Since Herbert Hoover, EVERY Democratic president has a better record of job creation than ANY Republican president. That is, the Democratic presidents all rank above all Republican presidents. George W. Bush is second from the bottom in job creation, ahead only of Herbert Hoover.
And it is not personal profit that creates jobs. The CEO of a corporation is not using his personal income to create a job. It's the money that the company controls.
Investments in their businesses are tax deductable. Income taxes are only applied on money paid to employees.
McCain doesn't have to abilty to organize. He can't even get his party to pass the bailout. He doesn't have it because he is uncertain. He is basically against the bailout but feel the pressure to go with it and gives a half-hearted attempt to push for the bail-out. He does not have the clarity of vision nor the knowledge of economics to make a decisive decision. All he has is a beautiful Anheauser Busch heiress for a wife and his POW status.
Quote:Since Herbert Hoover, EVERY Democratic president has a better record of job creation than ANY Republican president. That is, the Democratic presidents all rank above all Republican presidents. George W. Bush is second from the bottom in job creation, ahead only of Herbert Hoover.
Malarkey! For example, compare Carter's and Regan's job creation record. Almost everyone beat Carter's record. Roosevelt's job creation record was negative until the USA's preparation for and participation in WWII. But Kennedy, a Democrat's, tax cuts did contribute to an increase in job creation.
Obama was a professor of Law.
Quote:Obama was a professor of Law.
Why do you think that qualifies Obama to be president?
Obama appears to me to be seeking to emulate Jimmy Carter, while McCain appears to me to be seeking to emulate Teddy Roosevelt.
I think Carter was a failure as president and so was Roosevelt.
I think McCain will probably maintain the status quo if elected. I think Obama will change much if elected. What Obama will change will result in far worse than the status quo for most Americans.
Quote:Investments in their businesses are tax deductable. Income taxes are only applied on money paid to employees.
Investments in businesses that are obtained from the business's revenue to pay business operating costs are tax deductible. Investments of the business's profits in the business are not tax deductible.
The nation’s real output in 1933 was one-fourth lower than it was in 1929.
Stock prices plummeted to a fraction of what they had been and American corporations as a whole operated at a loss for two years in a row. Unemployment, which had been 3 percent in 1929, rose to 9 percent in 1930 and 16 percent in 1931. Before the decade was out, the unemployment rate hit a staggering 25 percent. It was the greatest economic catastrophe in the history of the United States. Moreover, the depression was not confined to the United States but was worldwide. In Germany, unemployment hit 34 percent in1931, setting the stage for the Nazi electoral triumph in 1932 that brought Hitler to power in 1933.
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1528.html
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1957 (Washington, D.C., 1960), p.70. Depression Era Unemployment Statistics
Year Population LaborForce Unemployed Percentageof Labor Force
1929 88,010,000 49,440,000 1,550,000 3.14
1930 89,550,000 50,080,000 4,340,000 8.67
1931 90,710,000 50,680,000 8,020,000 15.82
1932 91,810,000 51,250,000 12,060,000 23.53
1933 92,950,000 51,840,000 12,830,000 24.75
1934 94,190,000 52,490,000 11,340,000 21.60
1935 95,460,000 53,140,000 10,610,000 19.97
1936 96,700,000 53,740,000 9,030,000 16.80
1937 97,870,000 54,320,000 7,700,000 14.18
1938 99,120,000 54,950,000 10,390,000 18.91
1939 100,360,000 55,600,000 9,480,000 17.05
1940 101,560,000 56,180,000 8,120,000 14.45
1941 102,700,000 57,530,000 5,560,000 9.66
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
A-1. Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years and over, 1970 to date
Thousands unemployed specified in 3rd to last column.
Percent unemplooyed specified in 2nd to last column.
