View Full Version : Reality Check: More Jobs Created Already under Obama than 8 year under Bush
Nbadan
10-22-2010, 02:00 AM
It's time to fight M$M spin and GOP lies with a reality check...
Reality Check: More Jobs Created under Obama than Bush (chart)
The latest jobs report was released on Friday and makes clear what most of us already knew: the economy is on a slower path to recovery than most anticipated or expected. In spite of this reality, most people are still overlooking the truth: more private sector jobs have been created just this year than during the entire eight years of the Bush administration.
While the facts provide no comfort for those of us who are suffering, it is a reminder that we shouldn’t allow the teabaggers and Republicans to continue in distorting the truth and placing blame on the shoulders of the Obama administration. As much as they hate to hear it: the Democrats have been struggling to correct the mess left from eight years of Republican leadership.
http://veracitystew.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/JobsPrivateSector-e1286801400481.jpg
Recovery will take time due to the overwhelming economic mess left by the Bush/Cheney administration, but we’re on the right track. A return to Republican leadership in Congress will only cause more gridlock and reverse the trend towards a solid economic recovery...
Link (http://veracitystew.com/2010/10/11/reality-check-more-jobs-created-under-obama-than-bush-chart)
boutons_deux
10-22-2010, 04:59 AM
The stimulus also had an income tax cut of $400 for individuals and $800 for couples.
The GM/Chrysler takeover was a huge success.
TARP may turn a profit.
DarrinS
10-22-2010, 08:05 AM
<sniff><sniff>
I smell bullshit.
MSM would be ALL OVER THIS IN 24-7 news cycle.
boutons_deux
10-22-2010, 08:09 AM
It's your data-oriented, evidence-based thinking that stinks.
DarrinS
10-22-2010, 08:25 AM
Great story, and yet, HuffPo leads with this today:
RUINING CHRISTMAS
1.2 Million Will Lose Jobless Benefits By Year's End Unless Congress Acts
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/211625/thumbs/r-SANTA-huge.jpg
Great, thank, Dan.
If the Private Sector has done so well under Obama, Govt. must have shrunk dramatically for the unemployment rate to be near 10%. Tea Partiers rejoice!
boutons_deux
10-22-2010, 08:40 AM
I expect the Repugs to block both the extension of unemployment benefits, while screaming that tax cuts for the super-wealthy be extended, and made permanent.
Neither has anything to do with the stimulus' success in creating and protecting jobs.
coyotes_geek
10-22-2010, 08:40 AM
The stimulus also had an income tax cut of $400 for individuals and $800 for couples.
The GM/Chrysler takeover was a huge success.
TARP may turn a profit.
boutons likes tax cuts, corporate welfare and giving money to banks. Who'dda thunk it?
boutons_deux
10-22-2010, 08:43 AM
I said nothing about liking tax cuts, liking corporate welfare, or liking bailing out the banks.
Just the facts to refudiate the right-wingers' lies about MN's success.
TARP was a Repug program (McLiar would have continued it, too), saving Chrysler/GM jobs and suppliers was critical, the tax cuts were unnecessary, and you guys hate them because they are MN's tax cuts.
MannyIsGod
10-22-2010, 10:07 AM
Actually, he's pretty much right about TARP. Bush didn't lose any money with it and its likely to actually turn a profit.
CosmicCowboy
10-22-2010, 11:31 AM
more private sector jobs have been created just this year than during the entire eight years of the Bush administration.
:lmao
http://veracitystew.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/JobsPrivateSector-e1286801400481.jpg
Look at your chart dumbass. Left side says Bush administration. right side says Obama Administration.
Bush was President for 8 years, Obama has been President for 20 months. Wheres the other 7 years?
CosmicCowboy
10-22-2010, 11:36 AM
Heres an '04 to '09 chart. Sure looks like more jobs created on the left side.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/NFP-Change.png
Winehole23
10-22-2010, 11:41 AM
Actually, he's pretty much right about TARP. Bush didn't lose any money with it and its likely to actually turn a profit.Only if you don't count the $2 trillion in Fed loans, the likely $200-300 billion more that Fannie and Freddie will cost us, or the legal liability of banks for misleading investors about the safety of MBSs. In the totality, the bailout is a big loser, even if the TARP per se turns a profit.
Drachen
10-22-2010, 11:41 AM
I think that y'all are probably arguing past each other. I think (meaning I could be wrong) that each graph is absolutely correct in its representation, it is each persons analysis of what the graph represents that is wrong. It looks like one is talking about private sector job creation, and the other is talking about lost jobs. Each side, however, seems to be arguing that their graph represents net job change for the periods shown.
CosmicCowboy
10-22-2010, 11:52 AM
I think that y'all are probably arguing past each other. I think (meaning I could be wrong) that each graph is absolutely correct in its representation, it is each persons analysis of what the graph represents that is wrong. It looks like one is talking about private sector job creation, and the other is talking about lost jobs. Each side, however, seems to be arguing that their graph represents net job change for the periods shown.
This was his claim:
More Jobs Created Already under Obama than 8 years under Bush
It was an outright, provable and verifiable lie.
The chart he used didn't show the first seven years of economic/job growth.
I'm not normally a Bush defender but that article and claim was total bullshit.
I think that y'all are probably arguing past each other. I think (meaning I could be wrong) that each graph is absolutely correct in its representation, it is each persons analysis of what the graph represents that is wrong. It looks like one is talking about private sector job creation, and the other is talking about lost jobs. Each side, however, seems to be arguing that their graph represents net job change for the periods shown.
This is the correct analysis. The problem, as you point out, is the difference between private sector jobs and total job loss or gain. People forget that the economy had been losing jobs (net) for a couple of years before the election. Part of the problem, I think, is that the chart is virtually impossible to read in its small print indicating time lines.
CosmicCowboy
10-22-2010, 12:08 PM
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/2010/Aug/arc4_06153619_12081065.jpg
Drachen
10-22-2010, 12:14 PM
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/2010/Aug/arc4_06153619_12081065.jpg
This looks to be the best representation for what I was assuming was the argument. At least we made it up to 0 with an enormous slope. Hopefully we can continue the trend.
what is the grey for?
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/2010/Aug/arc4_06153619_12081065.jpg
Do you notice, CC, that the decline starts about mid-2006 and continues its steady decline through January of 2009, when Bush left office?
It also continues after that, but that doesn't mean that private-sector jobs were not lost in massive amounts during the last 2 years of the Bush Administration.
MannyIsGod
10-22-2010, 12:17 PM
Only if you don't count the $2 trillion in Fed loans, the likely $200-300 billion more that Fannie and Freddie will cost us, or the legal liability of banks for misleading investors about the safety of MBSs. In the totality, the bailout is a big loser, even if the TARP per se turns a profit.
I just said TARP, WH.
The bush adminisatration lost jobs during 2001 and again during the last two years. Your own chart shows job growth occurring since Obama took office. It is still not positive, but look where it started.
C'mon, CC.
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/2010/Aug/arc4_06153619_12081065.jpg
Doesn't this just prove the effects of the bubble?
CosmicCowboy
10-22-2010, 12:23 PM
Do you notice, CC, that the decline starts about mid-2006 and continues its steady decline through January of 2009, when Bush left office?
It also continues after that, but that doesn't mean that private-sector jobs were not lost in massive amounts during the last 2 years of the Bush Administration.
Of course I noticed that.
You could also say that the job loss coincided with the democrats gaining controll of both houses of Congress.
Like I said, I'm not a big Bush defender but I couldn't let that one pass. His claim wasn't about jobs lost, it was about jobs created.
The economy is cyclical and job creation goes up and down. The undeniable fact is that more jobs were created during the early "good time" years of the Bush administration (even if they were lost later) than have been created in the last 20 months.
It's time to fight M$M spin and GOP lies with a reality check...
Reality Check: More Jobs Created under Obama than Bush (chart)
http://veracitystew.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/JobsPrivateSector-e1286801400481.jpg
Recovery will take time due to the overwhelming economic mess left by the Bush/Cheney administration, but we’re on the right track. A return to Republican leadership in Congress will only cause more gridlock and reverse the trend towards a solid economic recovery...
Link (http://veracitystew.com/2010/10/11/reality-check-more-jobs-created-under-obama-than-bush-chart)
Having said all of this, Dan, doesn't it fall to the Dems to take the blame for failing to communicate this effectively?
MannyIsGod
10-22-2010, 12:27 PM
Having said all of this, Dan, doesn't it fall to the Dems to take the blame for failing to communicate this effectively?
How do you communicate that to a public who doesn't want to hear it?
Drachen
10-22-2010, 12:29 PM
The bush adminisatration lost jobs during 2001 and again during the last two years. Your own chart shows job growth occurring since Obama took office. It is still not positive, but look where it started.
C'mon, CC.
Actually that doesn't represent job growth unless you are talking negative job growth. Due to the fact that they are percentages, everything since the last quarter of 07 represents net negative job change. Now, yes you are correct, the blood letting has slowed considerably since about the time that bush left office to the point that it looks like we are finally just now experiencing a net increase in jobs. Major Major progress in this arena so far this presidency. Like I said lets hope the trend continues.
