Bloomberg: Over the last 50 years Democrats have created more private sector jobs than Republicans.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by Electric Blue

JFK has nothing in common with BHO. He cut taxes. Were he alive today,he'd be considered a conservative Republican.

You do realize the any effect that JFK's two years in office would account for a very small fragment of the Bloomberg study (not to mention the overall economic conditions of the early 60's).

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by Wapasha

Let's just say this is true, that democratic party politicians create jobs in the private sector.

Then perhaps you would care to point out its dubiousness.

[JazzyTallGuy]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

The BGOV Barometer shows that since Democrat John F. Kennedy took office in January 1961, non-government payrolls in the U.S. swelled by almost 42 million jobs under Democrats, compared with 24 million for Republican presidents, according to Labor Department figures.

Democrats hold the edge though they occupied the Oval Office for 23 years since Kennedy’s inauguration, compared with 28 for the Republicans. Through April, Democratic presidents accounted for an average of 150,000 additional private-sector paychecks per month over that period, more than double the 71,000 average for Republicans

.

Private Jobs Increase More With Democrats in White House - Bloomberg

If you go back and study two-term presidential administrations since 1960 the Democratic presidential administrations clearly do a better job in terms of the number of Americans on living below the poverty.

Bush 43
Americans Below The Poverty Level
2001 - 32.907 million 2008 - 39.829 million - increase 21.04%

Overall Population Growth
2001 - 281.475 million 2008 - 301.041 million - increase 6.95%

During the Bush 43 Administration poverty INCREASED three times faster than rate of population growth.

Clinton
Americans Below The Poverty Level
1993 - 39.265 million 2000 - 31.581 million - decrease 19.57%

Overall Population Growth
1993 - 259.278 million 2000 - 278.944 million - increase 7.58%

During the Clinton Administration poverty DECREASED 2.5 faster than the population grew.

Reagan
Americans Below The Poverty Level
1981 - 31.822 million 1988 - 31.745 million - decrease 0.24%

Overall Population Growth
1981 - 227.157 million 1988 - 243.53 million - increase 7.21%
During the Reagan Administration poverty was relatively flat compared to population growth.



Nixon-Ford
Americans Below The Poverty Level
1969 - 24.147 million 1976 - 24.975 million - increase 3.43%

Overall Population Growth
1969 - 199.517 million 1976 - 212.303 million - increase 6.41%

During the Nixon - Ford Administrations poverty INCREASED about half as fast as the population grew.


Kennedy-Johnson
Americans Below The Poverty Level
1961 - 39.628 million 1968 - 25.389 million decrease 35.93%

Overall Population Growth
1961 - 181.277 million 1968 - 197.628 million increase 9.02%

[JazzyTallGuy]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Presidents are responsible for creating an ENVIRONMENT that fostes the private sector to grow and prosper when needed, they dont create jobs

Then by your standards President George Bush Jr. was on the worst president since the end of World War II.

Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades - washingtonpost.com

Economy Made Few Gains in Bush Years
Eight-Year Period Is Weakest in Decades


President Bush has presided over the weakest eight-year span for the U.S. economy in decades, according to an analysis of key data, and economists across the ideological spectrum increasingly view his two terms as a time of little progress on the nation's thorniest fiscal challenges.


The number of jobs in the nation increased by about 2 percent during Bush's tenure, the most tepid growth over any eight-year span since data collection began seven decades ago. Gross domestic product, a broad measure of economic output, grew at the slowest pace for a period of that length since the Truman administration. And Americans' incomes grew more slowly than in any presidency since the 1960s, other than that of Bush's father.

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record

President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting, and is preparing to leave in the middle of a long one. That’s almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office.

His job-creation record won’t look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton‘s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office.

Now what's so diffferent about Mitt Romney's polticies compared to President George W. Bush Jr. ?

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by Electric Blue

JFK has nothing in common with BHO. He cut taxes. Were he alive today,he'd be considered a conservative Republican.

Calling JFK a conservative is historical ignorance. JFK cut top tax-rates to 70%. Want to return to those "conservative" tax-rates?

What I read in this thread is selective classification due to cherry picking. "JFK is a conservative because he cut taxes," which ignores his liberal policies and someone else declares Bush a liberal "because he was a big spender," which ignores his tax-cutting.

JFK was an unabashed liberal, who was on the Liberal Party line in New York:

If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." -- Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party nomination

[EddieB.Good]

JFK's cut were b/c tax rates were on the far right of the Laffer curve. We're still on the left of the Laffer curve. Most economist put the peak tax rate at the low 40% mark.

But there's a reason that Dem policies promote private sector growth: the economy grows from money exchanging hands. Dem policies promote more money in more hands b/c growth doesn't care who wrote the paycheck.

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by EddieB.Good

JFK's cut were b/c tax rates were on the far right of the Laffer curve. We're still on the left of the Laffer curve. Most economist put the peak tax rate at the low 40% mark.

But there's a reason that Dem policies promote private sector growth: the economy grows from money exchanging hands. Dem policies promote more money in more hands b/c growth doesn't care who wrote the paycheck.

Got data on the 40% mark?

Reagan's top tax-rates were 50% and there was no evidence that it discouraged working or investing.

There is plenty of evidence that Dem policies promote private sector growth I covered it here:
https://www.city-data.com/forum/23471200-post99.html

[irishvanguard]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Gothcha

Thanks----I am glad you finally got it. Again, you can't measure this is in neat 4 or 8 year cycles.

Sure, it matters who is president------eventually. But arbitrarily chopping economic eras into say, JFK versus GWB, discounts the importance of who is in control of Congress for one thing, which to me far outweighs who is in the Oval Office. And any idiot knows that Clinton was a huge beneficiary (rather than our proactive benefactor) during the 90s Internet Bubble.

[mwruckman]

Originally Posted by Electric Blue

JFK has nothing in common with BHO. He cut taxes. Were he alive today,he'd be considered a conservative Republican.

JFKs Presidency was quite a ride especially if you were old enough to understand what was going on. We came within minutes of seeing as many as 25 million of us incinerated on a fine fall day in late October 1962.If that had been burned into our collective memory JFK might have been thought the bigest failure ever in the White House if it was still there. This would have been an epic fail! So far the Obama Presidency has been perfectly boring. Kennedy was not a conservative Republican because he insisted on telling Southerners they had to associate, eat with or go to school with black people. That drove the South bat **** crazy! Kennedy was worried about his re-election chances in late 1963 why do you think he was was driving down the streets of Dallas?