Great Recession

Barack Obama, George W. Bush Absolute Worst at Creating Jobs

|

Reason columnist and Mercatus Center economist Veronique de Rugy has created the above chart tracking net job creation by presidential terms since 1945.

The short version: The 21st century really sucks so far. Slightly longer version: Obama and Bush fils are the worst of the bunch.

As de Rugy notes at National Review's The Corner:

  • Since President Obama took office, fewer jobs were created than were lost. Actually, some 300,000 fewer Americans are employed then when the president took office. That's mainly because a large number of jobs were lost during 2009 and the so-called recovery is the slowest one of all time, with very meek monthly job creation and weak economic growth.
  • It would take Obama roughly 280,000 new jobs per month for every month from now until January 2013 to get him out of last place.

  • While it would be unfair to compare Obama with Clinton, this chart shows that at this point President Obama's job numbers are far worse than Presidents Carter, Kennedy, and Ford, who were in office almost as long or served much shorter periods than he has

Read more here.

De Rugy also points to work by her Mercatus colleague Keith Hall, whose chart on the employment-to-population ratio helps illustrate just how rotten this so-called recovery really is.

NEXT: Austerity is Not to Blame For the UK's Disappointing Growth Forecasts

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Ah hem…, must we have to say this again? Government does not create jobs, the government gets out of they way so that the private sector can create them. Government jobs are just services that the tax payer pays for. Even though those jobs pay taxes, it is still a net negative. We cannot stimulate the economy through government jobs. Eventually, you run out of other peoples money, dummies.

    1. ^^^This.

      The government can clearly affect the economic conditions that either help or hinder job growth, but as Gary Johnson has pointed out neither he nor any politician has ever “created” any jobs.

      1. The government can certainly destroy jobs. So the table is still relevant because it shows which Presidents destroyed the least jobs.

        1. Which makes me despise the term “jobs saved and/or created” even more than I already do.

          I hate that term with the intensity of a billion suns.

          1. But the table says “How many jobs were gained during a Presidential tenure”. It doesn’t say how they were gained. It just lays out the correlation.

            1. The table says that, but the headline perpetuates the noxious meme.

          2. I hate that term with the intensity of a billion suns destroyed jobs.

            ftfy.

          3. Which makes me despise the term “jobs saved and/or created” even more than I already do.

            It should be renamed “Jobs prevented and/or destroyed”.

        2. Barely.

          The chart basically shows which presidents happened to be on duty while there was a credit boom or bust going on.

      2. Lame Republican talking point. It can create jobs. It takes tax dollars and uses them to hire, say, a soldier. Job created. This lame talking point is also contradictory. Government policy can’t create jobs, except for this government policy. That’s what your semantic sleight of hand actually amounts to.

        What is true, however, is that a laissez-faire market doesn’t create full employment. Take away the public sector and you’re really up shit creek.

        And this list is stupid. Obama’s the only one who came into office during a Great Depression-level economic crisis. Not that, of course, presidents by themselves have any power to create jobs, considering they have no control over taxing and spending. Nonpartisan objective reason mag will surely be trashing the Republican House for its inability to create jobs, or else revise the claim that government getting out of the way and doing nothing is the best environment for job creation.

        1. AND WITH THIS COMMENT WE HAVE TONY IN A NUTSHELL.

          Take away the public sector and you’re really up shit creek.

          BEHOLD THE PROGRESSIVE GENIUS BEHIND THE MIND OF THE LEFT. BASK IN ITS GLORY.

        2. It takes tax dollars

          Which grow on trees.

          1. Or sit in a mattress, creating no jobs.

            1. We should tax it at 75%. That will not have any adverse consequences I am sure.

              1. Let the bold French show us the way!

            2. Yep,

              All of my rich friends have enormous piles of Andies and Benjamins laying around their house, getting molding from the cat piss and dog drool.

              Yep, they don’t keep money in banks, buy stocks or other investments.

              No sirree.

            3. Or sit in a mattress, creating no jobs.

              IOW, saving is bad for society. All your assets should be put at risk.

        3. It takes tax dollars and uses them to hire, say, a soldier. Job created.

          AND NOTHING ELSE HAPPENED.

        4. Are you fucking retarded? First off, the military are not counted in UE numbers, so the number of soldiers “created” by the government has never counted in these stats.

          Second, if the public sector weren’t ever-increasing in size and scope (call it mission creep), they could easily be cut in relation to the ability to pay for them at any given time. The growth of the pubsec over the last several decades is the problem. Ripping off that bandage would lead to long-term fiscal stability.

          Lastly, if Obama entered at a horrible time, his opportunity for success would greatly outdistance any of the others. By your metric, he’s by far and away a massive failure because he inherited a situation almost anyone this side of Terry Schiavo could have succeeded in. Come to think of it, she’d have been a much more effective job creator than Obama.

          1. Reagan had it worse.

            1. You’re insane.

              Reagan inherited an inflationary economy – the opposite of deflationary depression. His was a normal recession that just needed a Volcker to douse out the inflation fire.

              2008 was a financial crisis where $15 trillion in wealth evaporated (much like 1929).

              1. Ha ha, shrike. “Deflation”. That’s rich.

                It kills me that you don’t know the difference between deflation and destroyed wealth.

                1. Take Econ 101, pal. They cover deflation. Its the worst of the economic diseases.

                  1. I guess that is why America had deflation almost the entire 19th Century yet experienced incredible growth and industrialization.

                    Go take economic history you demented little freak. And when you are done stick your head in the oven and stop stealing my oxygen.

                    1. Deflation has ruined the tech sector from getting more for less!

                  2. Take Econ 101, pal. They cover deflation.

                    Inflation/deflation is NEVER covered in Econ 101. Supply and demand is. And then it’s ignored in Econ 102, 201, 202, 301, etc.

                  3. Take Econ 101, pal. They cover deflation. Its the worst of the economic diseases.

                    Utter nonsense. And you can trust me on this, I have a degree in Econ.

                    LOOK ON MY CREDENTIALS, YE EDUCATED, AND DESPAIR!

                  4. Take Econ 101, pal. They cover deflation. Its the worst of the economic diseases.

                    And where is this alleged deflation again?

              2. Reagan inherited an economy that required the fed to raise interest rates and cause one of the deepest recessions in history in order to stop inflation. That was before the economy could grow.

                God you are a lying moron Shreek.

              3. There was no wealth that was lost, only promises never to be fulfilled.

                1. This is a pretty darn good point. If such an enormous portion of a society’s wealth is based on debt, dubious paper assets, and future hopes, is the wealth truly real or is it just a figment of the imagination?

                2. Nicely put, Sam.

          2. Are you fucking retarded?

            IT is Tony. Do you really not know the answer to that question?

          3. First off, the military are not counted in UE numbers, so the number of soldiers “created” by the government has never counted in these stats.

            They are removed from the civilian labor force denominator – which so they do cause the unemployment rate to fall.

        5. Given that the latest economic study I saw had the government “multiplier” at .5, I have no idea what you are talking about, Tony.

          1. I blame Bush

          2. Given that the latest economic study I saw had the government “multiplier” at .5

            Which just proves that we need a 10 trillion dollar a year stimulus

            / Krugabe

        6. What is true, however, is that a laissez-faire market doesn’t create full employment. Take away the public sector and you’re really up shit creek.

          Then thank goodness that we have the public sector to give us the full employment that we now enjoy.

          1. The public sector is what is shedding jobs. If stimulus money had remained in place to keep government workers employed the overall picture would be a lot better.

            But people whose main goal is to bash the president like to say government jobs don’t count on the one hand, but they like to include them in unemployment stats on the other.

            1. Maybe there’s a reason why whatever public sector jobs we’ve lost were shedded? Maybe if we kept those jobs, private sector employment would be lower. Maybe we should break some windows around town Tony. That will definitely boost the economy!

              Not to mention that unemployment is far from the end all be all of the economy. The Soviet Union had low unemployment. What exactly did that mean?

            2. As previously mentioned, that graph doesn’t cover public-sector jobs, only private sector.

        7. I just explained this, Tony. There is nothing about gayness or global warming in this thread, just move along now.

        8. Ok, Tony. So where do the tax dollars come from? We’re talking about net job creation, not an existence proof. If government destroys 2 private sector jobs for each public sector job it creates, then the net is -1 job. Also, as sloopyinca says above, military jobs don’t count, so you need to revise your example.

        9. You were doing so well yesterday, Tony.

        10. I, despite having read many of your comments previously, didn’t realize how poorly you understood economics.

          The reason we have an economy is not found in job creation, but in the production of goods and services.

          Jobs are a cost, and if a job is not producing more than it consumes, then it is a waste of resources that makes everyone else poorer.

          1. To Tony, I, this comment, wrote. (HT to Yoda)

        11. Nonpartisan objective reason mag will surely be trashing the Republican House for its inability to create jobs,

          But, Obama’s been telling everyone about the 4million new jobs since the Republicans took over the House.

        12. Incorrect. Funding a paycheck is not the same as creating a job.

    2. Hyperion, you are absolutely right.

      The problem is that the President says he creates jobs. That his policies have led the recovery.

      This chart puts paid to that lie, regardless of the truth of your statement.

    3. Hmmm. Is this the dumbest chart Veronique ever produced? I think Betty could do better than this. Comparing absolute numbers is a little silly when you consider how much the size of the workforce has changed over time. Also, George W. Bush was president for eight years, yet Veronique thinks that Barack is a wimp if he can’t beat George’s eight-year total in four years.

      If you take this chart half-seriously, Jimmy Carter beats Reagan because he created over 10 million jobs in four years, as opposed to Reagan’s 16 million in eight.

      I could also point out that Barack’s numbers shouldn’t be up there since he hasn’t completed his presidential “tenure,” but, hey, enough’s enough. I don’t think this is your worst, Veronique, but it comes close. Keep trying!

      1. Actually, Barack is a wimp if he gains NO jobs. “Great Recession” or not, no gain means little to no recovery, and certainly no growth. “It’s a recession!” only goes so far. No comparison to Bush necessary. Even then, Bush is anemically weak compared to any of the others. And yet Obama still can’t beat him? Even Gerald Ford’s economic numbers are twice W’s.

        And if you notice, the graph flavor text actually says “Come back to the White House, Jimmy Carter!” So yeah, apparently Carter did pretty good.