Actually that doesn't represent job growth unless you are talking negative job growth. Due to the fact that they are percentages, everything since the last quarter of 07 represents net negative job change. Now, yes you are correct, the blood letting has slowed considerably since about the time that bush left office to the point that it looks like we are finally just now experiencing a net increase in jobs. Major Major progress in this arena so far this presidency. Like I said lets hope the trend continues.
You are absolutely right, again. Thanks for the correction.
We are at the point of cheering for "less negative job growth". That's the best we can do right now, but it also reflects the kind of 'improvement' that occurred during part of the Bush years, before the bubble.
I worry that we are in another bubble right now.
boutons_deux
10-22-2010, 12:39 PM
Reality check, any US job growth is widely insufficient to meet population growth, never mind rehire the millions who lost their jobs.
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/208334/JOB-GAP.jpg
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/11/job-market-chart_n_758173.html?view=print
any "jobless claims down" nearly always means now that the discouraged jobless quit looking, and are not counted a claimants.
CosmicCowboy
10-22-2010, 12:44 PM
The unemployment numbers are pure fabrication intentionally jacked with to make things look better than they really are. That "given up looking for work" category that they use so they don't have to count people is total bullshit.
How do you communicate that to a public who doesn't want to hear it?
I don't know, but then I'm not running for office.
The fact is that folks are mad now, just like they were in 2006 and 2008, and like Dark Reign said in another thread, in two years they'll still be mad, and then it will be the Republicans who get thrown out again.
^^^What amazes me about both the Dems and Reps. is that each of them continually misses the message of any election. The message of the election is 'we're still mad'. It is not "we want republican policies" or "we want democratic policies".
Drachen
10-22-2010, 12:58 PM
^^^what amazes me about both the dems and reps. Is that each of them continually misses the message of any election. The message of the election is 'we're still mad'. It is not "we want republican policies" or "we want democratic policies".
thank you!
boutons_deux
10-22-2010, 01:01 PM
What policies do the outraged voters want?
But, it doesn't matter what they want.
The corps, MIC, Wall St always get the legislation and rules that they buy.
Voters are disenfranchised.
Drachen
10-22-2010, 01:04 PM
What policies do the outraged voters want?
But, it doesn't matter what they want.
The corps, MIC, Wall St always get the legislation and rules that they buy.
Voters are disenfranchised.
Must be a glitch in your system, you left out "VRWC" from your default response.
What policies do the outraged voters want?
But, it doesn't matter what they want.
The corps, MIC, Wall St always get the legislation and rules that they buy.
Voters are disenfranchised.
They want things to be different than they are now.
That's all they know.
They don't really know what they want...they just know that this isn't it.
boutons_deux
10-22-2010, 02:12 PM
Must be a glitch in your system, you left out "VRWC" from your default response.
FIXED: banks, corps, capitalists, MIC, etc ARE the VRWC.
I wonder who programmed boutons?
Drachen
10-22-2010, 02:32 PM
FIXED: banks, corps, capitalists, MIC, etc ARE the VRWC.
Thank you, I was starting to get the cold shivers, paranoia was setting in, and all I could think while rocking back and forth in the fetal position was "This is not the world I know"
TeyshaBlue
10-22-2010, 03:42 PM
Thank you, I was starting to get the cold shivers, paranoia was setting in, and all I could think while rocking back and forth in the fetal position was "This is not the world I know"
:rollin :rollin :rollin:lmao
FuzzyLumpkins
10-22-2010, 06:01 PM
How do you communicate that to a public who doesn't want to hear it?
Its not so much this as it is the GOP is very good at campaigning. They really are. From Reginald Denny and George Sr. to managing to get Jr. elected twice should tell you something. They will do anything to win as people like Cheney and Nixon will attest to.
Really from a policy standpoint there has been no movement right on social issues for the last 50 years and they have convinced people that somehow their deficit spending is better than the other side.
Winehole23
10-26-2010, 03:15 PM
I just said TARP, WH.God bless Neil Barofsky:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/39846384
coyotes_geek
10-26-2010, 04:37 PM
God bless Neil Barofsky:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/39846384
It's stories like this why, IMO at least, that we should be leery about government getting into business.
Wild Cobra
10-26-2010, 10:03 PM
It's stories like this why, IMO at least, that we should be leery about government getting into business.
Government has no business in business. It needs to leave lawful people alone.
Winehole23
10-27-2010, 03:15 AM
Lawful people?
Wild Cobra
10-27-2010, 03:29 AM
Lawful people?
Only a few business' are unlawful, and most aren't noticed I bet. My intent is that the government should leave the free market alone, at least for the most part. Some regulation and taxation are needed, but are too much now. With more, all the government is doing is harming this nation with most added regulation and taxation.
Wild Cobra
10-27-2010, 03:39 AM
The stimulus also had an income tax cut of $400 for individuals and $800 for couples.
