VP Biden says "We Can't Recover All the Jobs"

Oh how soon we forget. Did the Reagan tax cuts not create jobs? Bush inherited an unemployment at 4%. Jobs can't be created at that point...at that point all that you can do is go down...which it did (remember the recession in 2001, of which can probably be blamed on Clinton's tax raises?). Despite 9/11, the first Bush tax cuts helped to stimulate business and the economy. Unemployment never hit above 6%. Once the second tax cuts were passed, unemployment dropped steadily and stayed at 4.6% levels from 2006-2007 until the housing crash of 2008. It was obviously the tax cuts that contributed to the quick economic recovery. Also, please link to this "22 million vs. 1 million" that you keep referring to. As for Clinton, let's not forget that he had a Republican Congress for 6 years and was still riding high on the strong economic holdover that Reagan put in place. Whether you like it or not, the economy is cyclical. There's nothing we can do about that, and many times it has nothing to do with the president. However, government spending has shown time and time again NOT to stimulate economic recovery. Both Reagan and Bush's tax cuts were successful in helping to pull us out of two recessions, but they weren't the ONLY reason for doing so. How is the stimulus bill doing? Did it keep unemployment below 8% as claimed? If the "experts" that have claimed this couldn't see it (when so many non-left wing "experts" did, including anyone who's taken a micro or macroeconomics course in college)...why do you still have faith in them? Also, it's funny that you say the bill that was just rejected would give tax cuts and "start ups"...but the Republicans say it increases tax cuts. Furthermore, the bill was set to add $100B to the deficit. I understand that you don't think the national debt is a big deal, but IT IS. Even Germany just warned us not to get 'addicted to borrowing'...GERMANY! Last, can you explain to me exactly how pumping money into state and local governments promotes private sector growth?

I forgot to post the unemployment numbers by year: http://www.miseryindex.us/urbyyear.asp

DB, the Reagan tax cuts did create jobs, but not as many as Clinton did. You are correct that unemployment was low when Bush came into office, but at best his tax cuts only kept unemployment as low as Clinton, and we have been told the tax cuts increase job growth. The 22 million vs. 1 million per the department of labor, I am having trouble finding it on their site, but here is another chart that I found in the WSJ that has both higher but say the same thing. http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/01/from-truman-to-bush-presidential-employment-gains/ You can give Congress all of the credit, but the president approved everything they did work together to get things done, and grow the economy. I don't agree one bit with people that say that the Clinton economy was part of what Reagan did. If this try than please explain the Bush Sr. years??? The only thing that the Reagan economy did for Clinton was give him a problem to solve. I am pretty happy with the stimulus bill, it has helped many of my customers, and that means that it has helped me personally. The stimulus bill could only do so much, without it I am sure that unemployment would be much higher. The problem with jobs today is that the private sector isn't hiring, they are outsourcing. The only way to get them to hire again is to give them a reason to, and that has to be consumers buying products. But, people have to have a job to buy products, and that is a problem right now. This is the other problem with cutting off unemployment benefits, is that you take money out of the economy. Our country is caught in a paradox, and I hate to say it, but I don't know what will solve it. I do understand that deficits do matter, but if you don't create jobs than it doesn't matter what you do. With no jobs the economy will collapse, and destroy the country, and because the private sector isn't doing it the government has been forced to. The bill that democrats sent to the floor had tax cuts for businesses, and start ups, I have no idea what you are talking about. Even republicans admitted that it would have helped some businesses, but it wasn't worth $100 Billion. Sending money to state and Local governments helps them to fund expansions, and technologies that lead to new jobs. I live in the solar panel capital of the world, and many of these companies came out of the local University that received money from the state to innovate this technology. With out that money you never would have heard of a company like First Solar.