        Finally, if you actually read the post (I suspect a look at the graph was all you cared for) it is practically impossible for Obama to post a net gain by the end of his first term. I don’t think this post is your worst Vanneman, but it comes close. Keep trying!

  2. It is much worse than that. When Bush came into office in January of 2001, the UE rate was 4.2%. It was the top of the business cycle. So he really had nowhere to go but down. Harder to create jobs in an economy running near full employment than it is in an economy at the bottom of the business cycle.

    In contrast the UE rate when Obama took office was 7.8%. He was taking over a recession and should have gotten the benefit of a big recovery the way Clinton and Reagan did. And he still managed to finish last. No one has fucked things up as badly as Obama has.

    1. And he may very well be re-elected.

  3. CAPTION: “I know it was you, George. YOU BROKE MY HEART…”

    1. “I wish I knew how to quit you.”

      1. “I didn’t get elected. You made that happen.”

      2. +00========D

  4. While it would be unfair to compare Obama with Clinton…

    President Clinton will test this when he speaks at the convention.

    Of course, presidents can’t really create jobs, but they can definitely get themselves out of the way of employment growth opportunities by knowing their place in the economy. Obama, having never really been outside government service, has no idea where that is.

    1. John Galt will now tell us his plan for national salvation!

    2. Of course, presidents can’t really create jobs,

      You’re speaking of net job creation of course. Tony got confused on this point above, so I thought I would clear it up for his sake.

  5. Want to really mess with a Republican? Show this chart to one, and then tell them that even Jimmy Carter “created” more jobs than George W. Bush. You might just make their head explode

    (And yes, I put quotes around created because its quite the myth that Presidents “create” jobs)

    1. In a sense though Carter’s deregulation of some industries did create an environment where jobs could be created. (Although creating the Department Of Energy probably destroyed some jobs in that sector. And that’s what I can think of off the top of my head.)

    2. Whoa! There are lots of Dumbya loyalists here. You speak with forked tongue.

      The 750,000 lost jobs in Jan 09 should go to Bush too. The financial crisis is all on him.

      1. lots of Dumbya loyalists here

        No there aren’t, idiot

      2. The 750,000 lost jobs in Jan 09 should go to Bush

        They do. The chart shows net job growth.

  6. Clinton owes his high job numbers to his VP for creating the Internet.

    1. Mostly it’s a matter of luck. Clinton, for example, lucked into post cold-war, post-recession growth. It was as difficult as falling onto a pile of p*ssy.

      He didn’t have to do anything, and that was obvious to his advisers after his 1994 thumping and a retreat to micro issues.

      1. That was Clinton’s genius. He mostly didn’t do anything.

        1. Yup. After he lost Congress, he basically engaged in petty personal and public corruption and played the culture war. But never again did he ever try to do anything big and liberal after Hillary care.

          If only our current President could have done as much after 2010.

      2. Clinton, for example, lucked into post cold-war, post-recession growth.

        No, Clinton balanced the budget.

        Deficit spending with a crap load of debt hurts the economy and lowers GDP.

        This is why Obama’s (and Bush’s) economy is so bad…they spent too much too fast.

        1. Clinton did not balance the budget.

          He used surplus payroll taxes (Social Security “Trust” Fund) to buy debt.

          That’s like balancing your household budget by robbing your retirement fund, but pretending that your retirement fund is sound.

          1. It’s also what ENRON did to fool investors into thinking they were profitable.

          2. He used surplus payroll taxes (Social Security “Trust” Fund) to buy debt.

            Which the the US government had been doing since Social Security was made into law.

            Look Clinton kept spending down (and eventually balanced the budget by doing so) it is a fact. It is also a fact that keeping spending down helps the economy…or to be more precise does not put a monstrous drag on it.

            You want to play bullshit TEAM BLUE VS TEAM RED games while Rome is burning. “Clinton bad!!! Can’t give credit to TEAM BLUE guy!!!”

            Cutting spending works. I could give a shit if a Republican or Democrat did it.

            1. He benefited from a huge difference between what Social Security was taking in and what it was putting out.

              The Boomers hadn’t yet come to retirement age, and the tech bubble was generating tons of payroll tax dollars.

              The federal government didn’t borrow less money, it just borrowed it from itself.

              That’s not TEAM politics, it’s reality.

              1. The federal government didn’t borrow less money, it just borrowed it from itself.

                Compared to who?

                He borrowed less then Reagen, less then Bush less then W Bush and less then Obama.

                Who the fuck are you are even talking about?

                He benefited from a huge difference between what Social Security was taking in and what it was putting out.

                Just like every president since FDR. Again who the fuck are you talking about?

                1. joshua – There are two kinds of governmental debt. Internal and external. Internal is when it borrows from itself, like borrowing from future Social Security payments. External is when it sells bonds on the market.

                  Clinton did in fact lower external government debt. That is true.

                  Total money borrowed (bonds plus internal debt) didn’t significantly change. At the time I think they called it “fuzzy math”.

                2. joshua – see all those jobs in the chart? The were POURING money into Social Security. It was a fucking waterfall. That’s how he “balanced” the budget. And when the bubble burst, so did the “balanced” budget, since the payroll taxes weren’t there to buy the debt.

            2. Clinton kept spending down

              To be fair, Clinton and the Republican House kept spending down.

              1. Was spending kept down, or was the rate of increase in spending kept down?

                1. Was spending kept down, or was the rate of increase in spending kept down?

                  In relation to revenues it was the former.