1970........................ 137,085 82,771 60.4 78,678 57.4 4,093 4.9 54,315
1971........................ 140,216 84,382 60.2 79,367 56.6 5,016 5.9 55,834
1972 (1).................... 144,126 87,034 60.4 82,153 57.0 4,882 5.6 57,091
1973 (1).................... 147,096 89,429 60.8 85,064 57.8 4,365 4.9 57,667
1974........................ 150,120 91,949 61.3 86,794 57.8 5,156 5.6 58,171
1975........................ 153,153 93,774 61.2 85,846 56.1 7,929 8.5 59,377
1976........................ 156,150 96,158 61.6 88,752 56.8 7,406 7.7 59,991
1977........................ 159,033 99,008 62.3 92,017 57.9 6,991 7.1 60,025
1978 (1).................... 161,910 102,250 63.2 96,048 59.3 6,202 6.1 59,659
1979........................ 164,863 104,962 63.7 98,824 59.9 6,137 5.8 59,900
1980........................ 167,745 106,940 63.8 99,302 59.2 7,637 7.1 60,806
1981........................ 170,130 108,670 63.9 100,397 59.0 8,273 7.6 61,460
1982........................ 172,271 110,204 64.0 99,526 57.8 10,678 9.7 62,067
1983........................ 174,215 111,550 64.0 100,834 57.9 10,717 9.6 62,665
1984........................ 176,383 113,544 64.4 105,005 59.5 8,539 7.5 62,839
1985........................ 178,206 115,461 64.8 107,150 60.1 8,312 7.2 62,744
1986 (1).................... 180,587 117,834 65.3 109,597 60.7 8,237 7.0 62,752
1987........................ 182,753 119,865 65.6 112,440 61.5 7,425 6.2 62,888
1988........................ 184,613 121,669 65.9 114,968 62.3 6,701 5.5 62,944
1989........................ 186,393 123,869 66.5 117,342 63.0 6,528 5.3 62,523
1990 (1).................... 189,164 125,840 66.5 118,793 62.8 7,047 5.6 63,324
1991........................ 190,925 126,346 66.2 117,718 61.7 8,628 6.8 64,578
1992........................ 192,805 128,105 66.4 118,492 61.5 9,613 7.5 64,700
1993........................ 194,838 129,200 66.3 120,259 61.7 8,940 6.9 65,638
1994 (1).................... 196,814 131,056 66.6 123,060 62.5 7,996 6.1 65,758
1995........................ 198,584 132,304 66.6 124,900 62.9 7,404 5.6 66,280
1996........................ 200,591 133,943 66.8 126,708 63.2 7,236 5.4 66,647
1997 (1).................... 203,133 136,297 67.1 129,558 63.8 6,739 4.9 66,836
1998 (1).................... 205,220 137,673 67.1 131,463 64.1 6,210 4.5 67,547
1999 (1).................... 207,753 139,368 67.1 133,488 64.3 5,880 4.2 68,385
2000 (1).................... 212,577 142,583 67.1 136,891 64.4 5,692 4.0 69,994
2001........................ 215,092 143,734 66.8 136,933 63.7 6,801 4.7 71,359
2002........................ 217,570 144,863 66.6 136,485 62.7 8,378 5.8 72,707
2003 (1).................... 221,168 146,510 66.2 137,736 62.3 8,774 6.0 74,658
2004 (1).................... 223,357 147,401 66.0 139,252 62.3 8,149 5.5 75,956
2005 (1).................... 226,082 149,320 66.0 141,730 62.7 7,591 5.1 76,762
2006 (1).................... 228,815 151,428 66.2 144,427 63.1 7,001 4.6 77,387
2007 (1).................... 231,867 153,124 66.0 146,047 63.0 7,078 4.6 78,743
Monthly data, seasonally adjusted (2)
2007:
August..................... 232,211 152,886 65.8 145,753 62.8 7,133 4.7 79,325
September.................. 232,461 153,506 66.0 146,260 62.9 7,246 4.7 78,955
October.................... 232,715 153,306 65.9 146,016 62.7 7,291 4.8 79,409
November................... 232,939 153,828 66.0 146,647 63.0 7,181 4.7 79,111
December................... 233,156 153,866 66.0 146,211 62.7 7,655 5.0 79,290
2008:
January (3)................ 232,616 153,824 66.1 146,248 62.9 7,576 4.9 78,792
February................... 232,809 153,374 65.9 145,993 62.7 7,381 4.8 79,436
March...................... 232,995 153,784 66.0 145,969 62.6 7,815 5.1 79,211
April...................... 233,198 153,957 66.0 146,331 62.7 7,626 5.0 79,241
May........................ 233,405 154,534 66.2 146,046 62.6 8,487 5.5 78,871
June....................... 233,627 154,390 66.1 145,891 62.4 8,499 5.5 79,237
July....................... 233,864 154,603 66.1 145,819 62.4 8,784 5.7 79,261
August..................... 234,107 154,853 66.1 145,477 62.1 9,376 6.1
FDR wasn't President in 1929. Hoover lost jobs from 1929-1932. FDR took office in 1933.
