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

[Lakhota]

History has proven that smaller government, less taxes, and fewer regulations do NOT create more jobs!

obviously you've never run a business you sad lemming

The only thing he's run is his mouth on these boards.
Oh and a floor polisher on the NYSE.

Prove me wrong with "credible" facts.

you've already been proved wrong idiot, on any number of levels. isnt it you crybabies whining about Congress??? of couse it is; obama's highest unemployment and highest deficits happened when his own Party held Congress.

Bush's highest unemployment and highest deficits happened when Democrats held BOTH chambers of Congress

coincidence leftard?

Give us some "credible" proof of your claims! What did Bush want that Democrats didn't give him?

 

[rdean]

Yeah, but you left out Carly's BRILLIANT response!

"Yes, problems have gotten much worse under Democrats."

....and that's it. Yep. That was her answer to the question. Wow.

You gotta admit, when she said we need to send thousands of troops to Germany, that was the most entertaining thing said all night.

 

[rdean]

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!

We have an socialist government, the reason this economy sucks.

The economy started to suck with the deficit creating Bush tax cuts. Then there were GOP subsidies to companies that moved jobs to China.

 

[rdean]

XXXXX -- Flame Reduction Act --- FCT

Your typically mindless and dishonestly premised OP is devoid of any shred of honesty truth or wit.

But you can't say why?

 

[bedowin62]

History has proven that smaller government, less taxes, and fewer regulations do NOT create more jobs!

obviously you've never run a business you sad lemming

The only thing he's run is his mouth on these boards.
Oh and a floor polisher on the NYSE.

Prove me wrong with "credible" facts.

you've already been proved wrong idiot, on any number of levels. isnt it you crybabies whining about Congress??? of couse it is; obama's highest unemployment and highest deficits happened when his own Party held Congress.

Bush's highest unemployment and highest deficits happened when Democrats held BOTH chambers of Congress

coincidence leftard?

Give us some "credible" proof of your claims! What did Bush want that Democrats didn't give him?

See that's just how stupid you really are leftard. it isnt Republicans crying they didnt get Democrat support for their bills, IT'S YOU NUTJOBS PRETENDING YOU DIDNT VOTE FOR EVERY SINGLE BUSH POLICY INCLUDING THE ONES YOU BLAME FOR TANKING THE ECONOMY

AS for "credible proof" of my claims it's a matter of public record you dullard. it would be MUCH EASIER to provide a list of things Democrats DIDNT vote to fund, to continue, extend...etc from the Bush years.

 

[The Rabbi]

Presidents and Congresses of both parties have budgeted adult education and training for decades.
There is a huge skilled worker shortage, which effects the US economy and our country's ability to compete on the world stage.
Unfortunately, American companies complain about the lack of skilled workers, yet they have been investing less and less in training.
The right has been complaining endlessly about Obama's job environment, but when it comes time to provide a solution, they do the opposite and create even less opportunity. And the business world can do no wrong in their eyes.
So the skilled labor problem continues to grow. The only solution is bring in skilled labor from foreign countries using there special Visas or ship the skilled jobs offshore.

Here's an interesting read:
http://www.centerforamerica.org/pledge/gr/AAMGA_Magazine_Ratzenberger_CFA_Article_8-11.pdf

If we've been funding these programs for decades why is there a shortage? Doesnt that suggest the programs are ineffective?
And of coure you failed to answer teh question and merely deflected to some partisan website.
How many skilled jobs would Keystone have created?

What a loser!
The "partisan website", is a non-profit group who's main mission is to help vets find jobs. They are not involved in politics. Again, you show us what an armature you are and you get paid for these crappy posts?
Oh and genius, most people know that new skills are needed as technology changes in the many industries at a frequent pace. You did contemplate that, didn't you? No, I guess not base on the shallow question.
It's clear you are clueless about the subject, so here are various links that may help give you a clue.
America's worker shortage: One million and counting | Fox News

Survey shows growing US shortage of skilled labor

So, comparing skill labor jobs now and in the future, per Fox News and Center for America, millions of permanent jobs. Keystone? 50 permanent jobs, maybe.

Wow. Dont criticize anyone ever again.
Yes, I am an "armature." LOL! Is English not your first language?
You failed to ansewr my objections and instead threw insults and blather.
Isnt the fact that we have a shortage of skilled workers proof that the gov't programs that are supposed to train skilled workers have failed? Yes or no.

typical ribbi response when he can't debate your post he starts with is english your second language ??? you were right the first time rabbi is a right wing nut job loser

Yeah, Rabbi had an orgasm because I had a typo.
The point of the matter is that his beloved Fox News agrees with me, not him, me.
Just like colleges change their curriculum frequently to adapt to the ever changing world, the government's training programs also change to meet the demands of the world. But with Rabbi's very simple mind, he can only adapt to the simpleton talking points which are the foundation of the tiny little world of Rabbi's.

That wasnt a typo, idiot. There is a word armtature. Its nothing like amateur though.
You failed to asnewr the question. Your post and argument is a faile.

 

[bedowin62]

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!

We have an socialist government, the reason this economy sucks.

The economy started to suck with the deficit creating Bush tax cuts. Then there were GOP subsidies to companies that moved jobs to China.

actually leftard since you cried nobody can tell you how you're wrong ALLOW ME.

1. obama MADE 98% OF THE BUSH TAX CUTS PERMANENT; and EXTENDED THE OTHER 2%, for the top brackets, BEYOND THE "SUNSET" DATE REPUBLICANS HAD SET.

is it your position stunod, that the tax cuts for that 2% caused the deficits you're crying about? got a link or something for that?

while you're thinnking you're spitting some kind of stinging truth at republicans why dont you provide a list of all the "GOP subsidies" the 4-year Democrat majority of BOTH chambers of Congress even TRIED TO END??

 

[blastoff]

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

Amen.

I may have no choice but to nominate him for a prestigious JoeyB Dolezal Lyin' Ass Award.

 

[Rustic]

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!

We have an socialist government, the reason this economy sucks.

The economy started to suck with the deficit creating Bush tax cuts. Then there were GOP subsidies to companies that moved jobs to China.

The economy has sucked for decades...

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

More Studies Prove The Economy Always Does Better When A Democrat Is President

"The two Democratic presidents have produced jobs at 7 times the rate of the two Bushes or 2.1 million versus 300,000 per year."…

 

[bedowin62]

YAWN

enter another doofus O-bot, holding his charts and graphs, from the Stage Door Left

 

[bedowin62]

the best years of both Democrat Presidents were when they had Republican majority congresses.

the first bush had a democrat majority all 4 years in at LEAST THE HOUSE
and the worst years of the second bush he had Democrat majorities in both chambers

libs like this loser above are comical idiots who lie to themselves

 

[bedowin62]

no budget was ever balanced when clinton had a dem-majority Congress his first two years

and obama added OVER $200 BILLION IN SPENDING THAT WENT ON THE LAST "BUSH" BUDGET


libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[Lakhota]

YAWN

enter another doofus O-bot, holding his charts and graphs, from the Stage Door Left

Whereas, you NaziCons have no "credible" proof to support your bullshit claims! The OP proves that.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[Lakhota]

Yes, Bush fucked us really long time. President Obama is cleaning up the mess.

 

[eagle1462010]

Yes, Bush fucked us really long time. President Obama is cleaning up the mess.

Reagan had an even worse situation in the drop............Did a hell of a lot better in the recovery now didn't he.......................

And he didn't put 4 Trillion in currency into the game from the Fed in doing so.................QE's................

 

[Anathema]

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

IT'S NOT THE JOB OF GOVERNMENT TO CREATE JOBS!!!!!

That should have been their answer.

 

[Nyvin]

Yes, Bush fucked us really long time. President Obama is cleaning up the mess.

Reagan had an even worse situation in the drop............Did a hell of a lot better in the recovery now didn't he.......................

And he didn't put 4 Trillion in currency into the game from the Fed in doing so.................QE's................

The 2008 recession is cited by economist as the worst since the Great Depression.