Quantcast

Comments about ‘Party of the rich: In Congress, it's the Democrats’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, March 31 2014 12:00 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
anotherview
SLO, CA

Re:Redshirt
You falsely characterize Democrats as not being focused on job opportunities for the poor.
There are many people working harder than you or I ever have, yet barely able to put food on the table.
And there are many others not yet able to find employment.
"Trickle-down" has thoroughly been debunked, yet Republicans still cling to the myth.

There is more and more wealth concentration to those in upper income levels. The problem is, wealthy people don't spend all their income. Our econmy is stronger when a greater majority of people have more disposable income, not just the 1%. There are many hedge fund managers, making hundreds of millions of dollars who employ but a handful of people. Our economy is very imbalanced.

wjalden
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Show me a list of the 10 poorest congressional districts. Show me a list of the 190 congressional districts with the highest murder rate. I wonder which party represents those districts?

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@Area 52
"Any administration can "cook the books" and give the media/people any numbers they want."

If by cooking the books you mean reporting the unemployment rate the same way it's always been for decades...

@t702
"In the liberals mind, the guy who actually hire and put the poor person to work is to be taken down, economically that makes perfect sense, right?"

In the liberals' mind, the reason people are hired is due to need, consumer demand drives job creation. The rich don't create jobs just because they can, they do it because there's a perceived need. As such, when the poor and middle class have their wealth/income squeezed due to increased wealth inequality, we believe that hinders demand and thus hinders job creation. We think this is highlighted in the data where 1928 and 2007 were our two worst years for wealth inequality (and then 1929 and 2008 didn't go so well economically for the nation). It doesn't have to do with taking anyone down, it involves the idea that a rising tide lifts all ships.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "anotherview" really? Then show me where Democrats are doing something that actually promotes job growth, and not dependance on government welfare.

Facts are that until the 2010 elections cut off Democrat control of congress we were losing thousands of jobs each month.

We currently have the most people on SNAP benefits.

Democrats killed the Keyston pipeline that would have brought in some jobs.

Businessmen view Obama as anti-business.

Obama has added so many regulations that it has cost the economy billions of dollars.

The ACA has resulted in employees losing hours.

When asked why Obama wasn't going to cut capital gains taxes on investments, knowing that it helps build companies and generates more tax revenues, he said that he wants to tax capital gains more.

Obama blames the rich for problems that the poor has, creating a divide where businessmen don't want to expand.

So tell us, what have Democrats been doing to build jobs?

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

RedShirt said: So tell us, what have Democrats been doing to build jobs?
Fighting the republicans to do something....anything besides "making this president a one term president as their "Job #1"

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Happy Valley Heretic" yawn.......you do realize that when Democrats controlled Congress and the Presidency that things were going downhill, and it wasn't until Republican took the House that things stopped sliding.

So again, waht have they actually done? Even your wisecrack shows that Democrats are doing nothing that helps create jobs.

anotherview
SLO, CA

re:RedShirt
"Facts are that until the 2010 elections cut off Democrat control of congress we were losing thousands of jobs each month."

Unemployment peaked Oct 2009

"Facts are that until the 2010 elections cut off Democrat control of congress"

Is there a piece of legislation Republicans crafted and passed which helped the economy, added jobs?

On the other hand, Democrats passed and Obama signed the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009.

"Democrats killed the Keyston pipeline that would have brought in some jobs."
The Keystone pipeline will create jobs during the 1-2 yr period it is being built but ultimately will result in an estimated 35-50 permanent jobs. (fyi the Senate voted and passed a measure supporting Keystone, but a trans-border job requires presidential approval)

"Obama has added so many regulations that it has cost the economy billions of dollars."

Between 2009 and 2011, the Obama administration approved an average of 297 regulations per year, comparable to yearly figures for the past 18 years. (In 1992 and 1993, the numbers were much higher, exceeding 1,000 regulations both years.)
(factcheck)

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "anotherview" so you agree with me.

Your year is wrong for peak unemployment. That happened in 2010, just as the election cycle started.

I am glad that you agree that Obama killed the pipeline that would have created some new jobs. I just wonder how many other jobs could have been created by lowering fuel costs, and the cost for other oil products.

You missed the dollar figure for Obama regulations. Read "Report: Obama Administration Added $9.5 Billion in Red Tape in July" in the US News. Similar articles can be found in Forbes and other business magazines.

If you go to "25 House-Passed Jobs Bills Stuck in the Democratic-Run Senate" at the House Speaker's web site you can see a summary of jobs bills that Republicans passed, but Demcrats refused to hear in the Senate.

anotherview
SLO, CA

Re:Redshirt
"If you go to "25 House-Passed Jobs Bills Stuck in the Democratic-Run Senate" at the House Speaker's web site you can see a summary of jobs bills that Republicans passed, but Demcrats refused to hear in the Senate."

Right
So if they didn't pass any legislation then how did they add jobs?

What is your source for peak unemployment? Mine comes from Bureau of Labor Statistics, widely cited by economists as the peak.