                  Who gives a shit about the later…I am not claiming Clinton is a small government libertarian.

              2. To be fair, Clinton and the Republican House kept spending down.

                Agreed.

                But also to be fair Obama is blocking Republicans from keeping spending down.

                Clinton should be given credit for being better then Obama.

              3. The largest spending decrease ever was passed in 1993 with zero GOP votes (Omnibus Reconciliation).

                Of course he raised the top rate to 39% too. That is what balanced the budget WITHOUT SS gimmickry by 1999.

                1. That was called the post cold war peace dividend and was going to happen anyway you little freak.

                2. The largest spending decrease ever was passed in 1993 with zero GOP votes (Omnibus Reconciliation).

                  You mean Democrats in 1993 were not as insane as they are now?

                  Pretty sure I was the one who told you that.

            3. I’m fairly sure that Clinton would have spent more with a Democratic Congress.

              Interestingly, the Republicans that kept Clinton in line went on to spend like drunken sailors under Dubya.

              1. I’m fairly sure that Clinton would have spent more with a Democratic Congress.

                I am positive Obama is not balancing the budget with a Republican congress.

                1. Paul Ryan’s plan won’t balance the budget until 2039.

                  Ron Paul’s would by 2018 – by whacking SS/Medicare and defense.

                  1. And Obama’s won’t for the foreseeable future, even in the best case scenario. He wants 4 more years of ego-stroking and then he can let the next guy worry about it.

                    1. And Obama’s won’t for the foreseeable future ever.

                      Fixed that. Welcome.

                  2. Obama can’t even come up with a budget, how could he get anything else done.

                  3. Ron Paul’s budget didn’t cut SS or Medicare in the near future. His plan is to phase it out. And his plan still left the US spending far more on its military than any other country.

        2. Also, do take care to have the smelling salts on hand when you tell a Keynesian, but there really was a peace dividend at the end of the Cold War.

      3. It was as difficult as falling onto a pile of p*ssy.

        If there’s a man alive who could create a pile of it for the rest of us to fall on, it would be Bill Clinton.

        1. Piles like that are only for Clinton and his cronies. Little people like you get charged with rape for even thinking of such a thing.

    2. That’s actually not too far off the mark (except the VP thing). Clinton had the benefit of the dot com boom.

      Funny how a new and unregulated industry can create so many jerbs, eh?

      Funny how, without ridiculous government regulation, even when the industry went bust, most of those sys admins, developers, designers, SEO specialists, and marketers landed on their feet not long after.

      1. Funny how, without ridiculous government regulation, even when the industry went bust,

        Did you look up that fact on Google? Or did you buy a book on amazon? Perhaps you read it on Facebook? Maybe your ISP sent you that fact with your cable modem? Did Microsoft tell you? Maybe you looked it up on your smart phone? Did an XBOx live friend message you that? Maybe you read it on Huffington post? Ebay? Skype? twitter? A minecraft server?

        1. Do you have a point?

          1. Do you have a point?

            Yes. I disagree with the claim that the internet industry went bust.

            1. I took her comment to mean “tech”, not “the internet. But perhaps I’m mistaken…

              1. The internet Bubble was a classic capital over investment bubble. After it popped, the physical and human capital remained to be repurposed to productive ends.

                The housing-credit bubble in contrast was an orgy of consumption that left nothing but memories and trash after it popped.

                1. that left nothing but memories and trash after it popped.

                  In regions where the housing bubble manifested as a price bubble i agree. In regions where it manifested as building homes I do not agree. Those homes that were built still exist.

                  1. Fair enough,

                    I live in SoCal the overwhelming majority of building here was remodeling.

                    And while Jacuzzi tubs and Granite countertops are nice, they don’t lead to any increased productivity like the computer and internet bubbles did.

              2. I took her comment to mean “tech”, not “the internet.

                I would also disagree that the tech industry went bust.

                1. Kristen didn’t say the “internet industry” went bust, she didn’t say the “tech industry” went bust, she said the “dot-com boom” went bust. The dot-com boom was a website industry, based on just having websites rather than having actual business models.

                  That most certainly DID go bust. You can still have websites, and you can still make money using websites, but it’s hard to make money just by having a website.

                  To be fair, you can’t really call the dot-com group an industry, let alone the “internet industry”, as they didn’t have anything in common aside from all being on the internet.

          2. Y U SO DENSE, HAMMAH?

        2. Funny how, without ridiculous government regulation, even when the industry went bust,

          I think Kristin meant “when the bubble bust”, with the understanding that “the bubble” was something beyond/on-top-of the industry. Which, I think, squares up with the points of everyone arguing with her statement.

          1. Exactly. The “dot-com” group can’t really be called an industry, but that’s poor wording, rather than a false conclusion.

  7. Thanks, Nick. We needed another reason for people on the left to call us racists.

  8. joe is going to hate this graph.

  9. That pic is wrong on so many levels. I want to vomit now.

  10. “It’s Mega Maid. She’s gone from suck to blow. “

  11. I wonder what that chart would look like corrected for population growth? Or perhaps the size of the workforce?

    In 1984 (halfway through Reagan’s term), we had 235mm people. In 1996 (halfway through Clinton’s term), we had 265mm people, or about 13% more. Clinton would have needed 18mm jobs to tie Reagan, not 16mm.

