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

[Lakhota]

History proves that Democratic governance creates more jobs!

 

[The Rabbi]

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 be on board? Or would you rather have the freedom to decide for yourself how productive you want to be?

Why would people not feel ambitious? The only reason they are not is becaues they dont think ambition will get them anywhere.
Let me ask you this: if your grandmother had wheels would she be a bicycle or a tricycle?

 

[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.

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?

The question is a troll question based on misinformation.

 

[Brain357]

Tuesday night's Republican debate was devoid of flashy moments. Nobody said anything particularly embarrassing. Nobody said anything particularly memorable. Even Donald Trump failed to stand out.

But the debate did have one moment that may loom large when the voters cast ballots a year from now. It was a question to Carly Fiorina from moderator Gerard Baker, the editor-in-chief of The Wall Street Journal. Here's the critical part:

...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?
​

The question was arguably harsher than anything from the infamous CNBC debate that Republicans and their supporters found so offensive. And that’s because it called into question not just a single Republican argument, but a basic premise of the party's case for taking over the White House.

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

Where are all those Republican JOBS - now and in the future? They ain't got a clue! They can't govern! Just bash Obama!

Walker is trying all the republican ideas in WI, job creation there is pitiful.

 

[The Rabbi]

History proves that Democratic governance creates more jobs!

History proves Democratic governance creates corruption and failure!

 

[Lakhota]

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?

The question is a troll question based on misinformation.

From the Wall Street Journal editor-in-chief? Get real.

 

[dblack]

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 be on board? Or would you rather have the freedom to decide for yourself how productive you want to be?

Why would people not feel ambitious? The only reason they are not is becaues they dont think ambition will get them anywhere.
Let me ask you this: if your grandmother had wheels would she be a bicycle or a tricycle?

Conservatives often have difficulty with hypotheticals. I withdraw the question.

 

[Lakhota]

This is how bad the GOP presidential candidates are:

Charles Koch: 'I Have No Plans To Support Anybody In The Primary Now'

 

[The Rabbi]

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 be on board? Or would you rather have the freedom to decide for yourself how productive you want to be?

Why would people not feel ambitious? The only reason they are not is becaues they dont think ambition will get them anywhere.
Let me ask you this: if your grandmother had wheels would she be a bicycle or a tricycle?

Conservatives often have difficulty with hypotheticals. I withdraw the question.

Conservatives have difficulty with stupid. Narco-libertarians love to dwell in outer space where free pot means people smoke less of it and fascism promotes economic growth.

 

[Siete]

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 be on board? Or would you rather have the freedom to decide for yourself how productive you want to be?

Why would people not feel ambitious? The only reason they are not is becaues they dont think ambition will get them anywhere.
Let me ask you this: if your grandmother had wheels would she be a bicycle or a tricycle?

Conservatives often have difficulty with hypotheticals. I withdraw the question.

coupled with reality ..

 

[dblack]

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 be on board? Or would you rather have the freedom to decide for yourself how productive you want to be?

Why would people not feel ambitious? The only reason they are not is becaues they dont think ambition will get them anywhere.
Let me ask you this: if your grandmother had wheels would she be a bicycle or a tricycle?

Conservatives often have difficulty with hypotheticals. I withdraw the question.

Conservatives have difficulty with stupid. Narco-libertarians love to dwell in outer space where free pot means people smoke less of it and fascism promotes economic growth.

Heh.. cute. But, seriously. Don't think about, or attempt to answer, the question I posed. I could cause your brain to hemorrhage.

 

[dblack]

This is how bad the GOP presidential candidates are:

Charles Koch: 'I Have No Plans To Support Anybody In The Primary Now'

What about you Lakhota? You seem to be a fan of government "creating jobs". If the best way to get that done was to put on our 'jackboots' and march to glory, would you sign up?

 

[Siete]

72 years was selected as the timeframe because each party has controlled the presidency for 36 of those 72 years. During those 36 years each, 58 million jobs have been created under Democratic presidents, but only 26 million jobs under Republican Presidents.Oct 29, 2015

dang ....

 

[blackhawk]

Hell the country is still waiting for all those shovel ready jobs Obama told us he had back in 2009 when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency.

 

[Nyvin]

Hell the country is still waiting for all those shovel ready jobs Obama told us he had back in 2009 when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency.

Oh yeah, when a major depression was averted? That time?

Some of the largest job growth of the last 20 years? That what you're talking about?

You can't blame Obama for something that started under Bush, the fall in the beginning of 2009 is all on him.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Tuesday night's Republican debate was devoid of flashy moments. Nobody said anything particularly embarrassing. Nobody said anything particularly memorable. Even Donald Trump failed to stand out.

But the debate did have one moment that may loom large when the voters cast ballots a year from now. It was a question to Carly Fiorina from moderator Gerard Baker, the editor-in-chief of The Wall Street Journal. Here's the critical part:

...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?
​

The question was arguably harsher than anything from the infamous CNBC debate that Republicans and their supporters found so offensive. And that’s because it called into question not just a single Republican argument, but a basic premise of the party's case for taking over the White House.

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

Where are all those Republican JOBS - now and in the future? They ain't got a clue! They can't govern! Just bash Obama!

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Your stats are horse shit because I remember during the bush years we had something called full employment. Now if your stats are real then why haven't we surpassed the unemployment number we had during the bush or even bill Clinton years?

 

[Nyvin]

Your stats are horse shit because I remember during the bush years we had something called full employment. Now if your stats are real then why haven't we surpassed the unemployment number we had during the bush or even bill Clinton years?

What?

 

[SuperDemocrat]

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 be on board? Or would you rather have the freedom to decide for yourself how productive you want to be?

Why would people not feel ambitious? The only reason they are not is becaues they dont think ambition will get them anywhere.
Let me ask you this: if your grandmother had wheels would she be a bicycle or a tricycle?

Conservatives often have difficulty with hypotheticals. I withdraw the question.

Conservatives have difficulty with stupid. Narco-libertarians love to dwell in outer space where free pot means people smoke less of it and fascism promotes economic growth.

Heh.. cute. But, seriously. Don't think about, or attempt to answer, the question I posed. I could cause your brain to hemorrhage.

I don't think you can spell hemorrhage without auto correct.

 

[kiwiman127]

Jobs? Skilled labor jobs?
GOP legislation cuts $33 million for funding of training and adult education.
That move wouldn't create one job, but it would eliminate tens of thousands skilled worker candidates. The job openings for skilled workers would go to skilled foreign workers using their work Visas.
And then the right cries and moans about Keystone XL..