• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

in the last 52 yrs, dems created more private sector jobs

waitasec

Veteran Member
This is from clintons speech at the democratic convention, and i am absolutely thrilled that he put this out there:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...linton-says-democratic-presidents-top-republ/


Are Democratic presidents better than Republican presidents at job creation? Former President Bill Clinton said so -- forcefully -- in his speech to the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte.

"Since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24," Clinton said. "In those 52 years, our private economy has produced 66 million private-sector jobs. So what's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 (million)." In the packed convention hall, it was one of the night’s biggest applause lines.

In 2010, we checked a similar claim from Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., who said that Democratic presidents "have been considerably more effective at creating private-sector jobs." After crunching the numbers back to President Harry Truman, we found that jobs did indeed grow faster under Democratic presidents when adjusted for a president’s years served in office. So we rated the claim True.

Clinton’s claim at the convention was worded differently, so we quickly re-crunched the numbers based on his specifications.

Let’s cut to the chase. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, here are the net increases in private-sector employment under each president, chronologically by party:

Republicans

Richard Nixon: Increase of 7.1 million jobs
Gerald Ford: Increase of 1.3 million jobs
Ronald Reagan: Increase of 14.7 million jobs
George H.W. Bush: Increase of 1.5 million jobs
George W. Bush: Decline of 646,000 jobs

Total: Increase of 23.9 million jobs under Republican presidents

Democrats

John F. Kennedy: Increase of 2.7 million jobs
Lyndon B. Johnson: Increase of 9.5 million jobs
Jimmy Carter: Increase of 9.0 million jobs
Bill Clinton: Increase of 20.8 million jobs
Barack Obama: Increase of 332,000 jobs

Total: Increase of 42.3 million jobs.

So Clinton is right. But we’ll bring up a few points worth noting.

This does not include government jobs

The combination of private-sector jobs and public-sector jobs is a broader measurement of job creation than private-sector alone. But excluding government jobs would presumably hurt Democrats more than Republicans, given the two parties’ historical stances toward the role of government. The fact that Democrats finished so far ahead despite taking government jobs off the table makes it a more impressive accomplishment.

The Democrats didn’t benefit from population growth

For our previous story, Brookings Institution economist Gary Burtless calculated that the U.S. working-age population actually grew slightly faster under Republican presidents, also making the Democratic accomplishment more impressive.

Presidents deserves less credit for the good times and less blame for the bad times

It's a truism of politics that when things go well, the president generally gets too much credit, and when things don't go well, the president usually gets too much blame. Shouldn't the Republican Congress of 1995-2001 get a share of the credit for Clinton's robust job growth? Shouldn't the Democratic House that served under Reagan? Most experts would say yes and yes.

Since we published our previous story, we have changed our policy: We now factor into our ratings whether the politician or party deserves credit or blame for the statistical trend being analyzed. In this item, though, we will not factor in credit or blame, because both parties have had presidents serve during the time we looked at, meaning that both parties would have benefited and suffered in roughly equal proportions.

It’s unclear how much this finding says about our political and economic systems

Job creation for each president depended to a certain extent on timing, external factors and luck. And as Yale political scientist David Mayhew pointed out for our previous story, conclusions drawn from a relatively narrow data set -- in this case, just 12 postwar presidencies -- need to be taken with a grain of salt.

Our ruling

Clinton’s figures check out, and they also mirror the broader results we came up with two years ago. Partisans are free to interpret these findings as they wish, but on the numbers, Clinton’s right. We rate his claim True.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

tytlyf

Not Religious
You won't hear any of that on fox or rushy. Facts aren't going to dictate the republican campaign
 

Alceste

Vagabond
You won't hear any of that on fox or rushy. Facts aren't going to dictate the republican campaign

When all Romney is bringing to the table is more tax cuts for the rich, and an analysis of the facts reveals this would cost more jobs, increase wealth disparity and worsen the deficit, you kind of have to base any partisan cheer-leading on lies. It's much easier to acknowledge facts when they actually support your position.
 

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
Since we published our previous story, we have changed our policy: We now factor into our ratings whether the politician or party deserves credit or blame for the statistical trend being analyzed. In this item, though, we will not factor in credit or blame, because both parties have had presidents serve during the time we looked at, meaning that both parties would have benefited and suffered in roughly equal proportions.

It’s unclear how much this finding says about our political and economic systems

Job creation for each president depended to a certain extent on timing, external factors and luck. And as Yale political scientist David Mayhew pointed out for our previous story, conclusions drawn from a relatively narrow data set -- in this case, just 12 postwar presidencies -- need to be taken with a grain of salt.

Our ruling

Clinton’s figures check out, and they also mirror the broader results we came up with two years ago. Partisans are free to interpret these findings as they wish, but on the numbers, Clinton’s right. We rate his claim True.

This is the part that's so frustrating about economic numbers: it's really really hard to tease out what is caused by republican policies, what is caused by democrat policies, what is caused by the global economy, and what is caused by that little jerk butterfly flapping his wings.

But I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Since we can't know for sure, might as well vote for the luckier of the two parties. Democrats FTW!
 

Alceste

Vagabond
This is the part that's so frustrating about economic numbers: it's really really hard to tease out what is caused by republican policies, what is caused by democrat policies, what is caused by the global economy, and what is caused by that little jerk butterfly flapping his wings.

But I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Since we can't know for sure, might as well vote for the luckier of the two parties. Democrats FTW!

That is an excellent strategy!

It is not so hard to tease out. Republicans, at least since Reagan, have been totally oriented toward stuffing money and public assets into the pockets of the rich as fast as possible. They are looters, basically. The Democrats are not much better, but they still make some effort to actually govern when they are in power, and respond to social and economic problems with intelligent legislation and policy, etc.

For Republicans, every social and economic problem has only one possible solution: tax cuts for the rich and market deregulation, so the rich can accumulate wealth faster and presumably solve the social and economic problems themselves, without any help from the government. IOW, they are totally inept, so much so that they don't even believe in their own competence at governing. They stick to what they know they are good at: starting wars.
 

BBTimeless

Active Member
When all Romney is bringing to the table is more tax cuts for the rich, and an analysis of the facts reveals this would cost more jobs, increase wealth disparity and worsen the deficit, you kind of have to base any partisan cheer-leading on lies. It's much easier to acknowledge facts when they actually support your position.
This is what is really puzzling to me in regards to those who are supporting Romney. They must know that many of his statements are false. There are independent websites dedicated to this and they seem to ignore it. Obama isn't a saint either, but in all fairness, his report card is a bit better than Romney's in regards to integrity.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
This is what is really puzzling to me in regards to those who are supporting Romney. They must know that many of his statements are false. There are independent websites dedicated to this and they seem to ignore it. Obama isn't a saint either, but in all fairness, his report card is a bit better than Romney's in regards to integrity.

The only Romney supporters I've seen here appear to believe the lies. Must be hard work in this day and age, when most people carry a device for fact checking around in their pockets.

Chronicling Mitt's Mendacity, Vol. XXX - The Maddow Blog
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
This is from clintons speech at the democratic convention, and i am absolutely thrilled that he put this out there:

PolitiFact | Bill Clinton says Democratic presidents top Republican presidents in job creation

Love it. Thank you Clinton for the facts.

Here's one of my favorite quotes that seem to ring true today in light of the Romney promises.

Franklin D. Roosevelt ( Address at the Democratic State Convention, Syracuse, N.Y)
" Let me warn you and let me warn the Nation against the smooth evasion which says, "Of course we believe all these things; we believe in social security; we believe in work for the unemployed; we believe in saving homes. Cross our hearts and hope to die, we believe in all these things; but we do not like the way the present administration is doing them. Just turn them over to us. We will do all of them. We will do more of them. We will do them better; and, most important of all, the doing of them will not cost anybody anything."

:D
 
Last edited:

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
This is what is really puzzling to me in regards to those who are supporting Romney. They must know that many of his statements are false. There are independent websites dedicated to this and they seem to ignore it. Obama isn't a saint either, but in all fairness, his report card is a bit better than Romney's in regards to integrity.

Polarized voters aren't interested in facts. Some Romney supporters dislike Obama because the color of his skin. Many still believe the hype of him being a Muslim. Many don't care about the actual facts when you present them to them.

Back in 2008 there was this whole thing about "Obama palling around with terrorist" but if you say to the sheeple that recently Paul Ryan was palling around with a terrorist they'd call you insane. Fact is he was...well at least according to the guy..he was a terrorist (Paul Ryan Featured Alongside 'Former Terrorist).

I searched and couldn't find any mention of it a fox news. I might have missed it...but I doubt it.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Clinton's figures would indicate that we need Reagan (+14,700K jobs) or Clinton & his Republican Revolution (+20,800K jobs) instead of Obama (+332K jobs).
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
Clinton's figures would indicate that we need Reagan (+14,700K jobs) or Clinton & his Republican Revolution (+20,800K jobs) instead of Obama (+332K jobs).

:biglaugh:......The figures indicate we need a democrat in the office. Congress needs to stop shooting down jobs bills then maybe Obama's jobs numbers will go up.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
:biglaugh:......The figures indicate we need a democrat in the office. Congress needs to stop shooting down jobs bills then maybe Obama's jobs numbers will go up.
Carter & Obama are Democrats, yet their numbers blow goats according the proffered figures (not mine, btw).
You need Reagton or Clintgan.

Patisanship & statistics do not mix well.
 
Last edited:

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
Carter & Obama are Democrats, yet their numbers blow goats according the proffered figures (not mine, btw).
You need Reagton or Clintgan.

Patisanship & statistics do not mix well.

We can't have Clinton again, at least not for POTUS...so I'll stick with Obama.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
C'mon, that's actually funny. And to a conservative, it's probably looking real.

Yeah, a tea party libertarian pretending he's Satan and Obama is helping him destroy the world. Whee! Just the what we need to lighten the tone of our political discussions and help promote a respectful exchange of ideas. :D
 

Wirey

Fartist
Yeah, a tea party libertarian pretending he's Satan and Obama is helping him destroy the world. Whee! Just the what we need to lighten the tone of our political discussions and help promote a respectful exchange of ideas. :D

Yes, engaging the pretend Devil is something I think we should all take seriously.

Could be worse. Better the Devil you know, etc.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Yeah, a tea party libertarian pretending he's Satan and Obama is helping him destroy the world. Whee! Just the what we need to lighten the tone of our political discussions and help promote a respectful exchange of ideas. :D
This is trolling.
I'm a Libertarian, & resent being tagged with the "Tea Party".
 
Last edited:
Top