D Creates Far More Jobs Than R

cawacko said:
How would a new jobs bill that you want make a change in the fact that new jobs have been disproportionately lower paying and part-time?

I see nothing in my response or the article that referenced political party.
Click to expand...

The dems' job bill would have hired more teachers, fire fighters, police officers; those aren't low-paying jobs.
 
Liberty said:
The dems screw us/me just as much as the repubs.

I'm getting tired of this East German type of government that both have stole upon us/me.

You shouldn't favor one over the other.
Click to expand...

We are exposing how the Free Market Republicans create less jobs. Your solution is Tea Party/Libertarian which is where they learn Free Market from.

An absolute Free Market will set the proven corrupt Capitalist free to destroy American by sending us into another depression where the rich will be swimming in wealth once again and the rest of us will be working full days for pennies with no guarantee of a days work. Some of us learn from the past.
 
tekkychick said:
The dems' job bill would have hired more teachers, fire fighters, police officers; those aren't low-paying jobs.
Click to expand...

I guess I haven't fully looked at the proposed bill. Was the plan for the federal government to give cities and states money to hire these people for a year or two and then the cities and states would be on their own to pay the salaries after that?
 
Liberty said:
The dems screw us/me just as much as the repubs.

I'm getting tired of this East German type of government that both have stole upon us/me.

You shouldn't favor one over the other.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but while the parties do overlap a lot, they also have areas of differences.

How many times have repubs voted to repeal ACA compared to dems?

how many republican-sponsored anti-choice bills are there nation-wide compared to dems?

how many republican-sponsored anti-voting-rights bills are there nation-wide compared to dems?

who is more likely to re-finance food stamps, repubs or dems?

who is more likely to continue raising taxes on people making over $250K, repubs or dems? (ok, that's a close one)

who is more likely to protect social security, repubs or dems?

who wants to amend the constitution to prohibit same-sex marriages, repubs or dems?

The differences sometimes are minor, but they are there.
 
OCA said:
As a former registered R I know this will hurt most of you R's out there but R is the party of big government:

http://www.winningprogressive.org/democrats-create-far-more-private-sector-jobs-than-republicans-do
Click to expand...

Cheers man. I am a former Right banger too. Way to use facts to help make your decisions instead of believing everything your parties media says. It's hard to break out of that cult.

I'm with you on this one. The most recent "Jobs for Veterans" bill was turned down because the Right said they can't pay for it. The Left would have passed it because they knew it would get them paying taxes and eventually pay itself off.

Way to use that brain. And listen to the other responses. "So what, they are low paying jobs" as if just saying "no jobs is better than a low paying one". They constantly paint themself into a corner like this. They don't want the people to make decisions. They want the Government to. They don't trust the people.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
also lost more, but hey.....

by the way, we have had several threads about this chart.....why don't you read one of them and see what we had to say about it.....
Click to expand...

Those charts came from the Labor Dept. Are you saying they're wrong?

cawacko said:
New jobs disproportionately low-pay or part-time

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/New-jobs-disproportionately-low-pay-or-part-time-4704922.php


damn.gif
Click to expand...

Infrastructure jobs are rarely low paying. The domino effect of improvement to the entire economy is awe inspiring. Yet the House Republicans refuse to entertain any bill because they want the country to fail.

Mott the Hoople said:
Invest in infrastructure. That's the solution. It creates all sorts of high paying jobs due to the demand for skilled labor, it puts billions into circulation boosting the economy and employment, with increased employment and higher wages comes increased demand for consumer goods and it's invested in infrastructure, such as public utilities, electrical grids, roads, harbors, communication networks, broadband information networks, etc, etc, that create and promote expanded commerce for all and it won't mostly get pissed away as a very large part of defense spending does.

That's also why Democrats have a better track record on creating jobs and wealth in this nation than Republicans have. They are more willing to make these sort of far sighted public investments. Republicans, with a few notable exceptions like Dwight D. Eisenhower, the greatest Republican President of the last half of the 20th century, have historically been opposed to such public investment and their track record in creating jobs and wealth shows.
Click to expand...

Yup. The Interstate Highway system, under Eisenhower, created the greatest boom this country has ever known.

cawacko said:
How would a new jobs bill that you want make a change in the fact that new jobs have been disproportionately lower paying and part-time?

I see nothing in my response or the article that referenced political party.
Click to expand...

Did you read Mott's post?

cawacko said:
Ok. But that still doesn't address anything. Do you think a jobs bill is going to raise rates of workers in the U.S.?
Click to expand...

Yes. And it should. It'll increase average salaries of all workers.

cawacko said:
I guess I haven't fully looked at the proposed bill. Was the plan for the federal government to give cities and states money to hire these people for a year or two and then the cities and states would be on their own to pay the salaries after that?
Click to expand...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/assets/budget.pdf
 
Howey said:
Those charts came from the Labor Dept. Are you saying they're wrong?



Infrastructure jobs are rarely low paying. The domino effect of improvement to the entire economy is awe inspiring. Yet the House Republicans refuse to entertain any bill because they want the country to fail.



Yup. The Interstate Highway system, under Eisenhower, created the greatest boom this country has ever known.



Did you read Mott's post?



Yes. And it should. It'll increase average salaries of all workers.



http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/assets/budget.pdf
Click to expand...

Mott claims the jobs bill is about infrastructure. TC says it's about public employees. You give me a link to a 244 page document that you can't actually think I'm going to read and doesn't even look like it's related to the jobs bill.

The jobs bill is just another government stimulus act. I can at least understand the argument made for why we needed one in 2009. I do not buy the argument for why we need one today. Our government needs to look at what it is doing to better allow the private sector to create jobs and grow our economy. Government hiring is not going to do that.
 
cawacko said:
Mott claims the jobs bill is about infrastructure. TC says it's about public employees. You give me a link to a 244 page document that you can't actually think I'm going to read and doesn't even look like it's related to the jobs bill.

The jobs bill is just another government stimulus act. I can at least understand the argument made for why we needed one in 2009. I do not buy the argument for why we need one today. Our government needs to look at what it is doing to better allow the private sector to create jobs and grow our economy. Government hiring is not going to do that.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. I thought you wanted to review the president's proposal.

cawacko said:
I guess I haven't fully looked at the proposed bill.
Click to expand...

But you don't even care to look up the answer.

The President believes we must invest in the
true engine of America’s economic growth—a rising
and thriving middle class. He is focused on
addressing three fundamental questions: How
do we attract more jobs to our shores? How do
we equip our people with the skills needed to do
the jobs of the 21st Century? How do we make
sure hard work leads to a decent living?
The Budget presents the President’s plan to
address each of these questions. To make America
once again a magnet for jobs, it invests in hightech
manufacturing and innovation, clean energy,
and infrastructure, while cutting red tape to
help businesses grow. To give workers the skills
they need to compete in the global economy, it
invests in education and job training, supporting
learning from cradle to career. To ensure hard
work is rewarded, it builds ladders of opportunity
to help every American and every community.
Click to expand...

Following that intro, found on page 7, is a concise and compelling argument fully outlining the President's plans.

Of course, you and the Republicans won't read it.

Sad...
 
cawacko said:
Mott claims the jobs bill is about infrastructure. TC says it's about public employees. You give me a link to a 244 page document that you can't actually think I'm going to read and doesn't even look like it's related to the jobs bill.

The jobs bill is just another government stimulus act. I can at least understand the argument made for why we needed one in 2009. I do not buy the argument for why we need one today. Our government needs to look at what it is doing to better allow the private sector to create jobs and grow our economy. Government hiring is not going to do that.
Click to expand...

Less regulation and allowing the private sector to run free is what caused the crash in late 2008, you are endorsing those failed policies again.

Man is by nature a greedy animal and if he doesn't have limits placed upon him, especially in the business and corporate worlds, profits will be the bottom line and everything and everyone else be damned. That is why for example the R opposes the Affordable Care Act so vehemently, it would hurt their donors in the insurance and pharmaceutical industries and they just can't have their profits cut into so you get the R scare machine going, long lines to see a doctor, old people being euthanized etc. etc. etc. and people eat it up because lets face it, this is something new and people don't fully understand it yet and its easy to fool and scare people when they don't understand something.

Again I say on the economy and anything else for that matter.....what are the R proposals? Does anybody know besides the party platform?
 
Howey said:
I'm sorry. I thought you wanted to review the president's proposal.



But you don't even care to look up the answer.

​

Following that intro, found on page 7, is a concise and compelling argument fully outlining the President's plans.

Of course, you and the Republicans won't read it.

Sad...
Click to expand...

Dude, I'm lazy. I don't know if that has to do with politics or not. If someone wants to give me the cliffs I'll read it.

As for the part you cut out that's just political rhetoric to me. Doesn't matter if Obama or Bush said it. It doesn't say what the money is actually being used for.
 
btw...Cawacko. I don't care what Mott said or this person said or that person said.

I care what the President said.

And the fact that you refused to even address, or read, what the President said says a lot about you.
 
Howey said:
btw...Cawacko. I don't care what Mott said or this person said or that person said.

I care what the President said.

And the fact that you refused to even address, or read, what the President said says a lot about you.
Click to expand...

It says a lot about me? Like what?
 
cawacko said:
Mott claims the jobs bill is about infrastructure. TC says it's about public employees. You give me a link to a 244 page document that you can't actually think I'm going to read and doesn't even look like it's related to the jobs bill.

The jobs bill is just another government stimulus act. I can at least understand the argument made for why we needed one in 2009. I do not buy the argument for why we need one today. Our government needs to look at what it is doing to better allow the private sector to create jobs and grow our economy. Government hiring is not going to do that.
Click to expand...

there are multiple plans out there. Do you remember Romney, last election, talking about Pres Obama's jobs plan and saying "we don't need more police officers and firefighters"? That's what he was referring to. That bill wasn't passed by the repubs.

Would love it if the private sector took up the slack, but they aren't hiring and they aren't giving raises.
 
cawacko said:
It says a lot about me? Like what?
Click to expand...

Like this?

cawacko said:
Dude, I'm lazy. I don't know if that has to do with politics or not. If someone wants to give me the cliffs I'll read it.

As for the part you cut out that's just political rhetoric to me. Doesn't matter if Obama or Bush said it. It doesn't say what the money is actually being used for.
Click to expand...

Look. Don't participate in threads like this if you're not able to back up your words with honesty. Government isn't about the "cliffs".

People like you are why our country's fucked up right now.
 
Howey said:
Like this?



Look. Don't participate in threads like this if you're not able to back up your words with honesty. Government isn't about the "cliffs".

People like you are why our country's fucked up right now.
Click to expand...

How many Americans do you believe have read the jobs act? Have you read it all?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top