    1. Take a look at the unemployment rate on the right side of the graph. That gives pretty much the same information as what you want.

      1. Not really, because it doesn’t show the change in the unemployment rate for each president and the unemployment rate itself is a flawed metric because of the labor force participation rate component.

        Which increased dramatically in the 70s 80s.

    2. I don’t know the answer to that, but I took the liberty of estimating total jobs per term, albeit with some fuzzy math. All presidents which had more than one, or less than, a term had their numbers divided by the numbers of terms. For example, Kennedy had less than a full term, so I estimated he had 3/4 of a term. If you think I did a crap job of estimating partial terms, you’re probably right.

      Still, here are the figures:

      1. Clinton(D) 11.35/term

      2. Carter(D) 10.3/term

      3. Johnson(D) 9.76/term

      4. Nixon(R) 9.2/term

      5. Reagan(R) 8.05/term

      6. Kennedy(D) 4.8/term

      7. Truman(D) 4.35/term

      8. H.W. Bush(R) 2.6/term

      9. Ford(R) 2.1/term

      10. Eisenhower(R) 1.75/term

      11. W. Bush(R) .55/term

      12. Obama(D) -.316/term

  12. I am perfectly willing to accept the proposition that there is no direct causal relationship between tax rates and job creation. That does not mean I favor high tax rates for anybody. Flat tax, first twenty grand or so excluded, and NO ADDITIONAL DEDUCTIONS OR ADJUSTMENTS TO INCOME.

    1. I could go for that. I’d rather see a consumption tax like the Fair Tax, but a Flat tax wouldn’t be too bad.

  13. https://reason.com/blog/2012/08…..the-uks-di

    So Obama’s at fault when the US economy grows slowly. But austerity measures are not at fault when the UK economy grows slowly.

    Got it.

    1. Are you saying Obama has instituted austerity measures in the US?

    2. Are you saying that they’ve instituted austerity measures in the UK?

    3. Um. Yup. There are no austerity measures to blame.

    4. So Obama’s at fault when the US economy grows slowly.

      His policies have certainly been anti-growth, so yes, to some degree, he is at fault.

      But austerity measures are not at fault when the UK economy grows slowly.

      Perhaps if you could show us what these austerity measures are, and how they have slowed economic (as opposed to governmental) growth, we could have a conversation.

      1. Obama’s 18 small biz tax cuts/credits are anti-growth?

        Quit listening to Hannity. We are growing. Corporate profits are growing. GDP is growing. Drilling is up 300%.

        Housing is a drag on the economy thanks to the 2004-07 bubble.

        1. Obama’s 18 small biz tax cuts/credits are anti-growth?

          No. But they don’t make up for everything else he did. Turn off the air America Shreek.

        2. 2004-2007 bubble? What about the first 15 years of the bubble?

          1. We are back to 2003 median home values (black line)

            http://www.realestatedecline.c…..istory.htm

            1. WOW! It’s just like it was NINE YEARS AGO! That’s GREAT!

              1. Bubba caught the tech bubble and Dumbya caught the housing bubble.

                NAZ is 3000 now and was 5000 in March 2000.

                1. So Bush’s poor numbers aren’t his fault?

      1. Don’t confuse Joe with facts, especially ones that don’t fit his talking points.

        1. Even though the Commentariat has been contentious lately, it is wonderful to see all of us coming together to just drop an avalanche of truth on Derider and Tony’s respective heads. Good golly, I am proud of this community from time to time.

          1. They hate it. They make a living out of defending the indefensible.

            1. They don’t hate it. They love it. They want to disrupt and control the conversation, not add to it.

              They only thing they hate is when you refuse to play their game. This is the core of bad faith argumentation and why they are trolls.

              Do any of you really think there exists a counter-argument they will accept? That they will go “I see it! I see the light!”

              Don’t feed the trolls.

              1. Don’t feed the trolls.

                EVER!

                That should be on par with “Don’t try this at home.”

              2. You are right. Someone like Shreek gets his talking points every morning and sets out to fuck up the forum as much as possible. They really are fascists.

              3. Let’s say they are trolls.

                That’s fine.

                The sad reality is that these arguments exist out there in the meatspace, and whether it’s T O N Y espousing them or the guy who lives next door, you have to learn to counter them.

                Ken was telling us that reason gets millions of unique views a month. We can’t afford to let basic BS go unchallenged, no matter if the source enjoys the attention.

                1. My only request for the Reasonable extension is that it would filter and collapse the entire sub-thread.

                  Of course, that would cut some posts from 100+ comments to ~3.

                2. Countering it is one thing, conversing with it is another. Call it an idiot, call it a troll and then move on.

                  Whatever is running Tony is not doing us some sort of service.

                  1. Real live people talk exactly the way Tony does. Exactly. I have about 500 Facebook threads to prove it.

                    It is not about whether Tony is doing us a “service”. It is about the fact that whoever and whatever it is, it is talking like real people talk, and if you can’t counter what real people say, you’ll never win anyone over.

                    1. “How can you ever be expect how to know how to steam clean carpet if you don’t let someone come in and shit on your rug?”

                    2. Well, you do have to show that it works…even the commercials spill juice and wine on the rugs.

                    3. Every day? You have to wine and juice and shit dumped on your carpet every day to know how to clean it?

                      Every day? All day? Dozens and dozens of times a day?

                      Feed the trolls all you want, just don’t say you aren’t part of the problem.

                    4. *shrug*

                      Like I said, these are real arguments that I encounter everywhere.

                    5. If only White Indian would return…

                    6. Bad analogy. You don’t have people coming into your house every day to see if steam-cleaning works. And steam-cleaning isn’t vital to propagating your world-view.

                    7. Randian, your FB must be a living hell. :*(

                    8. Randian, your FB must be a living hell. :*(

                      I subscribe to TJ’s philosophy:

                      I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.

                      But yeah it’s not pretty.

                      I was hanging at a friend’s the other day, and his girlfriend looked at me and said, dead serious, “I can’t vote for Mitt Romney. He would fire all of the government workers, including the police and teachers.”

                      People really believe this stuff.

                    9. It is not about whether Tony is doing us a “service”. It is about the fact that whoever and whatever it is, it is talking like real people talk, and if you can’t counter what real people say, you’ll never win anyone over.

                      Yep.

                      Besides, smacking down idiots like Tony and Shriek helps to refine the arguments that we need for people that aren’t troll but have only heard that point of view.

                      It’s often education too.

                3. I go back and forth Randian. Your post explains why I always went after MNG and before him Joe so much. They would post just utter indefensible bullshit. And I hated to let it just stand there unrefuted.

                  1. What John said. MuNG would be lucid every once in awhile, so I didn’t want him dead.

                    But then he’d go full retard the rest of the time, and it was Choney Time. Full retard.

                    Shame. In another time, we might have been friends…

    5. Well Joe,

      If austerity is what is killing the UK economy, why hasn’t Obama’s spending produced better results?

      Correlation does not equal causality.

      Joe you really haven’t gotten any brighter since you ran off crying racist. Apparently all that God’s work you did out with ACORN in America’s toughest neighborhoods wasn’t very educational.

    6. https://reason.com/blog/2008/10…..nt_1114749
      joe| 10.17.08 @ 2:47PM |#

      How did Donald Rumsfeld know Iraq had WMDs? He kept the receipts.

      How do SoS’s know ACORN is turning in registration forms with imporper information? Because ACORN is the one flagging them.

      God bless ACORN, out there registering 13 million new voters. They’re doing God’s work in some of the toughest neighborhoods in America.
      reply to this

      log in or register to reply

      Never forget Joe. Never forget. You can post under whatever fake handle you want. But we all know who you are. And you and all of the stupid shit you used to say.

      1. But we all know who you are. And you and all of the stupid shit you used to say.

        We don’t even need to know about his old stupid shit. His new stupid shit has actually gotten stupider.

        He just called Brittan’s spending binge “Austerity” and implied Obama was also instituting Austerity.

      2. The resident Santorum is calling another stupid.

        1. Go fuck yourself you demonic little turd.

        2. Jesus Christ, Mary, can you even keep your slurs straight? John is a neocon, he’s got a giant war boner; He’s not a socon.

          1. He can’t call me a war monger anymore Hammer. Obama supports the war. So now we have always been at war with Oceana. And I consequently am a “SOCON” whatever the fuck that is.

            1. “SOCON” sounds like some new sorority.

        3. Ugh – now I got a vision of Shitstain’s daughter’s HUGE fucking forehead as she stands supportively beside him on the stage – it’s stuck in my brain and I can’t get it out. GAH!!

          Thanks a lot, Shriek!

    7. So Obama’s at fault when the US economy grows slowly. But austerity measures are not at fault when the UK economy grows slowly.

      It’s quite simple, really. Your definition of “austerity” is fucked up.

      Hope that helps.

      1. It’s quite simple, really. Your definition of “austerity” is fucked up.

        Austerity, audacity… all the same to them.

    8. But austerity measures are not at fault when the UK economy grows slowly.

      Raising spending is not Austerity.

      1. Spending has flatlined since Obama’s stimulus of Feb 2009.

        Up only 1%.

        The Bushpigs took spending up 80% (eight years).

        1. “Up” being the operative word. That’s not “austerity”.

          austerity refers to a policy of deficit-cutting by lowering spending

        2. Budget in 2009: 2.9 T
          Budget in 2011: 3.8 T

          How is that 1%?

          Oh, you snuck in “since the stimulus”, which as you well know, was supposed to be a one-time shot and instead wound up baked into the baseline.

          1. Oh, Randian, you and your “facts”!!

            Stop it! Shriek only engages in fantasy, like DampersandD….no, not even like D ‘n’ D. More like….childhood nightmares. That level of “fantasy”.

          2. Bullshit.

            Bush was to spend $3.52 trillion in 2009 before Obama was sworn in (forecast by OMB – with link).

            http://www.marketwatch.com/sto…..genumber=1

            You can’t lie to me.

            1. Explain to me how a 300B increase is 1%.

              By my math:

              3.8-3.5/3.5 = 8.57%.

              That’s not 1%.

              1. If you’re going to bitch about math…

                the proper notation is: (3.8-3.5)/3.5 = 8.57%.

          3. Are you trying to tell me Obama actually had a budget?

        3. Spending has flatlined since Obama’s stimulus of Feb 2009.

          So he raised spending 500 billion then kept spending it, and a little bit more, every year after.

