Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama's jobs record: Better than Bush's
CNN Money ^ | 9/18/12 | Chris Isidork

Posted on 09/18/2012 6:22:35 AM PDT by listenhillary

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 last
To: StAnDeliver

Chris Isidore. U of Chicago. ‘78-’92, according to LinkedIn.

The U of Chicago continues to sink into academic irrelevance.

Bush’s jobs were real, and were a net benefit to the country.

BHO’s jobs are government jobs that don’t benefit the country. In fact, he hampers beneficial gov’t jobs in favor of gov’t jobs that hamper economic growth.


41 posted on 09/18/2012 7:32:09 AM PDT by Calvin Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: IMR 4350

Your post about those racist facts inspired me...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2932766/posts


42 posted on 09/18/2012 7:37:13 AM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Good stuff.

You know liberalism is a mental disorder because they create their own reality.


43 posted on 09/18/2012 8:02:14 AM PDT by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Nice chart!

But, I don’t think that it tells the whole story.

I don’t believe that since 1949 that if you stopped looking for employment, you came off the unemployment rolls, as is done today.

I also don’t think that there were 8 million unemployed on permanent disability, and therefore not counted as unemployed, as there is today.


44 posted on 09/18/2012 8:41:36 AM PDT by Noob1999 (Loose Lips, Sink Ships)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Noob1999

I know that too. Its really more than 12% and closer to 20% if you count the really underemployed


45 posted on 09/18/2012 8:43:20 AM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary
This is some pretty serous spin all around, especially this:

By comparison, the unemployment rate today is only slightly higher than the 7.8% rate on the day Obama was sworn in, and slightly better than the 8.3% reading a few weeks later.

Completely leaving out the dramatic drop in the labor force participation rate - with those people included the unemployment rate has steadily climbed under Obama's tenure from 7.8% to 11.2%. That is not a good record.

The author of this piece actually wants us to believe that more and more people getting so discouraged they have simply given up looking for work bringing down the unemployment rate is a sign of economic recovery. The labor force participation rate is at a 30 year low - devastating.

46 posted on 09/18/2012 8:50:01 AM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ILS21R
So what's the REAL unemployment rate? 8.3%, 12%, 23%. Who knows? I suspect that the BLS itself doesn't really know. But that participation rate chart speaks volumes. Romney needs to pound nobama on that every time he (Romney) opens his mouth.

When did the rate fall off the cliff? When was nobama anointed? There ya go.

Here's the chart with better gradations:

From Business Insider.

47 posted on 09/18/2012 9:13:33 AM PDT by upchuck (If nobama is reelected and gets to choose more SCOTUS judges, this country is finished.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

The charts in replies 32 and 47 completely denigrate this article’s false headline. Those charts are devastating for nobama and need to be widely disseminated. nobama has NO defense for the truth spoken by those charts.

That fall off the cliff starting in 2009 is truly breathtaking.


48 posted on 09/18/2012 9:30:16 AM PDT by upchuck (If nobama is reelected and gets to choose more SCOTUS judges, this country is finished.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

The key words???

“According to CURRENT ESTIMATES of the same period”.

How come there aren’t actual figures recorded somewhere?

We are only comparing figures that are about 4 years apart—not 104 years apart.


49 posted on 09/18/2012 9:52:23 AM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ridesthemiles

The rest of the story.

“The data that was reported eight years ago was somewhat different, compared with current figures looking at that period, since revisions have taken place in the months and years that followed. But on Election Day 2004, the readings at the time showed the economy with 585,000 fewer jobs than when Bush took office.”


50 posted on 09/18/2012 9:57:44 AM PDT by listenhillary (Courts, law enforcement, roads and national defense should be the extent of government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

The “Household Survey” (as opposed to the “Payroll Survey”) shows a 2 million GAIN in jobs in Bush’s first term, versus a LOSS for Obama. From Bureau of Labor Statistics - Bloomberg ticker USEMADJP - US Employment Smoothed for Population Controls and Adjusted to a Payroll Concept, seasonally adjusted.

Bush Term 1 to August 2004 GAIN of 1,953,000 jobs
1/2001 - 130,098,000
8/2004 - 132,051,000

Obamination Term 1 (and only!) to August 2012 LOSS of 407,000 jobs
1/2009 - 135,620,000
8/2012 - 135,213,000

www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ces_cps_trends.pdf


51 posted on 09/18/2012 11:34:59 AM PDT by brookwood (. Bush's First Term 2 million jobs created! - using BLS Household Survey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

no need to create jobs when unemployment stays below 5%which is equivalent to full employment. It is properly said that there are always 5% unable or unwilling to work.


52 posted on 09/18/2012 2:55:49 PM PDT by elpadre (AfganistaMr Obama said the goal was to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-hereQaeda" and its allies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elpadre
no need to create jobs when unemployment stays below 5%

Exactly. It's their way of lying without lying (in their minds). They are not saying Bush had worse unemployment or fewer people working (or the Obama has better employment or more people working). Which is the way they know most people will interpret it.
They are saying that Bush hasn't personally created more jobs under his administration than Obama. It's how they are saying MA had worse job "creation" under Romney even though unemployment was less when he left than when he came into office.

53 posted on 09/18/2012 3:02:40 PM PDT by techcor (I hope Obama succeeds, in being a one term president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson