Posted on 08/05/2011 8:52:17 AM PDT by Eagle of Liberty
During a Senate floor speech on Aug. 2, 2011 -- shortly before a vote on the final debt-ceiling bill -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., compared the job-creation records of President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush.
"My friend (Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.) talks about no new taxes," Reid said. "Mr. President, if their theory was right, with these huge (tax cuts) that took place during the Bush eight years, the economy should be thriving. These tax cuts have not helped the economy. The loss of eight million jobs during the Bush eight years, two wars started, unfunded, all on borrowed money, these tax cuts all on borrowed money -- if the tax cuts were so good, the economy should be thriving. If we go back to the prior eight years during President Clinton’s administration, 23 million new jobs were created."
A reader asked us whether Reid was correct that there was a "loss of eight million jobs during the Bush eight years." So we looked into it.
As always, we looked at jobs numbers compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the government’s official source of employment data.
During Bush’s eight years in office -- January 2001 to January 2009 -- the nation actually gained a net 1.09 million jobs. (Because there were gains in government jobs, the private sector actually lost 653,000 jobs during that period.)
This isn’t remotely close to what Reid claimed. Reid's office didn't respond to our request for information, but we think we know what he was referring to.
From the economy’s peak to its low point, the nation lost 8.75 million jobs. Here’s the problem: The peak for jobs came in January 2008, while the low point for jobs came in February 2010. This means the starting point for Reid’s measure came seven years into Bush’s eight-year tenure, and the low point occurred about a year into Barack Obama’s tenure.
In other words, Reid had a point in saying that there was a "loss of eight million jobs" -- but it didn’t come "during the Bush eight years." The loss of eight million jobs occurred during a roughly two-year period shared more or less equally between Bush and Obama.
Reid may blame Bush’s policies for every single one of those jobs lost -- an opinion he’s entitled to, but one we are unable to fact-check. Still, his statement is incorrect as spoken.
Reid went on to say, "If we go back to the prior eight years during President Clinton’s administration, 23 million new jobs were created." We looked at the BLS numbers and found that Reid was basically correct in that claim. From January 1993 to January 2001, the nation gained 22.7 million total jobs.
This means that Reid specifically counted Clinton’s job-creation numbers from his inauguration day to the date he exited from office, but he did not do so for Bush, even though he used the Clinton figure as a direct comparison. It strikes us as a clear-cut case of cherry-picking.
So where does this leave us? Reid is correct that more than 8 million jobs were lost in the United States during the recent economic downturn, but he’s flat wrong to say that it happened "during the Bush eight years." Compounding the error, Reid makes a direct comparison between Bush and Clinton, yet he uses one method that makes Clinton’s number seem strong and Bush’s number seem weak. We rate Reid’s statement Pants on Fire.
The media NEEDS to start doing its job and start holding CONGRESS responsible for some of this stuff as well. It is a complete lack of responsibility for a Congressional Leader to stand in the halls of Congress and take zero responsibility when you are 1 of the 535 LAWMAKERS in the Federal Government. Reid, YOU make the rules that we all have to abide by. Well, laws that at least most of us have to abide by.
Facts don’t matter to the Democrats. Harry Reid saw a way to slam the Republicans with a false misleading statement, and he did that.
Will the MSM fact check Harry’s statement? Not likely. So now we will hear that 8 million jobs were lost during the Bush administration repeated as gospel.
And when we get into the presidential p*ssing contests on this issue,the Democrats will say that for all of the problems in the Obama economy, that fewer jobs were lost under Obama than under Bush.
Funny, but I recall 4.2% unemployment under GWB.
Bush has been out of office how many years now, Harry?
Did anyone from the Damn Stupid Party get up and challenge the ass-hat on any of this crap? If not, why not. Why are “we” silent while these lunatics keep pounding on us? What the hell is going on in Washington?
how many homes, jobs and businesses have been lost just in NV under Harry Reid?
The Democrats will say anything at any time. The truth means nothing to them. They must be stopped.
And I remember the LSM screaming about a horrible job market when that number went up to 5.5%, even though that’s close to what economists used to consider “full employment.”
But now close to 10% (really more like 16%) is just fine.
Gee, I wonder why? /spit
Respond to Harry Reid @SenatorReid on Twitter. He needs some feedback.
Obama’s Deficit Avalanche isn’t Bush’s Fault / scottuystarnes.com / 2/9/2010
SOURCE http://scottystarnes.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/obama-deficit.jpg?w=400&h=308
Washington Times reports: Even more staggering than the mountains of snow in the capital are the deficits the Obama administration plans for the next decade. Huge spending increases will add about $12 trillion to the national debt for budget years 2009 to 2020.
The scariest part is that these deficits are based on unrealistic budgeting assumptions; the real fiscal outlook is much bleaker. In the proposed 2011 budget, the White House defensively attacks the “irresponsibility of past” deficits.
For example, the 2009 budget deficit of $1.4 trillion is blamed on the George W. Bush administration as if President Obama’s $862 billion stimulus package and more than $400 billion supplemental spending bill had nothing to do with it. Mr. Obama’s planned 2010 budget deficit rises to an even higher record level of $1.6 trillion.
By comparison, all of Mr. Bush’s deficits from 2002 to 2008 – the seven years during which his team had the most control over the budget – produced a combined deficit of $2.1 trillion.
Obama has spent more in 2 years than Bush did in 7 years. Obama’s BIOB (Blame it on Bush) defense just won’t work anymore.
bflr
So if someone has a well paying job for 7.5 years and then loses it during a downturn, that is a failure of the former president, but if the next president comes in and the same person cannot get a job for going on three years or has to take one with terrible pay, things are all good. This is the thought process of a liberal.
This is what panic looks like. Somehow “blame Bush” ain’t gonna cut it this time.
lesseee...under a Democrat Congress since January 2007...unemployment has doubled....so by liberal reasoning...if Dubya “lost” 8,000,0000 jobs...why ‘Bammy’s lost 160000000!!!!
Harry you were in office then also so what good did you do? How many times did you spend our Social Security monies? Have you done anything to help the people?
Yup. Robert Reich blames double-dip on Republicans. Tea Party are terrorists. Bush lost all these jobs.
The fear is growing among the liberals because they know what happened in 2010 (when the economic numbers were better) and can foresee a bloodbath in 2012.
And not one republican stood up on the floor and challenged Harry “Warren Jeffs” Reid.
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.