mirror you have to face and he explanation you have to give your children one day when you explain how you chose to vote for evil. I hope you are honest enough to say that out loud. I chose evil because I wasn't moral enough to stand for what is not evil. And no thanks for destroying my country. Your weak excuse buys you no peace of mind only contempt. ----Actually I am about half looped tonight and not sure which post this belongs to except as garyL termed them the FSA. If the shoe doesn't fit don't wear it. If it doesn't jump out of an airplane I won't loan you my parachute.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Best I remember from looking up the facts is a 1.4 trillion increase in national debt and zero years with a balanced budget or a surplus. As long as you are using common accounitng instead of
    Clintonomics = figures can lie and liars can figure. From there it got worse. Bush and the winner so far oBOMBa NO mics.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Or if you're on the other side you can say "look how Clinton created a boom in the 90s, but by the end of President Bush's term people were afraid the whole banking system would collapse. Then President Obama came in, and the expansion started again. If you're a Republican, you just say the policies leg 5-8 years in having an effect. I believe none of it is true. The business cycle expands and contracts every decade, give or take with a lot of random variation.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 6 months ago
    Not in the free market economy. Maybe in the kakistocracy but I would not use the verb, 'created'...I would likely use hired the mentally insane for big government made up positions.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 6 months ago
    Somewhere, over the rainbow--...!@#$%$#@!
    glug, glurg. gerk!! Pardon me. Statements like that cause me to make a beeline to the Ceramic Appliance.
    Hasten, Jason, fetch the basin!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 8 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    BUT, the government can only take from the economy and then possibly give it back. They cant create any jobs in the long haul. As far as startups are concerned, the worst regulations and costs are on the state, county, or local level. THOSE problems stop job origination.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 8 years, 6 months ago
    Neither one of them created a single job. Jobs arent created by government, they are created by business people who need work done, and cant do it by autonomous robots (yet). I dont know of any business people who WANT to create jobs. Dealing with employment requirements is a pain in the a$$, not to mention the high cost and possibility of getting sued because THEY do something that the government can fine ME for.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Susanne 8 years, 6 months ago
    Not sure how the "L" fits in with this story. Obviously this report is composed of the other 2 letters... in copious amounts.

    Blatant Lying Sacks? Beguiling Looting Socialists? Bolshevist Leninist Scum? Maybe it's just acknowledging they're unabashedly...

    'Bama's Lackey Suckups.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by bsmith51 8 years, 6 months ago
    Obama created far more jobs than Reagan.
    In China.
    All according to plan.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 8 years, 6 months ago
    If you look at the details of job creation, Reagan's actions enabled significant growth of non-government jobs, while under Obama, there's been explosive growth in government at all levels.

    Obama's stimulus, which was originally intended to maintain and improve the infrastructure, would have created hundreds of thousands of jobs in the construction industry, but instead was used to prop up municipal and state funds to protect government jobs. His focus has always been the destruction of the real free market commercial community, and the increasing nationalization of the economy. Fascism is the symbiotic relationship of big commerce interests and autocratic government, which is the direction the country is now headed.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo