ONTD Political

Obama made jobs and isn't working towards terroristic economic crashes of America? INCONCEIVABLE

6:36 pm - 11/24/2010

It’s Official: More Private Sector Jobs Created In 2010 Than During Entire Bush Years

By Ole Ole Olson


October 8, 2010

The September jobs report was just released and demonstrates that America is on a far slower path to recovery than anyone originally predicted. Despite this, the shedding of government jobs cloaks a glimmer of hope: more private sector jobs have been created this year than during the entire Bush administration. Read that again: 2010 has had more private job creation than during the entire 8 year tenure of George W. Bush.

This is the 9th straight month of private sector job growth in the midst of a devastating recession that has put a serious strain mostly on the poor and middle class. There has been a total of 863,000 private sector jobs created in 2010, exceeding the total created under the Bush/Cheney regime.

The numbers are not all good however. Companies added 64,000 jobs last month, but after the loss of 159,000 government jobs at all levels, there was a net shedding of ~95,000. The fading influence of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA or the economic stimulus) is causing much of the strain on the job market, as state and local governments still strained by poor revenue are cutting positions, particularly in education.

This is also the central agent that has caused the overall net job loss for the last four months, following a net gain for the first 5 months of the year. The net jobs gained during 2010 stands at 613,000, which is over half of the 1,080,000 jobs were created during the entire time George W. Bush was in office.

2010 Total Jobs Gained or Lost
January 14,000
February 39,000
March 208,000
April 313,000
May 432,000
June -175,000
July -66,000
August -57,000
September -95,000

After modest gains in January and February, March was the month with the greatest job gains in 3 years (since March 2007), and April 2010 was the biggest monthly job gain in 4 years (since March 2006). Beyond this, the increase in jobs from March to April is counter to the jobs trends of the last 10 years, where according to the average, March has gained 61,000 jobs and April only 32,000. The huge gain of 432,000 jobs in May 2010 is the largest net gain of jobs since March 2000 when Bill Clinton was president.

A commonly cited article by conservative pundits to soften the blow on this data is a Wall Street Journal piece titled, Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record, which inaccurately states that Bush created 3 million jobs. The actual figure is 1.08 million (all jobs added minus jobs lost), but the conservative leaning WSJ has yet to issue a retraction, correction, or clarification.

In the chart below found on the Bureau of Labor Statistics, find the monthly statistics of total jobs created or lost since January 2000.

Read the rest (and see many more charts!) at the source

Kind of old, hopefully it hasn't already been posted.

brucenstein 26th-Nov-2010 01:46 am (UTC)
You could have just said, "I have no answers."

How are questions bullshit - are you saying none of the above are legitimate? Why or why not?

Do you often find yourself enraged when people say things you don't understand?
nova_42 26th-Nov-2010 02:00 am (UTC)
lol, you have got to be one of the best trollers i've ever encountered. very entertaining. and yes your questions are bullshit, they are not legitimate at all. You've basically just wasted your time and everyone else's by commenting.You could probably find answers to your own questions by getting your news somewhere outside the realm of FAUX news. later douche-nozzle :)
brucenstein 26th-Nov-2010 02:31 am (UTC)
1: Wait, so acknowledging very well known and actually advertised "lag times" and then theorizing that if such existed in a sufficient amount then it may be inappropriate to attribute success to the "current" guy isn't legitimate? What is illegitimate about it? Bear in mind that, "Because I say so," typically isn't an accepted answer.

2: Is structurally true; the Fed was set up as independent of political influence for the very reason that the body politic didn't want congress in control of their own money. (You think spending is bad now, what do you think would be the case if it were congress controlling the presses?) Here I'll even help you on this one: a potential answer you could give is because monetary policy is often thought of as less effective than fiscal policy, and such effectiveness in the depths of a recession could certainly be even more trivialized to the point of near irrelevance. I'd argue against that, sure, so the rest of your homework is up to you.

3: Question: who was more responsible for passing TARP: George Bush or the Congress? Please bear in mind that the first iteration of it failed in the congress.

4: This should be self-evident. I am sorry for my failing that I cannot find another way to say, "it could just be that economic forces are so strong that any measures against them are of little effect, so why are you attributing certain effects to certain causes". When answering, please remember that economics is a complex science. That is, there are no controls.

I should insert a question 5: Why do you think someone who is contending an assumed premise with reasonable inquiries is "trolling"?

Oh, I do so look forward to your showing exactly how these questions are illegitimate.
This page was loaded Aug 4th 2015, 6:06 pm GMT.