Private Sector job growth since Dec 2009 beats anything Bush ever accomplished

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yes, we need more jobs to replace those lost since 2007 but these numbers paint a picture that is squarely opposite to the nonsensical claims made over there on the right. Bottom line is that the economy added as many private sector jobs just since Dec last year as it did on average over the course of three years during Bush's presidency.

• Since December 2009, private sector employment has risen by 1.1 million
  
• Economy has gained 829,000 jobs over the last year
  

Forgotten, too, is the jobless recovery out of the recession at the beginning of the Bush administration. Still in 2004, the President's Economic Report stated that "In particular, the recovery in employment — although now under way — lagged the upturn in output by a much longer period than in prior recessions." This was 3 years after the 2001 tax cuts and a year after the 2003 tax cuts that were promoised to create 5.5 million jobs. Nothing close to that actually ever materialized. But we're now looking to apply the same unsuccessful recipe once more rather than contiuing with the policies that actually show signs of success. Only in America...

[JohnSmith2007 353]

The unemployment rate is 9.6%. Under Bush it was around 4%. What are you smoking?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The unemployment rate is 9.6%. Under Bush it was around 4%. What are you smoking?

Relatively low unemployment rates are not necessarily reflective of strong job growth.

Job Creation

A principal Administration justification for its tax cuts, particularly over the past year, has been their importance for job generation. The tax bills passed by Congress were somewhat less inefficient at stimulating the economy than the President’s original proposals. Even so, the results in this area have been poor.

The Administration’s February 2004 Economic Report of the President itself noted that: “The performance of employment in this recovery has lagged that in the typical recovery and even that in the ‘jobless recovery’ of 1990-1991.”

Employment remains substantially below its level at the start of the downturn, an unparalleled development this far into a post-World War II recovery. (Substantial job growth typically occurs by this point.) As of March 2004, there were still two million fewer jobs than when employment last peaked in March 2001.

For three years, the Administration has been claiming its tax cuts would boost employment. But for three years, actual job growth has fallen far short of Administration expectations. For example, since the summer of 2003, the Economic Policy Institute has been comparing actual job growth to the amount of job growth the Administration predicted would occur with the passage of the 2003 tax-cut bill. The Administration predicted that with the passage of the tax-cut measure, 5.5 million jobs would be created in the 18 months from June 2003 through December 2004. In the first nine months of this 18-month period, a relatively modest 689,000 jobs were created, just 13 percent of the Administration’s projection.

President Bush and his Administration have highlighted a different labor market statistic — the relatively low unemployment rate of 5.7 percent (in March 2004). This level, however, is misleading. It does not reflect significant job growth and labor market strength; instead, it reflects an unusual decline in the number of people looking for a job. This decline is a sign of labor-market weakness, as it presumably indicates that people are dropping out of the labor force because they do not believe job prospects are promising. If labor force participation had been the same in March 2004 as in March 2001, when the downturn began, the unemployment rate in March 2004 would have equaled about 7.4 percent, rather than 5.7 percent.[6]

Job growth during this recovery might have lagged behind that of previous recoveries even if the recent economic policies had been better designed. Nonetheless, the exceptionally poor job growth of recent years suggests the Administration’s tax cuts have largely failed to accomplish one of its stated policy goals. The inefficiency of the tax cuts when it came to providing short-term stimulus makes this failure less surprising.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

All I can say to you is .

It must be nice in your little fantasy world. It is to bad I gave up drugs, I would ask that you share whatever it is you are on.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Of course, this is hackery at its best as well.

You cannot discount the unemployment rate, nor can you discount the amount of jobs that have been lost/regained as well.

Calculating job 'growth' doesn't factor in the amount of jobs that have been lost over the past few years either. So really it's not so much growth, as jobs that are being replaced/re-added.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

gullible

A adjective

1 gullible

easily tricked because of being too trusting; "gullible tourists taken in by the shell game"

2 fleeceable, green, gullible

naive and easily deceived or tricked; "at that early age she had been gullible and in love"

I would add this as well,

3 Believes in the "hope and change" regardless of reality.

Edited November 5, 2010 by JohnSmith2007

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

All I can say to you is .

It must be nice in your little fantasy world. It is to bad I gave up drugs, I would ask that you share whatever it is you are on.

Say, how many private sector jobs were created while Bush was in office? Going with the BLS numbers, prior to the big crash at the end of W's second term, he averaged a measely 370K private sector jobs added per annum. That compares to an average of 1.76MM p.a. during the 8 years preceeding W and to the roughly 1MM created during Obama's second year in office.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Relatively low unemployment rates are not necessarily reflective of strong job growth.

EPI? Union hacks all!

http://www.epi.org/pages/board/

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

EPI? Union hacks all!

http://www.epi.org/pages/board/

Funny. Bush's report conceded that very point. But I guess his administration was packed with union hacks, too.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Say, how many private sector jobs were created while Bush was in office? Going with the BLS numbers, prior to the big crash at the end of W's second term, he averaged a measely 370K private sector jobs added per annum. That compares to an average of 1.76MM p.a. during the 8 years preceeding W and to the roughly 1MM created during Obama's second year in office.

4% unemployment vs 9.6% unemployment. If you have full employment then you don't need to create jobs because everyone already has one. Keep hanging onto that hope and change! Some day it may do you some good.

[Danno 1,228]

Seriously, isn't this a little like a crow pointing to the dawning of the Sun and trying to take credit?

It was commonly believed our economy would correct its self the only question was -How long would it take?

Another question: How much effect did the trillions we will spend on the "stimulous" have on the slow recovery?

* I should note, I only partially blame Obama for getting us in this economic mess.

Had he spent less time trying to massage his opposition to Iraq into a campaign and more on what was important,

he might have had some effect on preventing, or minimizing the failure of systems Washington was supposed to be watching (if not riding herd over).

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Funny. Bush's report conceded that very point. But I guess his administration was packed with union hacks, too.

Keep arguing that Bush was worse than Obama. That won't solve anything, and neither will front groups like CBPP and EPI.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

4% unemployment vs 9.6% unemployment. If you have full employment then you don't need to create jobs because everyone already has one. Keep hanging onto that hope and change! Some day it may do you some good.

Bush started with an unemployment rate of 4.2% and ended with 7.6%. When he left the office, the economy and already lost 3.6 million jobs and continued to shed jobs at a rate of 700K per month. That's the data. Make of it what you want, but the reality is that things certainly look a hell of a lot better today than they did in Jan of 2009. Job creation since the end of this recession has been stronger than it has been when the comparatively minor recession that Bush inherited ended. You can ride on the ultra low unemployment rate that Bush was fortunate enough to inherit but it doesn't make the case that the economic policies of his administration have been good for employment - they weren't.

[luckytxn 2,265]

If the economy has grown so many jobs then why has the the unemployment rate stayed so high? Also how much of the gains are due to the massive amount of stimulus money and what will happen when that stimulus money that created those jobs is gone? Since the stimulus money from the Feds could only go to companies that were unionized and the unions are a fraction of the work force than doesn't that mean that most people are not affected by these rosy numbers?

Prime the pump and water will come but stop priming the pump and water will stop flowing unless the pump is primed again. So do we need to keep priming the pump to get the union jobs up and the little jobs that actually produces fro the common people but gives Obama the Socialist something to crow about finally?

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Bush started with an unemployment rate of 4.2% and ended with 7.6%. When he left the office, the economy and already lost 3.6 million jobs and continued to shed jobs at a rate of 700K per month. That's the data. Make of it what you want, but the reality is that things certainly look a hell of a lot better today than they did in Jan of 2009. Job creation since the end of this recession has been stronger than it has been when the comparatively minor recession that Bush inherited ended. You can ride on the ultra low unemployment rate that Bush was fortunate enough to inherit but it doesn't make the case that the economic policies of his administration have been good for employment - they weren't.

Yep, your right. We did have 7.6 unemployment when Bush left. You know when the 4% employment rate went away? When the dems took congress in 2007. They are the ones responsible for the disaster that Obama inherited. That is why it isn't going away now. They just kept doing the same things that ruined our economy in the first place.