See you there, Feisty! Chili sounds good today!

Since 1945 with a Republican President in office there was an average of 1,006,000 jobs created each year. When the Democrat held the office the average was 2,054,000 a year.

Very interesting !!

Sounds good newday.

What can I say Dennis except Go Buckeyes!

Thanks newday

A night game in Madison will be a challenge. Unfortunately just 2 hours before kickoff time the President and First Lady will be on the OSU campus with John Legend performing. The rally should be over before the end of the first quarter.

Man, wish I could be there, nothing more exciting! I had no idea the President and First Lady were going to be there! Can't wait to tell my husband, he is a Buckeye through and through.

Then he will enjoy this map of the campus.

http://www.osu.edu/map/

Now Dennis... you should know by now NOT to put the facts out there!

*insert snark*

All it does is confuse those who are already easily confused?

Bartender? Can you get my friends NewDay & Dennis something to wet their whistles please?

Well said, Feisty, all of it, including The Boss's Day. See you at the Dew Drop.

Thanks FR Hosts for another fine week. Have a nice weekend everyone.

ask a tea bagger Republican to explain to YOU precisely HOW they plan on creating jobs should they find themselves in the majority!

--------------------------------------------------------

Its a waste of time Feisty; they have no fresh answers. Their entire philosophy is built around the redistribution of wealth from the middle class to their rich masters. Funny how they scream about socialism, however, they have no problem with corporate socialism.

Hey, Dennis: My husband LOVED looking at that map. Brings back all the happy memories! He says, thanks and since he hasn't been on campus since 1981, he really enjoyed looking at it. We'll get there for a game one day!

Feisty

I would like to encourage all progressives to ask a tea bagger Republican to explain to YOU precisely HOW they plan on creating jobs should they find themselves in the majority!

I have another challenge for the righties migrating to First Read in droves; turn off FOX. For a change watch another network and challenge your instincts for a change.

For the left get off the internet and go volunteer "to fire it up and get out the vote."

The Democrats have millions of donations from little people giving as little as $3.00. Now, contrast those millions with the millions given by a few billionaires and the Chamber of Commerce. essentially, you can't underestimate the Democrats.

According to Gallup, Republicans are twice as excited to vote in November than Democrats. The "extreme" angle might work but not amongst those most likely to vote. Oh well, it seems contradictory if millions of Dems are giving their hard earned dollars.

In the next debate between Reid and Angle if she gets sleazy and insults his person hood as did in the first debate saying “man up”

How about quizzing her on her crazy @$@ ideas i.e...

Privatizing Social Security

Eliminating theDepartment of Education

Taking away minumim wage (is 40 cents low enough?)

Allowing the free market to control health insurance

Abortion issues (why must a victim of rape have the infant)

Doing away with ALL regulatory mandates on insurers

Repealing the constitution; just about

Oh, and when Sharon Angle condemns Reid being so wealthy on a government paycheck; Reid should call her out for her lying about be an outsider. She has been in the Assembly.

Don't forget to ask her about her 2nd Amendment remedies in light of Byron Williams inspiration by Glenn Beck's blackboard to plot the assassination of the leaders of the ACLU and the Tides Foundation.

http://mediamatters.org/

Words Have Consequences

Have a great weekend everyone

As usual thank Mark & crew for this forum.

In response to Dennis' interesting statistic, I have an interesting statistic to share, too:

During the periods of negative employment (1945, 49, 54, 57, 58, 60, 71, 74, 91, 01, 02, 08, 09), Democrats controlled both houses of Congress except in 1953 and 1982 when the Senate was Republican and the House was Democrat.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics and http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm

Dennis, I find your statistic interesting. Can you provide your source?

Oops. Correction.

Republicans had the majority in the House and Senate in 2001 and 2002.

I don't know where Dennis got his figures statitics, but this is what I found:

From PolitiFact:

Harry S. Truman (Democrat): increase of 2.95 percent a year
Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican): increase of 0.50 percent a year
John F. Kennedy (Democrat): increase of 2.03 percent a year
Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat): increase of 3.88 percent a year
Richard M. Nixon (Republican): increase of 2.16 percent a year
Gerald R. Ford (Republican): increase of 0.86 percent a year
Jimmy Carter (Democrat): increase of 3.45 percent a year
Ronald Reagan (Republican): increase of 2.46 percent a year
George H.W. Bush (Republican): increase of 0.40 percent a year
Bill Clinton (Democrat): increase of 2.86 percent a year
George W. Bush (Republican): increase of 0.01 percent a year
Barack Obama (Democrat): decrease of 3.0 percent a year

(Can we take time out here to say how surprised we are that Eisenhower, who presided over the "happy" 1950s, managed an anemic half-percent job growth per year, while Jimmy "Malaise" Carter finished second with 3.45 percent annual job growth?)