          Again: Raising spending is not Austerity.

          1. I don’t claim that there is a US austerity now.

            Never have.

            1. As a response to “Raising spending is not Austerity” you said spending had “flatlined”. If that’s not a claim that less of a spending increase is austerity, that’s most certainly introducing a non sequitur. In addition, you mentioned the flatlining of U.S. spending when the mention of austerity was in response to U.K spending. So it’s actually a DOUBLE non sequitur.

  14. And- for the people who want to return to the Clinton “job-boosting” tax rates, will we also tear out all the pages in the Federal Register added since Booosh’s inauguration, and shitcan NCLB and the Medicare drug entitlement (for starters)?

    1. You got my vote.

    2. In 1999, federal spending was around 32% of GDP. By 2011, it was around 42% of GDP, for growth of about 33% relative to GDP.

      Cut the budget by 33%, and I will happily support a return to Clinton-era tax rates.

      1. Me too. But the spending cuts will never occur. And dishonest pricks like Tony and Joe know that. No amount of money will ever satiate them.

      2. This. If you want to revert the federal government to exactly what it was in 1998 (minus the couple of discriminatory policies which have been removed since then like the crack/coke disparity) I will happily sign on to higher taxes.

        1. I will never support higher tax rates, for the reasons that Ken Shultz has outlined. You don’t give your kids more allowance when they blow through it in a day. That’s just irresponsible.

          1. We will never get a deal like that Randian. The point of the hypothetical is to point out that liberals really don’t care about the deficit. They just want our money.

      3. Cut the budget by 33%, and I will happily support a return to Clinton-era tax rates.

        I wouldn’t

        I would pretend to support it then after the cut would say taxes hurt the economy.

  15. It takes tax dollars and uses them to hire, say, a soldier. Job created.

    And doess this magical job yield a net positive economic return?

    Some people think that’s kind of a big deal.

    1. You assume what Tonyists do can be called ‘thinking’.

    2. Assuming the soldier is saving your country from being overrun by invaders, I’d say yes.

      1. Yes, we certainly do not have a military capable of repelling a foreign invasion with current spending.

      2. Assuming the soldier is saving your country from being overrun by invaders, I’d say yes.

        Even when military spending is higher then the next highest 24 countries combined?

        You are an idiot.

      3. The Canadians are invading! Call the Army!

        1. They’ve put Defence Scheme No. 1 into operation.

          🙂

          1. At least we know they can’t count on British support.

    3. It takes tax dollars

      An activity that does not suppress private sector hiring, nosirree, no way.

      Government jobs funding by taxes are, at best, a transfer of a job from the private to the public sector, not the creation of a job.

      Government jobs funded by debt are, at best, the transfer of a job from the future (when the debt funding tha job will have to be repaid) to the present.

      Even under a best case scenario, ignoring the opportunity costs of shifting jobs to the government, the government cannot create a single job.

    4. Well, the soldier is going to spend his paycheck, right?
      And that causes the economy to move, right?

      Ignore the unseen part where the money to back up his paycheck was first removed from the economy through taxation, selling of bonds, or printing money before it was put back.

      No, ignore the unseen and focus on the seen.

      See? Government adds money to the economy! It’s magic!

      1. MULTIPLIER!!!!

    5. Opportunity cost are not accounted for until the job(s) created in turn creates enough productivity that another job can be created off the first. But try explaining that to a socialist.

      1. Except that government jobs do not create anything of value. That’s why the fictional multiplier was invented, to justify pouring money into things that produce nothing of value.

  16. To be fair, aren’t the numbers a bit skewed because of the increase in female labor force participation that has run its course?

    1. We can only hope so. What happened to the good old days when one person working could support a household of 4? Of course, most of us didn’t really believe that it was a absolute necessity for everyone in the family to carry around a $600 smart phone with a combined bill of over 1k a month. So maybe stuff like that has a lot to do with it.

      But anyway. Maybe if the number of women in the workforce decline, we will actually become a productive nation again. I don’t really care who thinks that is a sexist statement. Have you ever witnessed a couple of women get ready to go somewhere, and after 2 hours they are still standing around talking? I am talking about after they are already dressed and ready to go. That shit drives me crazy, lol.

      1. Back in those “good old days” people didn’t have a car payment, cable, cell phone (that you mentioned), internet, they didn’t use as much electricity, heating the house was so cheap that most people didn’t bother to insulate, college was inexpensive so you didn’t need loans, were more careful with credit cards…

        1. I really don’t see that much difference between this fictionalized “good old days” garbage and White Indian’s screeds.

  17. Shout it from the rooftops: Come back to the White House, Jimmy Carter!

    Hell, bring back Ford.

    1. Were there bumper stickers back in the day that said “don’t blame me, I voted for Ford”? I hopez I hopez.

      1. I mean, before he actually ran for reelection.

        1. Heh. Not that I recall, but I did once see a picture in some auto shop of a penis head layered on top of Ford’s head.

          It was actually quite good for pre-Photoshop.

    2. Hell bring back Nixon. Lets have some competence to go with our corruption.

      1. It’s really extraordinary that Obama has been so corrupt, so inept and incompetent, that he actually makes you miss the presidents you used to loath.

        I also miss a working preview.