Thanks for proving my statement was correct.
Now can you admit that your statement was silly and misinformed? Or are you planning on proving you are an idiot that wants to ignore facts even when you admit they exist?
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1528.html
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1957 (Washington, D.C., 1960), p.70. Depression Era Unemployment Statistics
Year Population LaborForce Unemployed Percentageof Labor Force
1929 88,010,000 49,440,000 1,550,000 3.14
1930 89,550,000 50,080,000 4,340,000 8.67
1931 90,710,000 50,680,000 8,020,000 15.82
1932 91,810,000 51,250,000 12,060,000 23.53
Roosevelt inaugurated in January 1933.
1933 92,950,000 51,840,000 12,830,000 24.75
1934 94,190,000 52,490,000 11,340,000 21.60
1935 95,460,000 53,140,000 10,610,000 19.97
1936 96,700,000 53,740,000 9,030,000 16.80
1937 97,870,000 54,320,000 7,700,000 14.18
1938 99,120,000 54,950,000 10,390,000 18.91
1939 100,360,000 55,600,000 9,480,000 17.05
WWII began in 1939 when Germany invaded Poland.
1940 101,560,000 56,180,000 8,120,000 14.45
1941 102,700,000 57,530,000 5,560,000 9.66
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
A-1. Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years and over, 1976 to date:
...
................................. Unemployed .. %Unemployed
1976........................ 7,406,000 .............. 7.7
Carter inaugurated
1977........................ 6,991,000 .............. 7.1
1978 (1)................... 6,202,000 .............. 6.1
1979........................ 6,137,000 .............. 5.8
1980........................ 7,637,000 .............. 7.1
Reagan inaugurated
1981........................ 8,273,000 .............. 7.6
1982........................ 10,678,000 .............. 9.7
1983........................ 10,717,000 .............. 9.6
1984........................ 8,539,000 .............. 7.5
1985........................ 8,312,000 .............. 7.2
1986 (1)................... 8,237,000 .............. 7.0
1987........................ 7,425,000 .............. 6.2
1988........................ 6,701,000 .............. 5.5
Bush Sr. inaugurated
1989........................ 6,528,000 .............. 5.3
1990 (1).................... 7,047,000 .............. 5.6
1991........................ 8,628,000 .............. 6.8
1992........................ 9,613,000 .............. 7.5
Clinton inaugurated
1993........................ 8,940,000 .............. 6.9
1994 (1).................... 7,996,000 .............. 6.1
1995........................ 7,404,000 .............. 5.6
1996........................ 7,236,000 .............. 5.4
1997 (1).................... 6,739,000 .............. 4.9
1998 (1).................... 6,210,000 .............. 4.5
1999 (1).................... 5,880,000 .............. 4.2
2000 (1).................... 5,692,000 .............. 4.0
Bush Jr. inaugurated
2001........................ 6,801,000 .............. 4.7
2002........................ 8,378,000 .............. 5.8
2003 (1).................... 8,774,000 .............. 6.0
2004 (1).................... 8,149,000 .............. 5.5
2005 (1).................... 7,591,000 .............. 5.1
2006 (1).................... 7,001,000 .............. 4.6
2007 (1).................... 7,078,000 .............. 4.6
Monthly data, seasonally adjusted (2)
2007:
August..................... 7,133,000 .............. 4.7
September.................. 7,246,000 .............. 4.7
October.................... 7,291,000 .............. 4.8
November................... 7,181,000 .............. 4.7
December................... 7,655,000 .............. 5.0
2008:
January (3)................ 7,576,000 .............. 4.9
February................... 7,381,000 .............. 4.8
March...................... 7,815,000 .............. 5.1
April...................... 7,626,000 .............. 5.0
May........................ 8,487,000 .............. 5.5
June....................... 8,499,000 .............. 5.5
July....................... 8,784,000 .............. 5.7
August..................... 9,376,000 .............. 6.1
From The Times UK
October 1, 2008
Congress is the best advert for dictatorship
We needed leadership. We got childish shenanigans on Capitol Hill. Thank goodness, Europe is finding its own way
Camilla Cavendish
Welcome to the post-American world. It has come sooner than we expected. But as bank shares gyrate and the livelihoods of millions of people are at stake, the country I have loved for so long looks as parochial and myopic as a banana republic. Its politicians would apparently rather impoverish their own people - and ours - than risk their careers at the polls in five weeks' time by being seen to “bail out greed”. The global financial system is out of control, and in Washington no one is in charge. No one has been in charge since Republicans and Democrats voted down the bank bailout Bill at 7.10pm on Monday night.
