You give too much credit to the Administration, I think you mean Congress and the Senate. They are the law makers who created the regalutory burdens in the first place. By the way, talking about a friendly environtment for employment creation, did you see the jobs numbers for the month of October? 337,000 Jobs!!!
Yes, we should all pray for more destructive hurricanes to hit Florida to help generate temporary, government subsidized, construction jobs. </sarcasm>
From the BLS: 71,000 of those jobs were in construction (thank you hurricanes!); the labor force grew by 367,000 people in October (30,000 fewer jobs were created than people entering the labor force); Government created in the neighborhood of 70,000 of these new jobs (so much for shrinking government).
Did you actually READ the stats?
40,000+ of those "jobs" were in Gummint.
Wow!!!!
Some were in construction, many were "temporary;"--it's the Christmas retail season, you know.
And the rest were in wait-staff.
Tell us about the DOL's number for MANUFACTURING, please.
Notice that the dims mantra is always X=millions "manufacturing" jobs lost.
Sounds good - or bad - if one isn't listening carefully. They never addressed how many new-type of jobs were created that filled that vacuum...because that isn't good for their bash-Bush rhetoric.
The sheeple would pick up the lost-jobs mantra and run with it.
Most of the new jobs are created by small business or self-business. These are people the gov't can't control like they can the big businesses.
Independence is abhorant to the dims (who are now socialists).
No one dare say out loud - "OK. Many manufacturing jobs are now lost to overseas. But what have the manufactuirng jobs traditionally been, for the most part? A Little above sweatshop jobs. Is it a bad thing that these are replaced by better jobs?"
Next time you hear the half-lie "Bush has lost x-million "factory" jobs..." call 'em on it.