        1. Nixon never killed an American citizen. Nixon never used the executive to launder billions of dollars to his supporters.

          When you compare misdeeds, Nixon’s are almost quaint in comparison.

          1. Not directly maybe, but Tricky Dicky is the guy who really got the WOD rolling along.

          2. In that sense, no, but he did create the EPA, the DEA and use wage and price controls. And he was dirty as hell, although I’m not sure how he stacks up against past presidents. I have no doubt they were all dirty, but you never really heard from the press how much, like you did with Nixon.

            He’s also credited with the creation of the Libertarian Party, as a result of the w p controls.

            1. Nixon was no dirtier about using the CIA and IRS and FBI on political enemies than Kennedy and Johnson. When all of the dirty laundry came out during the Church Commission, there was just as much under those two as there was under Nixon.

              And I think Obamacare is a worse sin that EPA and the DEA. It was Carter who gave the EPA real teeth. Under Nixon the EPA couldn’t do much.

              1. You must be mistaken. Kennedy and Johnson were Democrats. They never play dirty pool. NEVER.

              2. You can hate Obama without having to excuse Nixon.

                The DEA is an abomination. Nixon should be dug up and have his bones desecrated for a full fortnight every year on the anniversary of the bill that created that shit-filled jackboot on the neck of America.

                1. I’d pay to watch that.

          3. I shall be writing in Zombie Nixon on my ballot this fall.

        2. Preview works. What browser are you using?

          1. Chrome. I get the same result on both work and home PCs.

            1. Suck GOP cock much? It shows. Dumbya was the worst POTUS ever by far – stupid and corrupt.

              1. Says the guy who can’t figure out where to post.

                1. Says the guy who can’t figure out where to post.

                  He also lost his password to his Shrike account….as well as the email account it is attached too.

      2. Barack Obama; Dumber than Carter; Dirtier than Nixon.

        I still have plenty of those at home 😉

        1. I still have mine. I really have to make some time to make some mischief with those.

          1. Before the election would be best 😉

            1. As luck would have it, the DNC and RNC HQ are only a couple block from each other. 🙂

  18. I see NOVA as a ghost town.

  19. Obama’s 18 small biz tax cuts/credits are anti-growth?

    Thumb-on-scales social engineering?

    DO NOT WANT.

    1. He allowed one-year full depreciation on capital equipment purchases. How is that social engineering?

      1. Cuz competitors who did purchase were favored over competitors who did not.

        Picking economic winners and losers is by definition social engineering.

  20. How is that social engineering?

    Golly, let’s see… Making a flagrant attempt to pull capital expenditures forward to goose GDP? While increasing commercial lending? Next you’ll be telling me Cash for Clunkers was the most awesomest program evaar!

    1. Tax breaks = social engineering?

      Reason commentors in bizarro world.

      1. If I gave a tax break to doctors who swore they would never perform an abortion, you would have a fucking fit.

  21. Tax breaks = social engineering?

    I know that you’re not that stupid, so you’re clearly just a dishonest prick.

  22. Now, do a chart with the size of the Federal Code per presidency.

    Another (few) with federal fiscal info like budgets, revenues, deficits, defense and entitlement spending, etc

    I think it might take a total of like 5-6 charts to paint a very clear picture of what the Feds have done in the past 30 years to ruin this once great nation.

  23. Re: Tony,

    Lame Republican talking point. It [the government] can create jobs.

    Any idiot can create a job. A productive job is another matter.

    It takes tax dollars[…]

    Candor alert! Candor alert! Leftoid agreeing that government takes, it does not receive.

    What is true, however, is that a laissez-faire market doesn’t create full employment.

    A labor camp has “full employment.” You’re woefully unskilled for discussing economic matters, Tony.

    And this list is stupid. Obama’s the only one who came into office during a Great Depression-level economic crisis.

    Arguably, so did Reagan. And you’re right that presidents can’t really create jobs, but their policies can sure hinder the process. Case in point: Hoover, Roosevelt, and Obama.

  24. Re: Palin’s Buttjuice,

    Take Econ 101, pal. They cover deflation. Its the worst of the economic diseases.

    Indeed, being able to buy cheaper goods is so smallpox.

    Please, Buttjuice – please DON’T take any more Econ, 101 or otherwise. There is such a thing as being too educated for your competence level, which in your case is like no more of a shot of spit.

  25. Obama’s greatest legacy was to make Carter look adequate.

    1. And that takes a lot of effort – you have to give it to the guy!

  26. While it would be unfair to compare Obama with Clinton[…]

    I don’t think it is that unfair – cut the amount of jopbs created in half: 22.7 million divided by two is STILL 11 MILLION MORE than what we have with the Great One.

  27. So Lyndon Johnson was a better president than Ike? No way.

    1. Ike was best.

      Followed by Clinton and JFK.

      Then Reagan, Obama, Carter in the middle.

      Johnson, Bush 41, Ford and Nixon in the bottom tier.

      The dumbya by far the worst.

      1. It’s hard to say JFK was the 3rd best president, since he died pretty early in his term.

  28. Where are you when I need you, Bill? As much as a libertarian like me hates to admit it, but when Bill Clinton was in the White House I was making money hand-over-fist. Sure, I had problems with Clinton, but his getting blow-jobs from fat chicks was the least of them.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.