This woeful absence of leadership is a hammer blow to America's status as a great power. I do not mean that America has ceded its economic dominance to Asia quite yet. China and India are still too dependent on the American consumer and foreign investment for that to happen. But America's reputation may not recover from having forfeited leadership at the time when its leadership is most desperately needed to restore confidence in a panicking world.
This is not the pragmatic, courageous America we thought we knew. This is an America which, offered a chance to save the world Hollywood-style, prefers to rerun the show that turned the Wall Street Crash into the Great Depression. The Bill was voted down by Congressmen and women in marginal seats who are fixated not on their place in history but on the November election. Everyone hopes that they will be bribed out of it on Thursday: that is what is keeping stock markets up. But I am not so sure.
It is a depressing spectacle when the only men with vision are political appointees. Without Hank Paulson, the US Treasury Secretary, and Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, we would have had a crash many months ago. Mr Bernanke did his PhD thesis on the 1929-1934 Great Depression. Sadly, few politicians seem to have his grasp of history.
Mr Bernanke understands that what we face is a problem of liquidity. For months, banks have been so suspicious of each other that they have been unwilling to lend for more than very short periods. As a result, interest rates on loans to businesses are now punitively high. The best analogy I can think of is with famine. Professor Amartya Sen established long ago that most famines are exacerbated not by a dearth of food, but by panicking people hoarding food. In the same way, panicking banks are hoarding money. When that happens - as with famine - the weakest starve first. As I write, HBOS looks to be the next weakest in the chain. But a collapse of HBOS is unthinkable, since it holds so much of the savings of the British people.
Confidence must be re-established among two groups of people. Depositors have to be dissuaded from taking their money out - which is why the Conservatives are right to argue that the deposit insurance threshold should be raised to £50,000, and why the Government was right to guarantee all deposits when it rescued Bradford & Bingley. Creditors also have to feel confident that banks will not go bust with their money in it - as Lehman Brothers did. Right now it is the money managers who lend long-term who are even more jittery than depositors.
That second point is not well understood across the Atlantic, but it is understood on this side. The untold story of the past 48 hours is the decisive leadership that finance ministers in Europe have shown. In that time there have been six huge interventions by governments across the Continent. These have rescued Bradford & Bingley in the UK; Glitnir, the third largest bank in Iceland; Hypo Real Estate in Germany; Dexia, which funds local government in Belgium and France; the whole of the Irish banking system; and Fortis, the biggest employer in Belgium with 85,000 jobs, which was so large that it has had to be rescued by the Dutch, Belgian and Luxembourg governments combined.
Each rescue has been different. Ireland moved swiftly to guarantee all deposits, thereby shoring up a system that was not short of equity but was woefully short of confidence. Dexia and Fortis had too much debt and not enough capital - so governments have become part-owners in exchange for cash. But what all these interventions have in common is that they have not destroyed the capital structures. In every case, creditors and depositors have been protected. Europe has learnt from America's mistakes.
