obama eliminated more government jobs than any republican

F

Free Thinker

CHART: Bush Vs. Obama On Private And Public Sector Job Creation

Even with today’s disappointing and troubling jobs report, private sector job creation under President Obama has far exceeded private sector job creation under President Bush. 40 months into his presidential term, there are currently more private sector jobs in the economy than when Obama came into office. At the same point in President Bush’s term, the total number of private sector jobs was still down 1.7 percent from where it began.

The numbers are even starker when measuring each president’s record from the moment job creation returned. Private sector job creation returned in February of 2010, the 13th month of President Obama’s term. Since then, the economy has added 4.3 million private sector jobs, a 4 percent increase.

Under President Bush, the economy stopped shedding private sector jobs in July of 2003, fully 30 months into his administration. From that point until May of 2004, the economy added just 1.5 million private sector jobs, an increase of only 1.4 percent.

But there is one area of job creation where President Bush clearly outshines President Obama: the public sector. Public sector employment is now down 608,000 workers since January 2009, a 2.7 percent decline. At the same point in President Bush’s term, public sector employment was up 3.7 percent. If, over the past 40 months, public sector employment had grown at the same pace as it did in President Bush’s first term, there would be 1.4 million additional people at work right now. That’d be enough to bring the unemployment rate down by nearly a full percentage point.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/01/493849/obama-bush-jobs-record/?mobile=nc
 
Don't muddy the the waters with facts, FreeThinker. The Republican are
on a one way trip into the post-fact era, irretrievably consigned to the twilight zone of ideological fantasy.
 
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/artic...unhappy-under-obama?google_editors_picks=true


... If you are on disability, you are not considered to be in the labor force either. As of April, we have added 5.5 million people to the disability rolls since the beginning of 2009, several million above the previous trend. There are now roughly 9 million people on disability. In 1992, there was one person on disability for every 35 workers. It is now about one for every 16 workers. It is hard to believe that so many people have become disabled; disability has literally become another fallback position for people out of work. If disability had stayed at the pre-recession growth rate, unemployment would be at least one percentage point higher, leading to a true unemployment rate much closer to 10 percent and perhaps significantly more...

... Underemployment is still in the range of 16 percent, and that does not count people who have a job for which they are overqualified or who are making much less money because they are aren't working in their chosen field. John Williams at Shadowstats, who uses the U.S. government methodology from 30 years ago, tells us that the U-6 unemployment rate is around 23 percent. The difference is in how you create the model. The feds keep changing the rules, and it should be no surprise that with each new rule the number of people officially counted as unemployed drops...
 
Quote from tomdavis:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/artic...unhappy-under-obama?google_editors_picks=true


... If you are on disability, you are not considered to be in the labor force either. As of April, we have added 5.5 million people to the disability rolls since the beginning of 2009, several million above the previous trend. There are now roughly 9 million people on disability. In 1992, there was one person on disability for every 35 workers. It is now about one for every 16 workers. It is hard to believe that so many people have become disabled; disability has literally become another fallback position for people out of work. If disability had stayed at the pre-recession growth rate, unemployment would be at least one percentage point higher, leading to a true unemployment rate much closer to 10 percent and perhaps significantly more...

... Underemployment is still in the range of 16 percent, and that does not count people who have a job for which they are overqualified or who are making much less money because they are aren't working in their chosen field. John Williams at Shadowstats, who uses the U.S. government methodology from 30 years ago, tells us that the U-6 unemployment rate is around 23 percent. The difference is in how you create the model. The feds keep changing the rules, and it should be no surprise that with each new rule the number of people officially counted as unemployed drops...
More...
totally off subject. we are talking about public sector job growth under obama.
who is the last republican to reduce public sector employment?
 
Quote from Free Thinker:

CHART: Bush Vs. Obama On Private And Public Sector Job Creation

Even with today’s disappointing and troubling jobs report, private sector job creation under President Obama has far exceeded private sector job creation under President Bush. 40 months into his presidential term, there are currently more private sector jobs in the economy than when Obama came into office. At the same point in President Bush’s term, the total number of private sector jobs was still down 1.7 percent from where it began.

The numbers are even starker when measuring each president’s record from the moment job creation returned. Private sector job creation returned in February of 2010, the 13th month of President Obama’s term. Since then, the economy has added 4.3 million private sector jobs, a 4 percent increase.

Under President Bush, the economy stopped shedding private sector jobs in July of 2003, fully 30 months into his administration. From that point until May of 2004, the economy added just 1.5 million private sector jobs, an increase of only 1.4 percent.

But there is one area of job creation where President Bush clearly outshines President Obama: the public sector. Public sector employment is now down 608,000 workers since January 2009, a 2.7 percent decline. At the same point in President Bush’s term, public sector employment was up 3.7 percent. If, over the past 40 months, public sector employment had grown at the same pace as it did in President Bush’s first term, there would be 1.4 million additional people at work right now. That’d be enough to bring the unemployment rate down by nearly a full percentage point.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/01/493849/obama-bush-jobs-record/?mobile=nc
More...

The author of the article compares Bush's first term with Obama's, but conveniently fails to mention an event now referred to as "9/11." Perhaps he was too young to remember the government's response.
 
Quote from Free Thinker:

totally off subject. we are talking about public sector job growth under obama.
who is the last republican to reduce public sector employment?
More...

It's not off subject. It provides temporal economic context for the analysis.
 
Under President Bush, the economy stopped shedding private sector jobs in July of 2003, fully 30 months into his administration. From that point until May of 2004, the economy added just 1.5 million private sector jobs, an increase of only 1.4 percent.
-------------------------------------------------------

Geesus Christo you guys who post this crapola. Remember 911? Nothing comparable regarding what happened to the economy.

Re public sector jobs, this is when we got the Homeland security dept and tsa along with major personnel additions to gov't agencies.

The only reason gov't employement might be down during oBama's term is because people don't want to work for him or with him, Obama is a putz. Even tax cheater geithner doesn't want to work for him. Pretty sad when dregs quit.
 
Quote from nutmeg:



The only reason gov't employement might be down during oBama's term is because people don't want to work for him or with him, Obama is a putz. Even tax cheater geithner doesn't want to work for him. Pretty sad when dregs quit.
More...
brilliant analysis.... for a 12 year old. is logical thinking a lost art with you guys?
 
Quote from nutmeg:

Geesus Christo you guys who post this crapola. Remember 911? Nothing comparable regarding what happened to the economy.

Re public sector jobs, this is when we got the Homeland security dept and tsa along with major personnel additions to gov't agencies.
More...

The author of the referenced article provides a comparative statistical analysis, but never bothers to statistically control for the effects of 9/11. This type of analysis, if submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, would be found so deficient that it would be tossed out during preliminary review.
 
Quote from tomdavis:

The author of the referenced article provides a comparative statistical analysis, but never bothers to statistically control for the effects of 9/11. This type of analysis, if submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, would be found so deficient that it would be tossed out during preliminary review.
More...
why should he. the response to 911 would not have had to have been a whole new department called homeland security. bush gets credit for that. the republicans controlled all branches of government back then. i guess its different when republicans think of something they want to expand government for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top