JOBS: The Killer Question Republicans Couldn't Answer Tuesday Night

[The Rabbi]

I will be more than happy to .... with one proviso. We will recognize how you have given yourself an automatic out, by changing the question. Your original premise was that no one had provided a plan to increase job growth - now, you claim nobody provided 'credible' plan - 'credible', of course, being defined by you. So, I could tell you about the plan to raise the minimum wage to $25/hour - put everybody on the government payroll - and you would simply say it wasn't 'credible'. Therefore, you have created an impossible conundrum for me - how to answer your nonsensical (and judged by you) question.

Well, I'll take the chance that other readers can see thru your transparency - and try something in remarkably short supply around here - the truth.

Several candidates proposed tax cuts AND decreased government spending. One without the other is like putting a band-aid on a gaping chest wound. Some candidates suggested a flat tax, while some suggested a simplified progressive tax.

Decreased spending was addressed numerous times. Several government agencies were targeted for elimination, and one candidate has identified 645 government programs to be canceled.

The suggestion of zero-based budgeting has particular merit. It would force an annual bottom-up review of government expenditures. The federal government is unique, in that it has no quantitative measurement of performance or definitive criteria for success. Thus, the only way to succeed in the government is to grow your power base - get bigger and more expensive. Zero-based budgeting offers a measurement of performance.

Virtually all of them proposed regulatory roll-back of onerous government rules - particularly as it impacts small business. One of them - Obamacare - was especially indicted for strangling small business, and targeted for complete repeal.

All candidates proposed some form of tax amnesty or tax repeal that would facilitate bringing back money from overseas.

That was just a few of the suggestions - ALL of which would result in increased velocity of money in the economic system. If you have more money in your pocket, you will spend more. If I have more money in my bank account, I will invest more.

The real answer, I suspect, lies in selecting 1 from Column A and 2 from Column B - some combination of each recommendation, applied intelligently. It will be, of course, easy for you to select an item, take it to absurd proportions, and find it not 'credible'. Instead, you need to look at the overall sum of the approaches suggested.

By the way - it's probably no accident that the Dems have offered NO jobs growth plan at all - other than Hillary's suggestion to remove investment capital from the market by increasing capital gains tax. Where is THEIR plan to balance the budget, rein in spending, and free up money for the people? Unless, of course, you don't consider that to be 'credible', either.

That's some funny shit. Just more smaller government, lower taxes, and fewer regulations bullshit. Thanks for playing.

Three things you liberals despise.

Just more "trickle down" bullshit.

List those 40 so-called "job bills" and we can discuss them.

So you admit that when you stated these bills gutted regulations you were talking out of your ass and that you really don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Speaker.gov/JOBS

He'll never admit that honest truth.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I will be more than happy to .... with one proviso. We will recognize how you have given yourself an automatic out, by changing the question. Your original premise was that no one had provided a plan to increase job growth - now, you claim nobody provided 'credible' plan - 'credible', of course, being defined by you. So, I could tell you about the plan to raise the minimum wage to $25/hour - put everybody on the government payroll - and you would simply say it wasn't 'credible'. Therefore, you have created an impossible conundrum for me - how to answer your nonsensical (and judged by you) question.

Well, I'll take the chance that other readers can see thru your transparency - and try something in remarkably short supply around here - the truth.

Several candidates proposed tax cuts AND decreased government spending. One without the other is like putting a band-aid on a gaping chest wound. Some candidates suggested a flat tax, while some suggested a simplified progressive tax.

Decreased spending was addressed numerous times. Several government agencies were targeted for elimination, and one candidate has identified 645 government programs to be canceled.

The suggestion of zero-based budgeting has particular merit. It would force an annual bottom-up review of government expenditures. The federal government is unique, in that it has no quantitative measurement of performance or definitive criteria for success. Thus, the only way to succeed in the government is to grow your power base - get bigger and more expensive. Zero-based budgeting offers a measurement of performance.

Virtually all of them proposed regulatory roll-back of onerous government rules - particularly as it impacts small business. One of them - Obamacare - was especially indicted for strangling small business, and targeted for complete repeal.

All candidates proposed some form of tax amnesty or tax repeal that would facilitate bringing back money from overseas.

That was just a few of the suggestions - ALL of which would result in increased velocity of money in the economic system. If you have more money in your pocket, you will spend more. If I have more money in my bank account, I will invest more.

The real answer, I suspect, lies in selecting 1 from Column A and 2 from Column B - some combination of each recommendation, applied intelligently. It will be, of course, easy for you to select an item, take it to absurd proportions, and find it not 'credible'. Instead, you need to look at the overall sum of the approaches suggested.

By the way - it's probably no accident that the Dems have offered NO jobs growth plan at all - other than Hillary's suggestion to remove investment capital from the market by increasing capital gains tax. Where is THEIR plan to balance the budget, rein in spending, and free up money for the people? Unless, of course, you don't consider that to be 'credible', either.

That's some funny shit. Just more smaller government, lower taxes, and fewer regulations bullshit. Thanks for playing.

Three things you liberals despise.

Just more "trickle down" bullshit.

List those 40 so-called "job bills" and we can discuss them.

Bullshit. If he listed all 40 bills you would still insist that everyone one of them "gutted" regulations. Just like you maintain that Bush gutted banking regulations and cause the recession.

Truth is a lot of these bills do repeal regulations. Regulations that are killing jobs. Liberals think that preserving some reptile in the desert is more valuable than jobs for American families.

 

[Londoner]

The bluster about regulations is all for public consumption. Regulations - since Reagan - have been constructed by and for business, typically to create protections for the biggest corporations and entrance barriers. This is why we have lobbyists.

The point of government is to provide the rentier class with an advantage over consumers, usually through the construction of quasi monopolies.

 

[dblack]

Our government is not responsible for providing us with jobs, and I sincerely hope it stays that way.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's some funny shit. Just more smaller government, lower taxes, and fewer regulations bullshit. Thanks for playing.

Three things you liberals despise.

Just more "trickle down" bullshit.

List those 40 so-called "job bills" and we can discuss them.

Bullshit. If he listed all 40 bills you would still insist that everyone one of them "gutted" regulations. Just like you maintain that Bush gutted banking regulations and cause the recession.

Truth is a lot of these bills do repeal regulations. Regulations that are killing jobs. Liberals think that preserving some reptile in the desert is more valuable than jobs for American families.

repeal=/gut

 

[The Rabbi]

Our government is not responsible for providing us with jobs, and I sincerely hope it stays that way.

They are responsible for providing an atmosphere conducive to job creation. Which this adminsitration has failed miserably at. Then again, this administration has failed miserably at everything.

 

[dblack]

Our government is not responsible for providing us with jobs, and I sincerely hope it stays that way.

And I would vote for the first Republican with the balls to say that. But then, they don't really think that way. They're as excited about government manipulation of the economy as the Democrats are.

 

[dblack]

Our government is not responsible for providing us with jobs, and I sincerely hope it stays that way.

They are responsible for providing an atmosphere conducive to job creation.

Totally disagree. They're responsible for providing an atmosphere of freedom and justice. The economy is up to us.

 

[Spare_change]

I'm willing to bet a dollar that you didn't ACTUALLY watch the debate ... but rather, are drinking from the kool-aid fountain at the Huffington Post.

There were numerous examples of ways to increase job growth - apparently, your reporter wasn't smart enough to understand them.

I, for one, apologize for them not making it simplistic enough for the leftist mind to understand. If you like, I'll be happy to explain each and every one of them to you. (I'm good with small words)

I watched and listened to every minute of the debate, with headphones, while also following the debate thread I created.

Then, maybe, you should have paid closer attention.

Want the tutorial, or just want to sit and whine?

Well, please share your wisdom with us about how any of the candidates provided a "credible" plan to create JOBS - other than the same old NaziCon bullshit of smaller government, lower taxes and fewer regulations.

I will be more than happy to .... with one proviso. We will recognize how you have given yourself an automatic out, by changing the question. Your original premise was that no one had provided a plan to increase job growth - now, you claim nobody provided 'credible' plan - 'credible', of course, being defined by you. So, I could tell you about the plan to raise the minimum wage to $25/hour - put everybody on the government payroll - and you would simply say it wasn't 'credible'. Therefore, you have created an impossible conundrum for me - how to answer your nonsensical (and judged by you) question.

Well, I'll take the chance that other readers can see thru your transparency - and try something in remarkably short supply around here - the truth.

Several candidates proposed tax cuts AND decreased government spending. One without the other is like putting a band-aid on a gaping chest wound. Some candidates suggested a flat tax, while some suggested a simplified progressive tax.

Decreased spending was addressed numerous times. Several government agencies were targeted for elimination, and one candidate has identified 645 government programs to be canceled.

The suggestion of zero-based budgeting has particular merit. It would force an annual bottom-up review of government expenditures. The federal government is unique, in that it has no quantitative measurement of performance or definitive criteria for success. Thus, the only way to succeed in the government is to grow your power base - get bigger and more expensive. Zero-based budgeting offers a measurement of performance.

Virtually all of them proposed regulatory roll-back of onerous government rules - particularly as it impacts small business. One of them - Obamacare - was especially indicted for strangling small business, and targeted for complete repeal.

All candidates proposed some form of tax amnesty or tax repeal that would facilitate bringing back money from overseas.

That was just a few of the suggestions - ALL of which would result in increased velocity of money in the economic system. If you have more money in your pocket, you will spend more. If I have more money in my bank account, I will invest more.

The real answer, I suspect, lies in selecting 1 from Column A and 2 from Column B - some combination of each recommendation, applied intelligently. It will be, of course, easy for you to select an item, take it to absurd proportions, and find it not 'credible'. Instead, you need to look at the overall sum of the approaches suggested.

By the way - it's probably no accident that the Dems have offered NO jobs growth plan at all - other than Hillary's suggestion to remove investment capital from the market by increasing capital gains tax. Where is THEIR plan to balance the budget, rein in spending, and free up money for the people? Unless, of course, you don't consider that to be 'credible', either.

That's some funny shit. Just more smaller government, lower taxes, and fewer regulations bullshit. Thanks for playing.

Yeah ... why would we think smaller government, lower taxes, and fewer regulations might be the answer?

 

[The Rabbi]

Our government is not responsible for providing us with jobs, and I sincerely hope it stays that way.

They are responsible for providing an atmosphere conducive to job creation.

Totally disagree. They're responsible for providing an atmosphere of freedom and justice. The economy is up to us.

An atmosphere of freedom and justice IS one that is conducive to job creation.

 

[dblack]

Our government is not responsible for providing us with jobs, and I sincerely hope it stays that way.

They are responsible for providing an atmosphere conducive to job creation.

Totally disagree. They're responsible for providing an atmosphere of freedom and justice. The economy is up to us.

An atmosphere of freedom and justice IS one that is conducive to job creation.

Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't.

 

[The Rabbi]

Our government is not responsible for providing us with jobs, and I sincerely hope it stays that way.

They are responsible for providing an atmosphere conducive to job creation.

Totally disagree. They're responsible for providing an atmosphere of freedom and justice. The economy is up to us.

An atmosphere of freedom and justice IS one that is conducive to job creation.

Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't.

Why dont you explain that. When is an atmosphere of freedom and justice NOT conducive to job creation?

 

[Lakhota]

I watched and listened to every minute of the debate, with headphones, while also following the debate thread I created.

Then, maybe, you should have paid closer attention.

Want the tutorial, or just want to sit and whine?

Well, please share your wisdom with us about how any of the candidates provided a "credible" plan to create JOBS - other than the same old NaziCon bullshit of smaller government, lower taxes and fewer regulations.

I will be more than happy to .... with one proviso. We will recognize how you have given yourself an automatic out, by changing the question. Your original premise was that no one had provided a plan to increase job growth - now, you claim nobody provided 'credible' plan - 'credible', of course, being defined by you. So, I could tell you about the plan to raise the minimum wage to $25/hour - put everybody on the government payroll - and you would simply say it wasn't 'credible'. Therefore, you have created an impossible conundrum for me - how to answer your nonsensical (and judged by you) question.

Well, I'll take the chance that other readers can see thru your transparency - and try something in remarkably short supply around here - the truth.

Several candidates proposed tax cuts AND decreased government spending. One without the other is like putting a band-aid on a gaping chest wound. Some candidates suggested a flat tax, while some suggested a simplified progressive tax.

Decreased spending was addressed numerous times. Several government agencies were targeted for elimination, and one candidate has identified 645 government programs to be canceled.

The suggestion of zero-based budgeting has particular merit. It would force an annual bottom-up review of government expenditures. The federal government is unique, in that it has no quantitative measurement of performance or definitive criteria for success. Thus, the only way to succeed in the government is to grow your power base - get bigger and more expensive. Zero-based budgeting offers a measurement of performance.

Virtually all of them proposed regulatory roll-back of onerous government rules - particularly as it impacts small business. One of them - Obamacare - was especially indicted for strangling small business, and targeted for complete repeal.

All candidates proposed some form of tax amnesty or tax repeal that would facilitate bringing back money from overseas.

That was just a few of the suggestions - ALL of which would result in increased velocity of money in the economic system. If you have more money in your pocket, you will spend more. If I have more money in my bank account, I will invest more.

The real answer, I suspect, lies in selecting 1 from Column A and 2 from Column B - some combination of each recommendation, applied intelligently. It will be, of course, easy for you to select an item, take it to absurd proportions, and find it not 'credible'. Instead, you need to look at the overall sum of the approaches suggested.

By the way - it's probably no accident that the Dems have offered NO jobs growth plan at all - other than Hillary's suggestion to remove investment capital from the market by increasing capital gains tax. Where is THEIR plan to balance the budget, rein in spending, and free up money for the people? Unless, of course, you don't consider that to be 'credible', either.

That's some funny shit. Just more smaller government, lower taxes, and fewer regulations bullshit. Thanks for playing.

Yeah ... why would we think smaller government, lower taxes, and fewer regulations might be the answer?

According to history, and the "Killer Question" in the OP - it isn't. Democratic governance clearly has created more jobs throughout American history.

 

[Lakhota]

I will be more than happy to .... with one proviso. We will recognize how you have given yourself an automatic out, by changing the question. Your original premise was that no one had provided a plan to increase job growth - now, you claim nobody provided 'credible' plan - 'credible', of course, being defined by you. So, I could tell you about the plan to raise the minimum wage to $25/hour - put everybody on the government payroll - and you would simply say it wasn't 'credible'. Therefore, you have created an impossible conundrum for me - how to answer your nonsensical (and judged by you) question.

Well, I'll take the chance that other readers can see thru your transparency - and try something in remarkably short supply around here - the truth.

Several candidates proposed tax cuts AND decreased government spending. One without the other is like putting a band-aid on a gaping chest wound. Some candidates suggested a flat tax, while some suggested a simplified progressive tax.

Decreased spending was addressed numerous times. Several government agencies were targeted for elimination, and one candidate has identified 645 government programs to be canceled.

The suggestion of zero-based budgeting has particular merit. It would force an annual bottom-up review of government expenditures. The federal government is unique, in that it has no quantitative measurement of performance or definitive criteria for success. Thus, the only way to succeed in the government is to grow your power base - get bigger and more expensive. Zero-based budgeting offers a measurement of performance.

Virtually all of them proposed regulatory roll-back of onerous government rules - particularly as it impacts small business. One of them - Obamacare - was especially indicted for strangling small business, and targeted for complete repeal.

All candidates proposed some form of tax amnesty or tax repeal that would facilitate bringing back money from overseas.

That was just a few of the suggestions - ALL of which would result in increased velocity of money in the economic system. If you have more money in your pocket, you will spend more. If I have more money in my bank account, I will invest more.

The real answer, I suspect, lies in selecting 1 from Column A and 2 from Column B - some combination of each recommendation, applied intelligently. It will be, of course, easy for you to select an item, take it to absurd proportions, and find it not 'credible'. Instead, you need to look at the overall sum of the approaches suggested.

By the way - it's probably no accident that the Dems have offered NO jobs growth plan at all - other than Hillary's suggestion to remove investment capital from the market by increasing capital gains tax. Where is THEIR plan to balance the budget, rein in spending, and free up money for the people? Unless, of course, you don't consider that to be 'credible', either.

That's some funny shit. Just more smaller government, lower taxes, and fewer regulations bullshit. Thanks for playing.

Three things you liberals despise.

Just more "trickle down" bullshit.

List those 40 so-called "job bills" and we can discuss them.

So you admit that when you stated these bills gutted regulations you were talking out of your ass and that you really don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Speaker.gov/JOBS

Why do you even link such distorted NaziCon propaganda?

Boehner’s ‘Bipartisan’ Bunk

House Republicans Blatantly Lie To America By Claiming They’ve Passed Dozens of Jobs Bills

 

[The Rabbi]

Then, maybe, you should have paid closer attention.

Want the tutorial, or just want to sit and whine?

Well, please share your wisdom with us about how any of the candidates provided a "credible" plan to create JOBS - other than the same old NaziCon bullshit of smaller government, lower taxes and fewer regulations.

I will be more than happy to .... with one proviso. We will recognize how you have given yourself an automatic out, by changing the question. Your original premise was that no one had provided a plan to increase job growth - now, you claim nobody provided 'credible' plan - 'credible', of course, being defined by you. So, I could tell you about the plan to raise the minimum wage to $25/hour - put everybody on the government payroll - and you would simply say it wasn't 'credible'. Therefore, you have created an impossible conundrum for me - how to answer your nonsensical (and judged by you) question.

Well, I'll take the chance that other readers can see thru your transparency - and try something in remarkably short supply around here - the truth.

Several candidates proposed tax cuts AND decreased government spending. One without the other is like putting a band-aid on a gaping chest wound. Some candidates suggested a flat tax, while some suggested a simplified progressive tax.

Decreased spending was addressed numerous times. Several government agencies were targeted for elimination, and one candidate has identified 645 government programs to be canceled.

The suggestion of zero-based budgeting has particular merit. It would force an annual bottom-up review of government expenditures. The federal government is unique, in that it has no quantitative measurement of performance or definitive criteria for success. Thus, the only way to succeed in the government is to grow your power base - get bigger and more expensive. Zero-based budgeting offers a measurement of performance.

Virtually all of them proposed regulatory roll-back of onerous government rules - particularly as it impacts small business. One of them - Obamacare - was especially indicted for strangling small business, and targeted for complete repeal.

All candidates proposed some form of tax amnesty or tax repeal that would facilitate bringing back money from overseas.

That was just a few of the suggestions - ALL of which would result in increased velocity of money in the economic system. If you have more money in your pocket, you will spend more. If I have more money in my bank account, I will invest more.

The real answer, I suspect, lies in selecting 1 from Column A and 2 from Column B - some combination of each recommendation, applied intelligently. It will be, of course, easy for you to select an item, take it to absurd proportions, and find it not 'credible'. Instead, you need to look at the overall sum of the approaches suggested.

By the way - it's probably no accident that the Dems have offered NO jobs growth plan at all - other than Hillary's suggestion to remove investment capital from the market by increasing capital gains tax. Where is THEIR plan to balance the budget, rein in spending, and free up money for the people? Unless, of course, you don't consider that to be 'credible', either.

That's some funny shit. Just more smaller government, lower taxes, and fewer regulations bullshit. Thanks for playing.

Yeah ... why would we think smaller government, lower taxes, and fewer regulations might be the answer?

According to history, and the "Killer Question" in the OP - it isn't. Democratic governance clearly has created more jobs throughout American history.

LOL!
Yeah "clearly"/ Which means you habev zero proof but just insist it must be true.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Then, maybe, you should have paid closer attention.

Want the tutorial, or just want to sit and whine?

Well, please share your wisdom with us about how any of the candidates provided a "credible" plan to create JOBS - other than the same old NaziCon bullshit of smaller government, lower taxes and fewer regulations.

I will be more than happy to .... with one proviso. We will recognize how you have given yourself an automatic out, by changing the question. Your original premise was that no one had provided a plan to increase job growth - now, you claim nobody provided 'credible' plan - 'credible', of course, being defined by you. So, I could tell you about the plan to raise the minimum wage to $25/hour - put everybody on the government payroll - and you would simply say it wasn't 'credible'. Therefore, you have created an impossible conundrum for me - how to answer your nonsensical (and judged by you) question.

Well, I'll take the chance that other readers can see thru your transparency - and try something in remarkably short supply around here - the truth.

Several candidates proposed tax cuts AND decreased government spending. One without the other is like putting a band-aid on a gaping chest wound. Some candidates suggested a flat tax, while some suggested a simplified progressive tax.

Decreased spending was addressed numerous times. Several government agencies were targeted for elimination, and one candidate has identified 645 government programs to be canceled.

The suggestion of zero-based budgeting has particular merit. It would force an annual bottom-up review of government expenditures. The federal government is unique, in that it has no quantitative measurement of performance or definitive criteria for success. Thus, the only way to succeed in the government is to grow your power base - get bigger and more expensive. Zero-based budgeting offers a measurement of performance.

Virtually all of them proposed regulatory roll-back of onerous government rules - particularly as it impacts small business. One of them - Obamacare - was especially indicted for strangling small business, and targeted for complete repeal.

All candidates proposed some form of tax amnesty or tax repeal that would facilitate bringing back money from overseas.

That was just a few of the suggestions - ALL of which would result in increased velocity of money in the economic system. If you have more money in your pocket, you will spend more. If I have more money in my bank account, I will invest more.

The real answer, I suspect, lies in selecting 1 from Column A and 2 from Column B - some combination of each recommendation, applied intelligently. It will be, of course, easy for you to select an item, take it to absurd proportions, and find it not 'credible'. Instead, you need to look at the overall sum of the approaches suggested.

By the way - it's probably no accident that the Dems have offered NO jobs growth plan at all - other than Hillary's suggestion to remove investment capital from the market by increasing capital gains tax. Where is THEIR plan to balance the budget, rein in spending, and free up money for the people? Unless, of course, you don't consider that to be 'credible', either.

That's some funny shit. Just more smaller government, lower taxes, and fewer regulations bullshit. Thanks for playing.

Yeah ... why would we think smaller government, lower taxes, and fewer regulations might be the answer?

According to history, and the "Killer Question" in the OP - it isn't. Democratic governance clearly has created more jobs throughout American history.

If you take out the fact that the purse strings were controlled mostly by Republican Houses, you might have a good point. Shouldn't the Republican Congress of 1995-2001 get a share of the credit for Clinton's robust job growth?

 

[dblack]

Our government is not responsible for providing us with jobs, and I sincerely hope it stays that way.

They are responsible for providing an atmosphere conducive to job creation.

Totally disagree. They're responsible for providing an atmosphere of freedom and justice. The economy is up to us.

An atmosphere of freedom and justice IS one that is conducive to job creation.

Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't.

Why dont you explain that. When is an atmosphere of freedom and justice NOT conducive to job creation?

When people aren't feeling particularly ambitious?

The point is, if you're going to claim that the goal of government is to "create jobs" and maximize GDP, you really can't do better than outright fascism. Forcing everyone to march on command, whether it's fighting wars or building walls, can do wonders for an economy.

Even if that's not true, when you frame government's goal as "job creation", rather than freedom and justice, you get different results. If your view is that freedom and justice are the best thing for job creation, then we're - inadvertently - on the same page. For now.

Let me ask you this. If someone could convince you that authoritarian fascism really was best for the economy, that it was the best way to "make American number one", would you be on board? Or would you rather have the freedom to decide for yourself how productive you want to be?

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, please share your wisdom with us about how any of the candidates provided a "credible" plan to create JOBS - other than the same old NaziCon bullshit of smaller government, lower taxes and fewer regulations.

I will be more than happy to .... with one proviso. We will recognize how you have given yourself an automatic out, by changing the question. Your original premise was that no one had provided a plan to increase job growth - now, you claim nobody provided 'credible' plan - 'credible', of course, being defined by you. So, I could tell you about the plan to raise the minimum wage to $25/hour - put everybody on the government payroll - and you would simply say it wasn't 'credible'. Therefore, you have created an impossible conundrum for me - how to answer your nonsensical (and judged by you) question.

Well, I'll take the chance that other readers can see thru your transparency - and try something in remarkably short supply around here - the truth.

Several candidates proposed tax cuts AND decreased government spending. One without the other is like putting a band-aid on a gaping chest wound. Some candidates suggested a flat tax, while some suggested a simplified progressive tax.

Decreased spending was addressed numerous times. Several government agencies were targeted for elimination, and one candidate has identified 645 government programs to be canceled.

The suggestion of zero-based budgeting has particular merit. It would force an annual bottom-up review of government expenditures. The federal government is unique, in that it has no quantitative measurement of performance or definitive criteria for success. Thus, the only way to succeed in the government is to grow your power base - get bigger and more expensive. Zero-based budgeting offers a measurement of performance.

Virtually all of them proposed regulatory roll-back of onerous government rules - particularly as it impacts small business. One of them - Obamacare - was especially indicted for strangling small business, and targeted for complete repeal.

All candidates proposed some form of tax amnesty or tax repeal that would facilitate bringing back money from overseas.

That was just a few of the suggestions - ALL of which would result in increased velocity of money in the economic system. If you have more money in your pocket, you will spend more. If I have more money in my bank account, I will invest more.

The real answer, I suspect, lies in selecting 1 from Column A and 2 from Column B - some combination of each recommendation, applied intelligently. It will be, of course, easy for you to select an item, take it to absurd proportions, and find it not 'credible'. Instead, you need to look at the overall sum of the approaches suggested.

By the way - it's probably no accident that the Dems have offered NO jobs growth plan at all - other than Hillary's suggestion to remove investment capital from the market by increasing capital gains tax. Where is THEIR plan to balance the budget, rein in spending, and free up money for the people? Unless, of course, you don't consider that to be 'credible', either.

That's some funny shit. Just more smaller government, lower taxes, and fewer regulations bullshit. Thanks for playing.

Yeah ... why would we think smaller government, lower taxes, and fewer regulations might be the answer?

According to history, and the "Killer Question" in the OP - it isn't. Democratic governance clearly has created more jobs throughout American history.

If you take out the fact that the purse strings were controlled mostly by Republican Houses, you might have a good point. Shouldn't the Republican Congress of 1995-2001 get a share of the credit for Clinton's robust job growth?

No. The economy belongs to the Democrat president in good years, the Republican presidnet in bad years the Democrat House in good years, and the GOP House in bad years.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

That's some funny shit. Just more smaller government, lower taxes, and fewer regulations bullshit. Thanks for playing.