Even if the US plan does go through tomorrow, the credit squeeze could create many more casualties before then. Events in global markets move at internet speed: they do not wait for lazy legislators to wander back from their holidays. Many bank shares may continue to defy gravity for a while, but the fact that stock markets are still looking relatively healthy does not indicate that all is well. Stock markets are supposed to take a long-term view. It is the credit markets that matter right now. They take a view of the risks of lending for up to 30 days. And it is impossible to overstate the danger of their current lockjaw paralysis.
The most flattering reading of the turmoil in Congress this week has been that this is democracy in action. Personally, I have never felt more attracted to benign dictatorship. But the reality is that politicians who are using their taxpayers as an excuse to do nothing are condemning those same taxpayers to suffer: savers, homeowners, employees and entrepreneurs struggling to make a go of the businesses that will create the wealth the world needs.
It should come as a desperate irony to every American that the only grown-ups today are in the capitals of Europe. Europeans are forging the way ahead as Washington's childish sulk brings America to a new nadir.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/government/a/tax_changes.htm
Obama vs. McCain: Proposed Tax Changes
Subject: Proposed changes in taxes after 2008 General election
CAPITAL GAINS TAX
MCCAIN
0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples) McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax.
OBAMA
28% on profit from ALL home sales
How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.
DIVIDEND TAX
MCCAIN 15% (no change)
OBAMA 39.6%
How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.
INCOME TAX
MCCAIN (no changes)
Single making 30K - tax $4,500 Single making 50K - tax $12,500 Single making 75K - tax $18,750 Married making 60K- tax $9,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250
OBAMA
(reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts) Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 125K - tax $38,750
Under Obama your taxes will more than double! How does this affect you? No explanation needed. This is pretty straight forward.
INHERITANCE TAX
MCCAIN 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)
OBAMA Restore the inheritance tax
How does this affect you? Many families have lost businesses, farms and ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will not only lose them to these taxes.
NEW TAXES BEING PROPOSED BY OBAMA
* New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet
* New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already)
* New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity)
* New taxes on retirement accounts and last but not least....
* New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!
...
Sources and further reading:
On Taxes, Obama, McCain Have Many Key Differences
Chicago Tribune, 20 July 2008
Whose Tax Plan Is Better for You? Obama vs. McCain
Chicago Sun-Times, 30 June 2008
McCain and Obama on Tax Reform
Business Week, 23 June 2008
http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=urbanlegends&cdn=newsissues&tm=192&gps=246_2043_778_443&f=00&su=p504.1.336.ip_&tt=2&bt=1&bts=0&zu=http%3A//money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/
How McCain and Obama Will Change Your Tax Bill
CNN, 11 June 2008
BREAKING DOWN THE NUMBERS
Here's how the average tax bill could change in 2009 if either John McCain's or Barack Obama's tax proposals were fully in place.
........................... MCCAIN ........... OBAMA
Income Avg. ........ tax bill Avg. ..... tax bill Avg.
Over $2.9M ......... -$269,364 ....... +$701,885
$603K and up ...... -$45,361 .......... +$115,974
$227K to $603K ...-$7,871 ............ +$12
$161K to $227K ....-$4,380 ...........-$2,789
$112K to $161K .... -$2,614 ........... -$2,204
$66K to $112K ......-$1,009 ............-$1,290
$38K to $66K ...... -$319 ................-$1,042
$19K to $38K ....... -$113 ................-$892
Under $19K .......... -$19 ................... -$567
In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as “Will, Good” from Austin, Texas.
Mr. Good Will listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.”
A Newsmax analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25.
In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375.
Following this and subsequent FEC requests, campaign records show that 330 contributions from Mr. Good Will were credited back to a credit card. But the most recent report, filed on Sept. 20, showed a net cumulative balance of $8,950 " still well over the $4,600 limit.
There can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed these contributions, since Obama’s Sept. 20 report specified that Good Will’s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $9,375.
In an e-mailed response to a query from Newsmax, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt pledged that the campaign would return the donations. But given the slowness with which the campaign has responded to earlier FEC queries, there’s no guarantee that the money will be returned before the Nov. 4 election.
Similarly, a donor identified as “Pro, Doodad,” from “Nando, NY,” gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations, most of them for $25. For most of these donations, Mr. Doodad Pro listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You,” just as Good Will had done.