Your U.S. News article is merely about a Republican Senator and the Chamber of Commerce voicing their opinion, void of any factchecking it is of little value.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "anotherview" you asked "Is there a piece of legislation Republicans crafted and passed which helped the economy, added jobs? " So, I gave you a list of 25 bills that were passed by the Republicans in the House. Is it their fault that Harry Reid won't let them even be heard?

I got my data from the BLS. I don't think you did. According to the BLS, the total jobs in the US hit its low point in February 2010.

Read "Obama has fewer but more costly regulations than Bush" in the CBS News. There they cite a study that shows that Obama's policies as of October 2011 had already cost the US economy $100 billion. In the article "Obama’s regulatory agenda will cost U.S. economy $143B next year: report" in the Washington times, they find that by December 2013 Obama regulations are even more expensive. Those are not opinion pieces, but are reporting on studies done boy 3rd parties.

USU-Logan
Logan, UT

@RedShirt1701
"I got my data from the BLS. I don't think you did"

If you go to BLS, enter "unemployment rate", click the first result, there will be a graph and table for unemployment rate. "anotherview" is right, the unemployment rate peaked at 10% in Oct, 2009.

You criticize anotherview "Your year is wrong for peak unemployment. That happened in 2010", he is not wrong, but you are wrong in changing the subject of unemployment to total jobs, these are two different concepts.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "USU-Logan" that is where you are mislead. You need to go to the BLS and look at the total non-farm jobs, seasonally adjusted. There you find that in March 2010 the total jobs hit a low point of 129,811,000. The unemployment rate is a poor measure of employment since it is only concerned with the number of people actively looking for a job. One of the better graphs to look at to understand what is going on in the labor force is the Labor Participation Rate (BLS) There we see that since Obama took office we have gone from a labor participation rate of 65.7% in January 2009 to a low of 62.8% in December 2013. That low of a participation rate hasn't been seen since 1977.

So again, what have the Democrats been doing to create jobs? All of the data points to Democrats killing jobs and inhibiting job growth.

USU-Logan
Logan, UT

@Redshirt1701

When "anotherview" stated that unemployment rate peaked at Oct. 2009 and provided the BLS source, you repeatedly claimed that statement was wrong. If it was wrong, then you should provide a correct time of highest unemployment rate, not provide a time of lowest total job number, doing so only shows to other people that you lack the understanding of these two different concepts.

And I fact-checked the claim of “anotherview”, the unemployment rate did peak at Oct. 2009.

RedShirtCalTech
Pasedena, CA

To "USU-Logan" lets use some logic. If the US is continually increasing in population, and the total numer of jobs is decreasing do you have higher or lower unemployment as a result?

If you go back and read the thread, "anotherview" does not understand the difference between total jobs and unemployment. I was quite clear that total jobs were decreasing into 2010, it was "anotherview" that could not differentiate between total jobs and unemployment.

USU-Logan
Logan, UT

@Redshirt1701

Let me go through the timeline.

7:10 p.m. anotherview: Unemployment peaked Oct 2009.

7:54 a.m. Redshirt: Your year is wrong for peak unemployment. That happened in 2010.

9:08 a.m. anotherview: What is your source for peak unemployment? Mine comes from Bureau of Labor Statistics, widely cited by economists as the peak.

10:40 a.m. Redshirt1701: I got my data from the BLS. I don't think you did. According to the BLS, the total jobs in the US hit its low point in February 2010.

Reading these comments, it clearly shows that you thought the peak of unemployment rate and low point of total jobs are the same thing. that is why when anotherview correctly stated Unemployment peaked Oct 2009, you rebutted @ 7:54 am saying that peak unemployment should be in 2010, since you knew total jobs in the US hit its low point in February 2010, unfortunately, that is not what anotherview talked about.

If I did not point it to you that these are two different concepts, perhaps you still do not realize the difference.

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

@t702: "When did a poor person who make minimum wage ever hire another poor person?"

The richest family in America is the Walton family, owners of WalMart. Their personal wealth is more than the wealth of the bottom 40% of the country.

Much of their workforce is part-time and much of their full-time workers are paid such a low wage they are on food stamps and other government aid.

The wealthy are not doing a very good job at creating jobs...

Mister J
Salt Lake City, UT

re: Area 52 (1st post) on 3/31

Isn't W an Ivy Leaguer like Barry? The same Lincoln who suspended Habeus Corpus?

GK Willington
Salt Lake City, UT

re Mark B

"...Take an area of the country closely associated with higher education (Boston, Berkley, even Austin) and compare it with another that isn't and the Democrats come out ahead - by a mile or two."

Add Seattle (a left leaning town) to Berkely/bay area, ATX, & Boston and what do you get? The places where most of the nations technical innovation occurs.

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

Several years ago I was in a discussion with a fairly successful co-worker - district manager for a retail chain, large home, nice cars, collection of motorcycles, large RV and so on. Not wealthy, but in the upper portion of the middle class. And not, by any means, a liberal in most of his social views.

He said something interesting: "Overall, I tend to do a bit better when Republicans are in office. The problem is, I don't like them and usually can't bring myself to vote for them."

RedShirtCalTech
Pasedena, CA

To "USU-Logan" yawn......so tell me, would unemployment be higher or lower in March 2010 when there were fewer jobs available?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments