E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Cathleen Allison / AP
Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan greets the crowd at Peterbilt Truck & Parts Equipment in Sparks, Nev., on Friday.
SPARKS, Nev. -- Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan continued his harsh words for President Barack Obama and the Democrats Friday while campaigning in the battleground state of Nevada on the day the most recent jobs numbers were released.
“President Obama is not a bad guy. He's good at giving great speeches, he's just really bad at creating jobs,” Ryan told the crowd outside Peterbilt Truck Parts & Equipment.
Friday morning, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced the US economy added just 96,000 jobs, which was below expectations and the unemployment rate dropped from 8.3 percent to 8.1 percent.
"We got some pretty disappointing news just today,” the House Budget Chairman said in front of roughly 1,400 people. “You know we learned today that for every person that got a job, nearly four people stopped looking for a job. They gave up. We can’t keep doing this.”
Ryan continued: “Our economy needs to create just 150,000 jobs every month just to keep up with the growth of our population. Friends, this is not an economic recovery, this is nowhere close to an economic recovery. We need a new president, and we need a real economic recovery.”
Friday’s event outside of Reno marked the seven-term Wisconsin congressman’s second public event in the Silver State since being tapped as Mitt Romney’s running mate in early August. Ryan reminded the crowd, surrounded by truck cabs, just how crucial their vote on Nov. 6 is.
“Nevadans you know this. You have a lot of power in your hands … you're a battleground state,” he said. “That means you have a very special responsibility. Lots of people around the country are depending on you. You also have a great opportunity. Because if we meet this moment for what it is, we can get ourselves back on the right track.”
Ryan will now turn his full attention to fundraising while on the West Coast. He holds a pair of private fundraisers Friday night in the San Francisco area and then will be in Fresno, Calif., Saturday before heading to Portland, Ore., and Seattle on Monday.
Leave a Comment:
So let me get this straight Mr. Ryan, given that you would have had the government do nothing (because the market can take care of itself), yet, even with the stimulus package, basically a multi-billion dollar gift to that "free" market, the private sector didn't create jobs, but, the free market hasn't failed, it is Obama that failed. There is repub logic for you.
The Free Market did not decide who would receive funding, the government determined who in the private sector would get the multi-billion dollar gift, otherwise known as the stimulus package.
"The stimulus bill has been designed to force rapid commitment of funds to infrastructure projects, but also to foster a wide range of policy objectives. In the energy sector in particular, the new funding provided by this bill is likely to jump start development of a “smart grid” for the nation’s electric transmission, as well as fund much-needed new transmission lines, that will in turn foster development of newer, more efficient and renewable electric generation facilities. The bill also may allow a number of renewable energy projects to advance, by insulating them somewhat from the effects of the economic downturn. For transportation and other infrastructure, however, the bill should be viewed more as a down payment on a backlog of maintenance, repair, and replacement projects. The bill’s short term spending objectives are simply inconsistent with launching any truly significant new investments in transportation infrastructure."
Ryan is hypocrite. Most economists agree that the Stimulus package by Obama was not anywhere near enough. Ryan criticizes Obama's stimulus and wants to cut, cut, cut all social programs while giving more tax breaks to the wealthy and increasing the military budget beyond what the Pentagon is even asking! But during the Bush years, Ryan supported 3 stimulus packages and made impassioned pleas to pass it.
This is just the tip of the ice burg, if Romney and Ryan get into office they will sink this ship, no doubt.
Romney bad at speeches and good at creating jobs in China.
What has Ryan to show for himself with creating job?
80% success rate with Bain turning failed businesses around, oh too bad he did bat 1000 on businesses that were already done, he just extended their life.
Please explain how that is a bad thing?
trudat
The question of 80% success rate is a bit convoluted to explain but many of these companies; Staples, Sport Authority and Domino Pizza became successful in more recent years, many years after Romney left in 1999. Was he responsible for their success or was it the people managing these companies that were in fact the real heroes? In addition Bain was not the only investors involved in saving these companies so giving Romney full credit is in error.
Lest not forget the thousands of jobs lost at American Pad & Paper, Dade International, DDI Corp, Clear Channel, KB Toys (for example).
To quote the LA Times:"Like other leveraged buyout firms Bain often made money by laying off employees, getting government subsidies or re-selling companies quickly for a profit".
Of the top ten investments Bain made under Romney, reports the Times, four declared bankruptcy within a few years of Bain's involvement, "shedding thousands of jobs."
That is not exactly a model for long term growth and prosperity that our nations needs. We need a president that is smart, understands and can empathize with the middle class...you know the folks that actually make the rich rich.
They wouldnt have existed anymore if not for romney, does that answer your question?
See above statement, they were already failing.
He did his job to make a success out of his business, obama has failed, gee who should we want in office. And obama cares about the middle-class as much as any union leader does, they are a revenue source, nothing more.
I've been told government cannot create jobs. So why is Ryan criticizing Obama?
Because obama said he would. And because his rhetoric is the reason why the job market has not come back.
trudat - can you be more factual (data, reference driven), what rhetoric, what jobs did he say he would create? He may help to implement policies that stimulate businesses to invest but you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.
Recent headlines state businesses are doing quite well but they are not willing to invest in America, they want the middle class and poor to spend before they will invest...do you see the problem with that.
No, if people are "buying product" why would businesses invest in the people? You are a lib, you dont have economical sense, its just nature dont blame yourself.
From the New York Times
Published: January 10,
2009
WASHINGTON
— One day after the nation’s unemployment rate was reported to be at a 16-year high, President-elect BarackObama on Saturday again raised the estimate of how many jobs would result from his economic recovery plan, saying it would create or save three million to four million, nearly 90 percent of them in the private sector."
That is a safe way to put it......how do you measure "saving jobs?" That is subjective at best. Creating jobs can be measured.
Yeah, how do you measure the jobs not created because of Republican obstructionism?
All businesses are not hiring right now because of uncertainty. They are uncertain about a lot of things....depending on the industry.
But the main items seem to be: The U.S. Debt crisis, The European Debt crisis, the possibility the credit markets will dry up again, counterparty risk, Obamacare impact, regulations being handed down by the government from Agencies and by executive order...just to name a few items.
And, you can't measure jobs not created either... that would be subjective based on speculation. (Same category as "saving" jobs.)
Hey ed schultz, every other president has found a way to compromise, except this one, nothing will change in the next four years, obama is the typical liberal that if you arent 100% with him, you are a useless idiot that he doesnt want to deal with, AKA petty.
Republican obstructionism is the main reason more jobs haven't been created.
If you're a woman, vote Obama.
If you're poor, vote Obama.
If you're on Social Security, vote Obama.
If you're on Medicare, vote Obama.
If you care about education, vote Obama.
If you care about the environment, vote Obama.
If you don't want any more wars, vote Obama.
If you paid more than 13% income tax, vote Obama.
If you don't think corporations are people, vote Obama.
If you prefer Planned Parenthood to holding an aspirin between your knees, vote Obama.
If you're in the top 1% financially, (certainly not intellectually), and value greed over people, vote Romney.
So if you want special privilege instead of earning your worth, vote obama, a proven failure. Great message.
If you want the federal government to endure financial collapse then vote Obama.
If you like being unemployed or would like to become unemployed then vote for Obama.
There were no more jobs per year created by Bush outside the recession than there has been by Obama during the worse recession in 80 years! How does Ryan explain that? The reason the jobless rate was lower during most of Bushes tenure was because of the tens of millions of jobs created during the Clinton years.
"The reason the jobless rate was lower during most of Bushes tenure was because of the tens of millions of jobs created during the Clinton years."
That doesn't make sense. Jobs are counted during the years and under the Administration they were created.
Hey lib, i know learning is hard, but there was never an administration of shrubs. BUT, if you want to speak of Bush's terms, then we should discuss how clinton's tech bubble burst in 2001, and 911 happened in 2001, which both froze the economy. I dont recall bush crying that clinton caused it though, he just worked through it.
Was bush the best president, absolutely not, were both of his terms 100 times better than obama's? Yea they were, thats the sad thing, almost as sad as people realizing that mitt romney will be a better president than obama. Next time maybe you kids wont vote according to skin color.
W borrowed to fund an unnecessary war and a tax cut. The bill came due in 2007 - 2008.
And that coincided with the housing bubble bursting which was caused by Clinton's 1995 Community Reinvestment Act AND his promotion of and signing the repel of the Glass/Segal Act ( full disclosure dictates to mention that the republicans wanted Glass/Segal repelled too..it was both parties).
Which is great, but that isnt what crushed the economy, as FAE stated. A booming economy doesnt get crushed by federal mistakes, it gets crushed by consumer failure, as this one did.
Regardless, right now we have obama and now clinton telling us that we are doing the best we can, they are essentially saying that americans are pathetic losers and aiming for mediocrity is all we have. Do you accept that? I dont, i know libs do, but ill never be content with a participation trophy and neither will real americans.
How the hell does Lyin' Ryan know. He's the male version of Sarah Palin, only a lot more stupid.
I missed your point. "How the hell does Lyin' Ryan know.".....what are you referring to? That he said that Obama is not good at creating jobs? I don't think that is a lie. Obama has created an atmosphere of uncertainty.
You are so wrong, he has absolutely created an atmosphere of certainty. Business owners are certain they will be demonized for making a profit, and public sector workers are certain that while obama is in office they will be coddled and pandered to at the expense of taxpayers.
That sounds like certainty to me buddy.
I like your analysis! Trudat!!
That's because we are not idiots.
The President may not be good at creating jobs but he has been good at creating more debt. Under the President's expert leadership, unemployment has been high and so has deficit spending. The President's White House is predicting that the huge deficits will continue for at least another decade. Plan that he presented dung his acceptance speech is that he hopes that things will change. If the Unites States were a corporation the board of directors would have no choice but to get rid of their current CEO, the President.
I remember voting for Reagan and his trickle down economics. I remember bush deregulating wall street and giving more tax breaks to the wealthy. When Reagan did it he made it sound like a reasonable plan, sure, lets try this. When Bush did it I felt uneasy but didnt know how to express my unease, not that it would have mattered of course, Im just another worker bee in a nation of worker bees.
The events in the fall of 2007 and early 2008 when the global economic crisis hit said one thing very clearly and loudly. Trickle down economics didnt work and deregulating the financial markets was a bad idea.
The GOP has been trieing very hard to tell us that it did work and we need more of the same. What a crock of ****. Americans may sit around eating corn syrup and watching endless amounts of "reality" TV, but they arent entirely stupid. It is obvious to everyone that the only people who have benefited from "trickle down economics" were the wealthy people who didnt have to pay as many taxes. The only "people" who benefited from deregulating the financial markets were predatory corporations who preyed on the poor and the old and the sick.
Now Romney is blabbering on about how our poor little military is in danger of getting its world dominating budget pared down a tiny bit. Incredible.... Who in their right mind would vote for these women hating, war mongering, predatory monsters who are now acting like a "christian taliban" with their hateful extremist views. God help us.
Obama/Biden 2012
You said one thing worth lsitneing to, "the global market". The carsh wasnt just due to clintons forcing homeownership on everyone, it was a global thing. All the countries to crash were the most socialistic countries, what a shock. So what was your point again? That a global financial breakdown was because of trickle down economics in the US? Great theory, but it just doesnt hold water.
you havent said anything worth listening too.
Clinton forcing home ownership on everyone?? bahahahaahahhaahahahaaa your are a fool.
Bush was "the ownership society" President who said everybody should be an owner.
Clinton nor the Dems did anything to cause bad loans to be made by banks....banks did that all on their own. The housing crash was because of rampant speculation and lack of responsible lending by the banking industry. They did not challenge ridiculous appraisals, they simply rubber stamped every thing they saw...pure greed.
Let us look at the truth. The Obama administration's solution to our unemployment problem has been the stimulus bill that congress did pass. President Obama called it a spending bill. The Obama administration produced a report that they used to help sell the stimulus. The report included a chart that showed what the stimulus was suppose to accomplish regarding unemployment. Using the data from that report, one must conclude that the stimulus failed to do what it was suppose to do. If the stimulus had worked, unemployment would now be less than 6%. According to that Obama administration report, unemployment has been a little worse than if there had been no stimulus at all. One must conclude that the stimulus has been less then effective in fixing the unemployment problem. The President said that jobs was his first priority but his just saying that has not improved the situation. The President then came up with a second stimulus that would have looked like half of the first stimulus. The second stimulus did not really contain any new ideas and congress was not impressed. The administration has been so desperate for new job creating ideas that they have even sent me emails asking for help. In the President's nomination acceptance speech, the President was suppose to present a new plan to fix the economy. The President mentioned some goals but no detailed plan as to how to achieve them. The President's plan presented in that speech depends on hope and change. The President hopes that things will change. Change to what remains undefined. The President hopes that the troops will come home in 2014 and by 2015 the federal government will start running a surplus and start paying down the debt. But the President's White House has predicted huge deficits for at least another decade. What ever the President's new economic program really is, his own White House is not on board with it. Like the President, I wish that people could use ideas of hope and change to pay their bills but that is not happening.
Maybe if Ryan and his Republican cohorts started representing people for which they were elected and signed on to Obama's jobs bill,unemployment may be down even more. But that not being the case,they now want to run the country on their own failed policies. The truth? Romney/Lyan don't have a snowball's chance in hell of being elected.
Obama's jobs bill is an extenuation of the stimulus spending bill. All that spending in the first stimulus bill did not work so one might infer that more spending in a second stimulus might not work either. The President promised that the 2012 federal deficit will not exceed 229.27 billion dollars yet his own White House is predicting that the deficit will exceed 1.2 trillion dollars. The President should be thankful that there were no new stimulus expenditures in 2012 to add more to the deficit. I want the President to explain how he is going to keep his promise.
Maybe Ryan forgot about his party was running on jobs, jobs, jobs in 2010. Maybe Ryan should be directing all of his job creation questions to all within his party. Maybe Ryan forgot that his lead man in the senate is determined to make Obama a one term president, regardless of the damage being done to this country. And now we have Mitt Romney, who wants to do it all over again, and further put this country in the @!$%#ter.
History Lesson on Your Social Security Card Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this.
It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your family and friends. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts.
Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and
card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message, NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION, was removed.
An old Social Security card with the "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION" message.
Our Social Security
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
Completely voluntary,
No longer Voluntary
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program,
Now 7.65% on the first $90,000
3.) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year,
No longer tax deductible
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund'rather than into the
general operating fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,
Under Johnson the money was moved to
The General Fund and Spent
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Under Clinton & Gore
Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
now receiving a Social Security check every month --
and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put
away' -- you may be interested in the following:
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the
general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
controlled House and Senate.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -----
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
Q: Which Political Party decided to start
giving annuity payments to immigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
A: That's right!
Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it!
------------ -- ------------ --------- ----- ------------ --------- ---------
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA),
the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!