Three things you liberals despise.

Just more "trickle down" bullshit.

List those 40 so-called "job bills" and we can discuss them.

So you admit that when you stated these bills gutted regulations you were talking out of your ass and that you really don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Speaker.gov/JOBS

Why do you even link such distorted NaziCon propaganda?

Boehner’s ‘Bipartisan’ Bunk

House Republicans Blatantly Lie To America By Claiming They’ve Passed Dozens of Jobs Bills

So I link to a government website and you call it propaganda?

You link to two biased websites and it's not propaganda?

No wonder your ass is stuck on a res.

 

[Lakhota]

Well, please share your wisdom with us about how any of the candidates provided a "credible" plan to create JOBS - other than the same old NaziCon bullshit of smaller government, lower taxes and fewer regulations.

I will be more than happy to .... with one proviso. We will recognize how you have given yourself an automatic out, by changing the question. Your original premise was that no one had provided a plan to increase job growth - now, you claim nobody provided 'credible' plan - 'credible', of course, being defined by you. So, I could tell you about the plan to raise the minimum wage to $25/hour - put everybody on the government payroll - and you would simply say it wasn't 'credible'. Therefore, you have created an impossible conundrum for me - how to answer your nonsensical (and judged by you) question.

Well, I'll take the chance that other readers can see thru your transparency - and try something in remarkably short supply around here - the truth.

Several candidates proposed tax cuts AND decreased government spending. One without the other is like putting a band-aid on a gaping chest wound. Some candidates suggested a flat tax, while some suggested a simplified progressive tax.

Decreased spending was addressed numerous times. Several government agencies were targeted for elimination, and one candidate has identified 645 government programs to be canceled.

The suggestion of zero-based budgeting has particular merit. It would force an annual bottom-up review of government expenditures. The federal government is unique, in that it has no quantitative measurement of performance or definitive criteria for success. Thus, the only way to succeed in the government is to grow your power base - get bigger and more expensive. Zero-based budgeting offers a measurement of performance.

Virtually all of them proposed regulatory roll-back of onerous government rules - particularly as it impacts small business. One of them - Obamacare - was especially indicted for strangling small business, and targeted for complete repeal.

All candidates proposed some form of tax amnesty or tax repeal that would facilitate bringing back money from overseas.

That was just a few of the suggestions - ALL of which would result in increased velocity of money in the economic system. If you have more money in your pocket, you will spend more. If I have more money in my bank account, I will invest more.

The real answer, I suspect, lies in selecting 1 from Column A and 2 from Column B - some combination of each recommendation, applied intelligently. It will be, of course, easy for you to select an item, take it to absurd proportions, and find it not 'credible'. Instead, you need to look at the overall sum of the approaches suggested.

By the way - it's probably no accident that the Dems have offered NO jobs growth plan at all - other than Hillary's suggestion to remove investment capital from the market by increasing capital gains tax. Where is THEIR plan to balance the budget, rein in spending, and free up money for the people? Unless, of course, you don't consider that to be 'credible', either.

That's some funny shit. Just more smaller government, lower taxes, and fewer regulations bullshit. Thanks for playing.

Yeah ... why would we think smaller government, lower taxes, and fewer regulations might be the answer?

According to history, and the "Killer Question" in the OP - it isn't. Democratic governance clearly has created more jobs throughout American history.

LOL!
Yeah "clearly"/ Which means you habev zero proof but just insist it must be true.

Are you saying that debate moderator Gerard Baker, the editor-in-chief of The Wall Street Journal, has no credibility when he asked the following question?

...in seven years under President Obama, the U.S. has added an average of 107,000 jobs a month. Under President Clinton, the economy added about 240,000 jobs a month. Under George W. Bush, it was only 13,000 a month. If you win the nomination, you'll probably be facing a Democrat named Clinton. How are you going to respond to the claim that Democratic presidents are better at creating jobs than Republicans?