Liar.
Tax credits are not the same as a tax cut.
The GM/Chrysler takeover was a huge success.
I doubt that is true.
TARP may turn a profit.
And if it does, then the deficit is farther reduced on the Bush deficit watch. There was an amendment that got republican votes that any recovered money pays the deficit back down, and that would have to be applied to the bush tax budget. Without that sticker, it probably wouldn't have passed.
Wild Cobra
10-27-2010, 03:46 AM
Doesn't this just prove the effects of the bubble?
Remember how I repeatedly said in past posts that the decline started before 2000? The tech bubble burst... and on president Clinton's watch, and now people want to blame president Bush...
Cycles happen. However, I will stick to my solid opinion that democrats scare prosperity out of existence. Funny how the large drop in our economy happened months after the democrats became the majority in congress, now, isn't it?
Coincidence? I think not.
Winehole23
10-27-2010, 03:50 AM
Only a few business' are unlawful, and most aren't noticed I bet.You totally lost me right there.
My intent is that the government should leave the free market alone, at least for the most part. Some regulation and taxation are needed, but are too much now. With more, all the government is doing is harming this nation with most added regulation and taxation.Boilerplate.
C'mon now. Is that the best ye can do?
Wild Cobra
10-27-2010, 03:55 AM
C'mon now. Is that the best ye can do?
No, I'm pretty tired right now. Off my normal sleep pattern.
Winehole23
10-27-2010, 04:00 AM
Honest man. I'm ok but I'm fading a bit.
SnakeBoy
10-27-2010, 12:55 PM
How do you communicate that to a public who doesn't want to hear it?
It is truely unfortunate that Obama has done such a wonderful job yet people are unwilling to hear about it. Poor democrats, it is so unfair. I feel very bad for them, they work so hard to do the right thing but in this unjust racist homophobic islamophobic oppressive country they will only be punished for doing so.
Remember how I repeatedly said in past posts that the decline started before 2000? The tech bubble burst... and on president Clinton's watch, and now people want to blame president Bush...
Cycles happen. However, I will stick to my solid opinion that democrats scare prosperity out of existence. Funny how the large drop in our economy happened months after the democrats became the majority in congress, now, isn't it?
Coincidence? I think not.
So, let me make sure I understand:
When Clinton was president and both houses of Congress were Republican, the "decline", the tech bubble (and presumably its bursting) is the fault of Clinton, and when the housing bubble starts under Republican control of both houses of Congress and bursts within 2 months of Republicans losing both houses of Congress for the first time in 12 years, it is still the fault of the Congress (which by this time was Democratic for the first time since 1993)?
So, essentially, no matter who is in control, Republicans are never responsible for anything negative, right?
Wild Cobra
10-27-2010, 05:58 PM
So, let me make sure I understand:
When Clinton was president and both houses of Congress were Republican, the "decline", the tech bubble (and presumably its bursting) is the fault of Clinton, and when the housing bubble starts under Republican control of both houses of Congress and bursts within 2 months of Republicans losing both houses of Congress for the first time in 12 years, it is still the fault of the Congress (which by this time was Democratic for the first time since 1993)?
So, essentially, no matter who is in control, Republicans are never responsible for anything negative, right?
No. Not at all. I am consistent on this. The so called good years were partially because of the democrats losing control of congress. still, republicans overspent. The economy was doing real well because of technological improvements and the Y2K scare. Congress overspent not caring about normal market trend, which are cyclical. The so called surplus liberal love to brag about only came because of the free market. Nothing that congress or the president did. I will contend that increased taxes and spending would have been greater with a democrat controlled congress, and probably would have had a lesser growth in the latter 90's also.
The tech bubble bursting was a normal trend. Nothing that Clinton did cause the rapid rise in the 90's or the bursting. Y2K simply added to both the rise and fall.
My pointing out the time-frame is a simple reminder that it isn't the president who makes or breaks en economy. I have said in several past threads that Clinton was not responsible for the good economy he had.
My contention that the 2007 economic downturn is because of the democrats getting a majority. They scare the hell out of businesses. Nobody wants to increase their payrolls. Obama compounds the problem. They are openly against what they call the rich and big business, while propping up their favorite businesses that they appear to want to nationalize.
Winehole23
10-28-2010, 05:35 AM
It's stories like this why, IMO at least, that we should be leery about government getting into business.I agree 100%, but it was all to avert an instantaneous reversion to the stone age. (Allegedly.)
With respect to the point you just made, a sublime irony just occurred to me:
Neil Barofsky -- a real window on the dodgy books in our government -- is in title and in fact a government employee.
Winehole23
10-28-2010, 05:50 AM
@ ...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.