Posted on 07/21/2010 10:15:13 PM PDT by blam
US Jobs Data: One Reason Why It Might Not Be Getting Better
By Bill Bonner
07/20/10 Vancouver, British Columbia – And here’s an interesting item that is going around the Internet: If July has ides, this is it.
Ever Had A Job?
A chart that showed past presidents and the percentage of each president’s cabinet appointees who had previously worked in the private sector – you know, a real life business, not a government job? Remember what that is? A private business?
•Roosevelt – 38%
•Taft – 40%
•Wilson – 52%
•Harding – 49%
•Coolidge – 48%
•Hoover – 42%
•FDR – 50%
•Truman – 50%
•Eisenhower – 57%
•Kennedy – 30%
•LBJ – 47%
•Nixon – 53%
•Ford – 42%
•Carter – 32%
•Reagan – 56%
•GHWB – 51%
•Clinton – 39%
•GWB – 55%
And the Chicken Dinner Winner is…………………….
•Obama – 8%*
This is the guy who wants to tell YOU how to run YOUR life!
ONLY ONE IN TWELVE in the Obama Cabinet HAS EVER HAD A JOB.
*YEP, EIGHT PERCENT!
And these are the guys holding a “job summit”; going to tell us how to run our businesses, make our decisions for us? Do you want to trust them with every aspect of your life?
The President of Rule by Academe (except it’s kind of hard to actually prove the Bummer Himself went to college at all).
What is so LOL is that Jimmuh Cahtuh’s administration beats his 4 to 1!
What does this really mean, though. The employment #s were far better under Clinton than Bush, even though only 39% of Clinton’s people had private sector exp vs 55% of Bush’s. If that factor really mattered the results would have been reversed.
I will concede that the 8% under Obama is very low.
Yes, but George Bush didn't benefit from an explosion in technological advancements, namely the the computer processor that gave us the ubiquity of the PC, and the inter-connectivity of the net, which helped drive productivity to previously unimagined levels.
Simply put, Clinton go lucky - damned lucky.
>> What does this really mean, though.
Double rainbows, man - double rainbows :(
Clinton also had something that may be even more important set up by Poppy Bush and Scwarzkopf. Low energy prices.
Oil crashed after Gulf War 1. So Clinton had 8 years of cheap energy which is HUGE.
Today a saudi agent’s job is to get as many American soldiers killed and the US military humiliated in Iraq and Afghan for the sa**i king and for I*lam.
Absolutely right, ODH. Very few people ever make that point. Connected internetworks and unbelievable gains in processing power in the 90s unleashed productivity gains that come along only once in a lifetime. Clinton is very lucky he didn’t snuff it all out with his tax increases.
Oil went as low as about $10.50 a barrel after Gulf War 1. It is better than anything for an economy including cheap money and lower taxes.
What this shows me is that liberals like to put people in power that haven’t got a clue to what it takes to work. No wonder we always get screwed by liberal presidents.
Wow! Just Wow!
Another thing about his work history I don’t see discussed much is that he evidently worked at Baskin-Robbins before he was able to do so legally. That means he has experience evading labor laws and taxes, no?
Another thing about his work history I don’t see discussed much is that he evidently worked at Baskin-Robbins before he was able to do so legally. That means he has experience evading labor laws and taxes, no?
And bragged about giving free ice cream only to his friends
Just like now!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ps
Wonder what his social security number was?
and his name???
Perhaps, I was just pointing out that Clinton had a fairly low porivate sector % and he did ok with jobs. So that figure isn’t the be all-end all. I was also referring to W, not his father. I think the PC and the Net were around from 2001-2008. I don’t think anyone would dispute that the economy was better under Clinton than W. The reasons for that are up for debate, but not the underlying reality.
He did perhaps compared to some of the other Presidents, but compared to Obama, Clinton had some 408% more private sector employees (if my math is right, which may not be likely)
The broader point that I was trying to make, is Clinton actually inherited a growing economy (history tells us the recession was firmly over by the time he took office), and then he benefited from circumstances really not of his making. George W. Bush, OTOH, inherited a recession that was still had some downward momentum when he took office, compounded by 9/11 just 8 or so months later. All things considered, W had a much tougher situation to manage.
I could make an argument that W even had a tougher situation than Obama, contrary to what most economist might say, but I suppose that's a different conversation. What is clear though, is that Obama has adopted some of the hostile policies to business in over 60 years. I'm sure a lot of that has to do with the fact that he doesn't have many people advising him that have actually worked in the private sector.
all good points. Ironically, one of the few Cabinet members of his with private sector exp is Hillary Clinton by way of her work at the infamous Rose Law Firm. Without her that 8% would be even lower.
Are You Looking For A Job?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2525821/posts
This thread has been updated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.