Now for the totals. If you exclude Obama, Democrats averaged 3.03 percent annual job growth, compared to 1.07 percent for Republicans -- a nearly 3-to-1 advantage.

If you include Obama, the Democrats still held a significant edge. With Obama included, the Democrats averaged 2.03 annual job growth, compared to the same 1.07 for Republicans -- about twice as high as the GOP.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/

Republicans have made the deficit a central campaign issue; well guess what? This is what I found; Feisty

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that pegged the deficit at about $125 billion below last year's record for the year ended Sept. 30

http://www.hillpundit.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/124491-federal-budget-deficit-for-2010-nearly-hits-13-trillion

The final figure equals 8.9% of the nation's economy, DOWN from 10% last year. The Deficit Got Smaller from last year's record.

This note should make everyone's, including righties, weekend better.

How about this...

Republicans in the House voted 11 times to continue rewarding corporations that create jobs and profits overseas – a policy that costs taxpayers billions of dollars every year.

http://www.dailykos.com/

When will it stop?

Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation Donates Again To The Republican Governors Association: $250,000

there actually are laws against corporate managers treating a publicly-traded corporation as if it were their own personal bank account
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/15/news-corp-republican/

Enjoy your weekend every one.

Thanks, Feisty. I'll take a look at the link.

Candice

The table is about one-third down the page. I did the calculation using a spread sheet with the data from the table.

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2010/10/11/obama-created-863k-jobs-in-2010-so-far-more-than-double-bushs-annual-average/

I went to the BLS and could not find the year to year numbers for job gain/loss. If you have a link please provide it – it to is very interesting.

All of us point to the President or Congress to make a point but it takes both since laws are written by Congress and signed by the President. It takes both branches to make change.

Dennis,

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm

I transferred the BLS data to a spreadsheet to add up the net employment figures by year and then compared the negative years (the ones I listed) with the "which party in power" table on the US Politics site.

You're right. We all try to point to which President and which Congress to make a point but the truth is business and unemployment run in cycles. Cyclical economic and unemployment can be attributed to a variety of factors - some fiscal and monetary policy based, some geopolitical, and some are natural corrections from unsustainable bubbles and trends.

As you will note, Democrats held both houses most of the time 1945-2009, so naturally they would be held responsible or given credit for whatever conditions were most of the time from a political point of view.

You make a good point that it takes both branches to make a change. Sort of kills your original blanket insinuation that Democrat Presidents are hands down better at creating jobs than Republican Presidents, and is a truer and more thoughtful statement.

Thanks for sharing your link.

The BLS link was incomplete. Try:

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=CES0000000001&output_view=net_1mth

Candice,

Thanks for the link. It only covers 2000 – 2009 but I will keep looking, again thanks.

I agree about the “blanket insinuation that Democrat Presidents …”.

But the average citizen points only at “Presidents” thus I go along with how they think as do most bloggers. There are several on here that point to our current situation as the fault of the Democratic Congress since 2006 when in fact the source of the problems go back many years.

Since the President sets the agenda, has a much bigger bully pulpit, and is the only elected official that gets to talk to the citizens on a regular basis they deserves the blame / credit – don’t you think?

Candice,

Oops, I found out how to use it – the year range can be selected - Thanks

Dennis,

There's a filter at the top of the page where you can set the years you want to view.

Presidents do get more than their fair share of blame and credit because they are higher profile. Also, most people perceive Presidents are leading the entire country whereas Senators and Representatives are basically representing their own constituents. It's the "buck stops here" concept. Rightly so or not.

Several on this board do point out the fact that we've had a Democratic Congress since 2006....myself included. We do this because many here solely fault the "last eight years!" or the Bush Administration for all of our problems. While that's a great left side talking point, it's simply not entirely true. Again, you are right. The source of our financial system collapse goes back many years. There's certainly plenty of blame to go around for the situation we're in.

I do believe the policies of the current Congress and President have prolonged the recovery. I think their priorities got mixed up. I think they've come off as anti-business, selective, divisive and out of touch. Will a Republican house make a difference? I don't know. There's always that hope we've been looking for.

If you are going to blame a particular congress for the problems, you should cite the legislation they passed which caused the problems, and how.

Okay, Paul. I’ll play. Sorry in advance....this is going to be long.

Cash for Clunkers – expensive, temporary, targets a limited segment of industry, did not provide a sustained result.

Home mortgage modification – expensive, temporary, 75% of modified loans back in default after 6 months, did not provide a sustained result. Mortgage modifications encourage people to stay in homes they can’t afford, and to stay in locations where jobs have vanished.

Forclosure moratorium – will only stop the bleeding temporarily, delays the bottoming of the real estate market; once the moratorium is lifted expect acceleration of foreclosures and an increase in price deterioration.

Repeated extension of unemployment benefits rather than focus on creation of jobs in all industries.

The attempt to augment Keynesian aggregate demand in order to avoid the recession's painful adjustment delays the recovery. (ie: create temporary and unsustainable demand).

Nationalization of the GSEs, and exclusion of reform in the Financial Reform bill ensures risk and return will remain disjointed leading to future similar problems.

Public works projects temporarily employ a limited segment of labor; don’t employ middle management, clerical, service, professional and older workers that make up over 50% of the unemployed.

Financing the states without conditions of reform allows the continuation of undisciplined fiscal policy at the state level, is temporary and targets a limited segment of the population (government workers, unions, school systems).

The tax cut as part of the stimulus package increased take home pay by a paltry $6 per week on average. Subsidies for COBRA for unemployed helps but COBRA is still expensive and consumes money that would be better spent circulating in the economy.

Delay of the extension of the EGTRRA tax cuts increases uncertainty for job creators, investors and employers.

Oil drilling moratorium – suspended employment and paychecks for tens of thousands in the Gulf Coast region.

Incendiary class-warfare rhetoric threatening heavy taxes and regulatory nightmares stymie new business creation. As capital hides or gets funneled through Washington, business decisions cater to politics rather than markets.

Printing money and inflating the deficit - In the eleven previous corrections the average fiscal deficit had been 2.3%. In 2009, the federal deficit exceeded $1.4 trillion, which was almost 10% of GDP.

Bill to provide loans to small businesses – out of touch, the administration and Congress fail to comprehend that in an uncertain, stagnant or declining business environment, the last thing small businesses want to do it load themselves up with more debt, which many times depending on how the business is structured, becomes the personal liability of the business owner.

Healthcare reform – increases costs to employers, and since it was passed we are finding out daily new ramifications and unintended consequences, creating additional uncertainty, increased regulation and hidden taxes.

Financial Reform – increased capital requirements, lending standards, tightening credit unintentionally harms consumers by increased fees, higher interest rates and obstructive terms.

Globally, the recovery is sluggish in the U.S. but accelerating in other countries. Why? Because other countries have cut taxes and cut spending. We are doing the opposite.

Cap and Trade – not passed, but threatened, will increase regulation, cost and convoluted carbon tax trading, discouraging expansion of business in the US and the creation of US jobs.

Trade Agreements – refusing to address and ratify pending free trade agreements denies the opportunity for increased trade and resulting increased jobs.

You know, stuff like that.....policies that I believe have prolonged the recovery.

An impressive list, kudos on your work, Candice. Thank you.

All of that adds up to what percentage of our national debt?

Would McCain/Palin have been able to stop any of it?

As to the oil drilling moratorium, shouldn't those workers affected by it be able to draw from the BP compensation fund, as the moratorium was a direct result of the BP disaster?

I think it is pretty clear that we have to look much farther back in our legislative history to see where our problems began. Everything you cited has been voted into place as a reaction to "mistakes' made by other congresses. A nice try though.

Yes, we have to look much farther back in our history to see where our problems began. The causes were more than just legislative. There were many factors that contributed to the boom and bust, collapse and recession.

The current administration and current Congress accepted the responsibility to correct our wayward ship, though, and implemented these policies in good faith I'm sure. Unfortunately, good intentions didn't solve our problems and in some cases, I believe made them worse.

And for the record, I think the McCain/Palin ticket was close to disastrous and a terrible choice by the Republican Party. I don't know how they would have handled the crisis. Probably not well.

Amen.

Have a good weekend, Paul. I never did find anything out about what happened to Newshole.

Thanks for trying newdayDawning. You have yourself a good one too.

LOL DBO - you mean to tell me that MSNBC is showing bare 'boob's on it's homepage? WHAT is the COUNTRY coming to?

What the hell.. do they think their National Geographic or something?

Although I would be more than willing to place a friendly wager that the one with the rock's boobs are perkier than the large mouth a@@! lmao

Got a nice HOT bowl of chili for you with peppers of your choice and oh yeah... I ice cold one to go with it!

Didn't see the commentary you mention, but I did see the debate and I thought Sharron Angle was terrible. She had a quavery, crackly voice, had a two-second lag before she came up with her prepared talking point, and never talked to anyone, just gave out pre-rehearsed lines in guise of answers. I don't know where in the Constitution she so loves she read that Senators have a job to create confidence for the private sector (I doubt the term "private sector" was used in 1783). Sen. Reid spoke and acted like a legislator, he defended legislation he championed (like health care reform) and didn't throw out attack lines gratuitously. It may be that Nevada prefers Sharron Angle for whatever reasons, but it will not be because she will make a better senator or legislator than Harry Reid. She will probably caucus with Virginia Foxx.

You are very much in the minority kate, especially about sen Reid's performance, he needed to make Angle look CRAZY and dangerous and he failed to do that. You would%

You are very much in the minority kate, especially about sen Reid's performance, he needed to make Angle look CRAZY and dangerous and he failed to do that. You would think that wouldn't have been a hard thing to do too...

Is the Bush-Gore debate a suitable analogy?

Al Gore deserves better than that.

And...it's always too soon here at First Read.

It'll be too soon a week after all the votes are in.

Daniel Webster, or Alan Grayson...

Hmmm...

Beverly, wait a minute! You mean that Faux News is not the neutral voice they keep pretending to be? Won't our right wing friends be outraged at being lied to continuously by Faux? I mean, I would feel stupid if I kept getting told a news station was "fair and balanced" and I believed them because I don't know any better and then I found out that they are unashamedly pro-Republican. Especially since it IS the Republican party that is anti-middle class America.

I seldom, if ever, respond to you, R.Giles, (cute name, by the way. My sonLoved those socks for a few years. I guess they were a fad.)

This is not the first time you have started a post with you "c,v.", so to speak. It is as meaningless as anyone else who proclaims his or her party, with the only exception being dangerfield, who is, trull, a Democrat, albeit, a democrat with an actively functioning brain.

You expend much time an effort telling us what we already know: Bush was not a good president. Thank you; we know that. However, the problem for this country is that Obama is a much worse president.

TARP! Bush's answer to the financial crisis, which I adamantly opposed, actually worked out okay, although there is still a fifty billion dollar hole that has yet to be filled. On one hand, at least it is not eight hundred billion; on the other, no TARP, no hole at all.

ARRA, which is what we are now supposed to call the stimulus bill, cost almost a trillion dollars for shovel ready jobs that Obama now admits DO NOT EXIST.

Which brings me to deficit spending,which Obama has TRIPLED.

Not to mention the unemployment rate, which has gone from 5.8% for 2008, to 9.6% for 2009, to closer to 10.00% for this year. That, my friend, is not an improvement.

Obama is not, as you maintain, politically inastute. The man is hopelessly incompetent. He lives in an Ivory Tower, perfect world fantasy, where reality does not intrude.

He is also, from all outward appearances, unable to learn, as he believes himself, always, to be the smartest person in the room. Ask yourself this: if even Barney Frank is now admitting that Fannie and Freddie were a large part of the financial crisis, why on earth would Obama gave signed financial reform legislation that omitted those two entities?

If he now admits that he wasted almost a trillion dollars on nonexistent shovel ready jobs, why would Obama be looking for fifty billion more for mor nonexistent shovel ready jobs?

Why, after destroying the careers of congressional representatives by forcing them to enact HCR thAt the electorate did not want, do not want, and actively want repealed, would he insist that that same electorate is too dumb to know how wonderful it is for them? Why does he insist on campaigning in states where the candidates do not want him? Doubt me? He has been in Wisconsin several times, and Russ Feingold has been elsewhere EACH and EVERY time. Wonder why?

The only thing he has even right about is that this election IS about him and his policies. He proved that when he exhorted a crowd in PHiledelphia "not to make me look bad".

It is not the electorate that will make him look bad, it is Obama, who has, and,by all accounts, will continue to do so.

His cult is shrinking dramatically. You are certainly free to maintain your membership, but it is going to be a very, very small group soon.

What's the matter NJNB? From the sound of you... are you out of refills on your Valium prescription?

WE get it already you HATE President Obama! And now I'm beginning t understand why... you can't stand the fact that he's far more intelligent than you'll ever be (or claim to be)!

As for the very, very small group... we'll see about that on the 3rd m'kay?