Companies give GOP, regulators, different messages

Judged:

2

2

1

Devil in the Details wrote:

This is propaganda.
Just look at the photos used, which reflects smoke coming out of haystacks when they are supposed to be talking about businesses in general not wanting to hire.
THERE IS NO MIXED MESSAGE.
Never follow just the headline grabber. READ THE ARTICLE.
Businesses will not hire under Obama but look forward to brisk economy under GOP in 2012. THE MESSAGE IS CONSISTENT.
Without a GOP president, businesses will not hire and the economy will not thrive.

Judged:

3

3

3

Devil in the Details wrote:

This is propaganda.
Just look at the photos used, which reflects smoke coming out of haystacks when they are supposed to be talking about businesses in general not wanting to hire.
THERE IS NO MIXED MESSAGE.
Never follow just the headline grabber. READ THE ARTICLE.
Businesses will not hire under Obama but look forward to brisk economy under GOP in 2012. THE MESSAGE IS CONSISTENT.
Without a GOP president, businesses will not hire and the economy will not thrive.

Judged:

2

1

1

Devil in the Details wrote:

This is propaganda.
Just look at the photos used, which reflects smoke coming out of haystacks when they are supposed to be talking about businesses in general not wanting to hire.
THERE IS NO MIXED MESSAGE.
Never follow just the headline grabber. READ THE ARTICLE.
Businesses will not hire under Obama but look forward to brisk economy under GOP in 2012. THE MESSAGE IS CONSISTENT.
Without a GOP president, businesses will not hire and the economy will not thrive.

Judged:

3

1

1

Your Ex wrote:

<quoted text>
I'd agree the message isn't mixed. It's part of the message that big business in the US has been saying for a while. Basically, outlaw the unions, repeal the labor laws, decommission the EPA, and we'll hire people in droves. Business had it better in 1895 in the US.

Judged:

3

3

3

Gary wrote:

Without a GOP president. Awright!
Of course, we had a GOP president for eight years and ended up
losing 700,000 jobs a month, incurring $6.5 trillion in federal deficits and watching the economy slide into the deepest recession since the Great Depression which, by the way, was preceded by
three more Republican administrations.
Off hand I'd say that GOP administrations are as likely to
lead the country into recessions and depressions as anyone.

Judged:

1

1

1

Gary wrote:

<quoted text>
Without a GOP president. Awright!
Of course, we had a GOP president for eight years and ended up
losing 700,000 jobs a month, incurring $6.5 trillion in federal deficits and watching the economy slide into the deepest recession since the Great Depression which, by the way, was preceded by
three more Republican administrations.
Off hand I'd say that GOP administrations are as likely to
lead the country into recessions and depressions as anyone.

Frank Lee Plain wrote:

Good point. If we look at relatively recent recessions, we see that all began with a Republican president:
We had recessions under Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush I and Bush II.
We did not have any under Kennedy, Johnson, or Clinton. As for Reagan, a mild recession occurred in 1981, just a few months into his presidency - so we should probably give the Gipper a pass.

Judged:

2

1

1

Gary wrote:

No doubt about it, we need less regulation so we can have more BP disasters, more coal mine disasters and another Wall Street debacle. The American people demand it. We want more filth in our food and more contaminants in our drinking water and much dirtier
air for our children to breathe. It's called free enterprise.

Frank Lee Plain wrote:

<quoted text>
Good point. If we look at relatively recent recessions, we see that all began with a Republican president:
We had recessions under Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush I and Bush II.
We did not have any under Kennedy, Johnson, or Clinton. As for Reagan, a mild recession occurred in 1981, just a few months into his presidency - so we should probably give the Gipper a pass.

Judged:

1

1

1

cjrian wrote:

<quoted text>
Bubby, didja notiuce that those job losses occurred when Dems took over uncontested control of Congress?
I'll bet not!
As for the debt? Actually, it's $4.5 Trillion, NOT $6.5 Trillion. GW and the Repub Congress kept spending and debt BELOW historic (post-war) averages. Again, the largest portion of spending and debt during the GW years came after the 110th Congress (Pelosi/Reid) came to power. And you DO know that Congress, not the Prez, holds the purse strings, right?

Gary wrote:

No doubt about it, we need less regulation so we can have more BP disasters, more coal mine disasters and another Wall Street debacle. The American people demand it. We want more filth in our food and more contaminants in our drinking water and much dirtier
air for our children to breathe. It's called free enterprise.

Judged:

1

1

Caribou Barbie wrote:

Nazi Reich Rethuglicans using an economic disaster of their own creation to create a wedge between people and protections ensconced in regulations from the EPA, FDA, FCC, CDC, SEC, and any other agency tasked with protecting our nation.

Judged:

2

1

1

cjrian wrote:

<quoted text>
And prior to those Repub administrations were - Dem administrations (laying the groundwork for recession)
And every recession has also had CURRENT Dem Congresses
Actually, I don't "blame" Dems for the recession so much. Recessions are normal corrections, occurring every 6 - 10 years. It's what happens after the start of a recession that matters. When recessions are allowed to run their course, they self-correct after an average of 10 months, with a greater than normel growth pattern afterwards. When government tries to "fix" the unfixable, as Obama/Pelosi/Reid did, they exacerbate and prolong the pain. And Dems/Keynesians simply LOVE to tinker with dynamite, blowing the economy to Hell.

TOP JAZZ wrote:

<quoted text>
It's easy to look back and correlate past recessions and their resolve, but ignoring what allowed for such self corrections is what currently gets ignored.
The real heroes in any recovery are the producers. Whether it's a war, putting Americans to work building ships, planes, tanks, jets, uniforms, boots, guns, etc; or whether it's some industrial or technological visionary who can develop a product or service the generates the wants and/or needs of broad markets which put Americans to work for those companies as well as the small and mid-sized companies that supply and support them.
Jumping out of correlation currently are:
1. Corporate America doesn't hire Americans anymore. Not even after our 3rd war and a support mission can we find anything for John Doe or Joe the plummer to do.
2. A two fold issue on big business with their inability to generate patronage with value-added products, along with the fact that with the absence of Steve Jobs & many others who represented the old American knack and tenacity to create products that everyone the world over had to have, the "Tinkerers" are gone.
So here we are - trying to correlate from the past, with what we no longer have.
As for your comments about the economic performances between Democratic & Republican presidents, I offer you these cumulative facts that span from 1949 to 2005:
• Unemployment Rate- Republicans 6.0%, Democrats 5.2%
• Change In Unemployment Rate- Republicans +0.3%, Democrats -0.4%
• Growth of Multifactor Productivity- Republicans 0.9%, Democrats 1.7%
• Corporate Profits (share of GDP)- Republicans 8.8%, Democrats 10.2%
• Real Value of Dow Jones Index- Republicans 4.3%, Democrats 5.4%(in logarithmic growth rates)- Republicans 2.8%, Democrats 4.4%
• Real Weekly Earnings- Republicans 0.3%, Democrats 1.0%
• CPI Inflation Rate- Republicans 3.8%, Democrats 3.8%
As for the current administration, refer to items 1 & 2 of my comments. And it is important to note that he gave Congress a shot to back up their 2 years of sqwaking, to trim a mere 1.2 trillion from the deficit and they shot a blank.