Obama Has Created More Jobs Than Bush

PostmodernProphet said:
you mean you haven't been paying attention.....there are in fact fewer people employed today than there were when Obama was elected.....if you wish to verify this you can check any of the half dozen links I provided in this thread who all confirm it......
Click to expand...

Ah...Lies, damned lies...and statistics.

I should have been more careful. There may be fewer people employed today than when he was elected. But without any context, that is as meaningless as the OP's claim, also without context, that Obama has "created more jobs than Bush." Obama is not an economic genius, but he's not useless, either. We're still climbing out of a big, big hole.

Obama came on board in January 2009, amidst the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and unemployment was officially around 11%, probably closer to 15% depending upon how it is measured. Things were still falling fast until about January 2010 when things bottomed out. If more jobs were created during Obama's tenure (and that doesn't mean his policies necessarily "created" them, or that Obama has added more total jobs) that doesn't mean that the economy is healthy. '36 - '37 was also a period of dynamic job growth, but we were still in deep into the Depression and unemployment was still brutal.

GDP is the best measure of economic strength, and since 2008 we've averaged a miserable 2.2% GDP.

Could another president have done much better than Obama? Probably not. There were very few tools at a president's disposal. The Fed could not reduce interests rates much more to stimulate borrowing and spending, considering they were already super low. A president could try to stimulate by spending, or stimulate by tax cuts. Either way you increase the deficit. The Republicans' preferred tax cuts would have had a stimulatory effect too little and far too late to keep us from the abyss. And government cuts would have only added to the misery.

Obama is not going to get a Nobel Prize in economics. But he's not going to be blamed by historians for wrecking the economy, or the recovery as it is. We're in a very tough time where no matter what we do we're going to see anemic growth for the next decade at least.
 
maineman said:
The BLS data in the OP is conclusive. The fact that PiMP won't look at it is silly...
Click to expand...

is it even FROM the BLS?......if so, why is it different from the other data which IS from the BLS?......it isn't silly that I "won't" look at it......I have Howie on ignore.....should I remove him from ignore just to look at it?.....especially since Rose asked in #6 for the link which tells me it obviously wasn't provided in the OP.......
 
Falcon said:
Obama came on board in January 2009, amidst the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and unemployment was officially around 11%, probably closer to 15% depending upon how it is measured.
Click to expand...

except it wasn't.....perhaps you will recall that when Obama proposed the stimulus in February, 2009 he argued that it would keep unemployment below 8%.....why would he have said that if unemployment was between 11 and 15%?.........
 
PostmodernProphet said:
except it wasn't.....perhaps you will recall that when Obama proposed the stimulus in February, 2009 he argued that it would keep unemployment below 8%.....why would he have said that if unemployment was between 11 and 15%?.........
Click to expand...

What "wasn't"? It wasn't the worst economic crisis since the Depression? Unemployment wasn't officially around 11% and possibly more like 15%? Your answer is a non-sequitor.

We agree that from the moment he swore in as president in Jan 2009 that the economy and unemployment continued to crumble, until about Jan. 2010. And since then we've been stumbling in fits and starts back to health.

I'd love to hear what you think would have happend without the Stimulus, or any other ideas besides pointing out the obvious, that happy days are not yet here again.
 
Falcon said:
How? Really, what were the obvious things that any president could have done?
Click to expand...

the first thing that should have been done was a tax amnesty allowing any money outside the US to be brought back tax free if it was used to create jobs in the US......some have claimed there is as much as $40 trillion being held overseas......that would have been a serious kick to the economy and wouldn't have cost the government a penny.....

the second thing would have been opening up all US domestic fuel production......the whole country could have had the boom that ND had.....again, it wouldn't have cost the government anything......
 
Random pointless rant. Does anyone else find it annoying to hear "so and so created X number of jobs" instead "X number of jobs were created under so and so's administration"?

One person did not individually create 1,5,10 or 20 million jobs. Those number of jobs could have been created while their administration was in power but one person did not do all that.

Sorry, rant/venting over.
 
Falcon said:
What "wasn't"? It wasn't the worst economic crisis since the Depression? Unemployment wasn't officially around 11% and possibly more like 15%? Your answer is a non-sequitor.
Click to expand...

since I specifically spoke about unemployment rates I suspect most folks were able to figure it out....without the stimulus?....you mean the trillion dollars we spent that we didn't have that didn't create a single job that lasted more than 12 months?......that stimulus?.....well, one thing that would have happened without the stimulus is we wouldn't have wasted the trillion dollars.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the first thing that should have been done was a tax amnesty allowing any money outside the US to be brought back tax free if it was used to create jobs in the US......some have claimed there is as much as $40 trillion being held overseas......that would have been a serious kick to the economy and wouldn't have cost the government a penny.....

the second thing would have been opening up all US domestic fuel production......the whole country could have had the boom that ND had.....again, it wouldn't have cost the government anything......
Click to expand...

I'd go for the tax amnesty. The domestic fuel production is good too, but it would not have happened fast enough to pull the economy out of a dive. The Stimulus was an emergency act, because every week we were getting in deeper. Not sure if the tax amnesty could have saved us fast enough, either.
 
cawacko said:
Random pointless rant. Does anyone else find it annoying to hear "so and so created X number of jobs" instead "X number of jobs were created under so and so's administration"?

One person did not individually create 1,5,10 or 20 million jobs. Those number of jobs could have been created while their administration was in power but one person did not do all that.

Sorry, rant/venting over.
Click to expand...

"you didn't create that".......
 
I think this one is the most telling.....the employment to population ratio......take into account the increased population since Obama became president.....

source BLS....
EMRATIO_Max_630_378.png
 
nope.....I find it interesting though that it took four pages before someone else bothered to look for facts.....none of the data I presented is incorrect.....
 
Are you saying that my data is "incorrect"? Or will you admit that the BLS data that I presented (and that was fully available to you if you weren't such a fucking nancy boy - I mean, really...you put a guy on ignore but somehow feel compelled to post on his threads???) shows that I was completely accurate when I said, and you disputed, that more folks are working now than when Obama came into office, which MEANS that he has created more jobs than he has lost?

Douchebag.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top