For Conservative: Obama Brings 28 Straight Months Of Positive Job Creation

[Black_Label]

Conservative has been trolling up a storm in numerous threads stating that I've been too mean to Willard and don't have enough pro-Obama topics, so here you go big guy

Obama still continues to show month after month of positive private sector jobs gains. He's created over 4.5 million new jobs and counting by the day. Thanks Obama!

 

[Conservative]

took you long enough. Now, show us the specific Obama policies that caused this.

 

[Full-Auto]

Conservative has been trolling up a storm in numerous threads stating that I've been too mean to Willard and don't have enough pro-Obama topics, so here you go big guy

Obama still continues to show month after month of positive private sector jobs gains. He's created over 4.5 million new jobs and counting by the day. Thanks Obama!

How did he create them?

Again with the parrot being unable to explain cause and effect.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama also gave us 42 consecutive months of 8% unemployment

 

[Katzndogz]

The bad part is, more people have gone on disability than have found jobs.

If this is the best obama can do, it is horrible. What it means is that we are one small downturn, for any reason, away from fiscal catastrophe.

 

[Black_Label]

took you long enough. Now, show us the specific Obama policies that caused this.

Gimme gimme gimme! Do this! Do that! Typical of you lazy ass right wingers, to lazy to do anything for yourselves and always asking for handouts and for people to do everything for you.

Get off your ass and educate yourself. Knowledge is power

 

[Conservative]

took you long enough. Now, show us the specific Obama policies that caused this.

Gimme gimme gimme! Do this! Do that! Typical of you lazy ass right wingers, to lazy to do anything for yourselves and always asking for handouts and for people to do everything for you.

Get off your ass and educate yourself. Knowledge is power

In other words, you have no fucking idea what, if any, policy or decisions Obama made would have any effect on job growth. Thanks for your honesty.

 

[hortysir]

took you long enough. Now, show us the specific Obama policies that caused this.

I thought the 09 Fiscal year belonged to Bush




These clowns find any chart, graph, or poll to support whatever minute point they want to promote and cling to it harder than a southerner to his Bible and guns.

 

[Conservative]

the truth about Obama's job 'growth'...
http://http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-economic-sleight-of-hand/

We’ve highlighted the best month under Bush — a 374,000 job gain in July 2005 — and the worst, the 818,000 job loss that took place during his final month in office, January 2009. (Since the Bureau of Labor Statistics bases its figures on a monthly survey covering the week that contains the 12th day, the entire January job loss took place before Obama was sworn in on the 20th.)

Obama’s best month was May 2010, but that’s due primarily to an artificial spike in temporary hiring by the Census Bureau to conduct the 2010 Census (427,000 federal jobs were added that month alone, of the 516,000 total jobs). That gain was erased in the months following, once the door-to-door Census canvass was completed.

Aside from the Census spike, Obama’s best month was January of this year, with a 275,000 job gain. That didn’t equal Bush’s best month, and it’s been downhill since then.

Our point here is that Obama’s jobs record can be made to look better or worse, depending on what’s being counted, and when.

 

[Avorysuds]

In a world where 80k jobs can drop the UE rates, graphs and charts as provided by the OP are meaningless.

Does anyone believe that we were going to lose 700k jobs a month for eternity? Even if Bush had a third and fourth term the loss of jobs would have slowed down.

The point is that you can’t claim Obama did things that never happened. Obama said UE would never go above 8%, 3 and a half years later with the most bogus numbers known to mankind we are still above 8%. BTW UE went above 10%. If Obama couldn’t even get that right then only a food would trust anything else he says…. Obama didn’t get a single benchmark right about Obamacare either.

 

[hortysir]

the truth about Obama's job 'growth'...
http://http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-economic-sleight-of-hand/

We’ve highlighted the best month under Bush — a 374,000 job gain in July 2005 — and the worst, the 818,000 job loss that took place during his final month in office, January 2009. (Since the Bureau of Labor Statistics bases its figures on a monthly survey covering the week that contains the 12th day, the entire January job loss took place before Obama was sworn in on the 20th.)

Obama’s best month was May 2010, but that’s due primarily to an artificial spike in temporary hiring by the Census Bureau to conduct the 2010 Census (427,000 federal jobs were added that month alone, of the 516,000 total jobs). That gain was erased in the months following, once the door-to-door Census canvass was completed.

Aside from the Census spike, Obama’s best month was January of this year, with a 275,000 job gain. That didn’t equal Bush’s best month, and it’s been downhill since then.

Our point here is that Obama’s jobs record can be made to look better or worse, depending on what’s being counted, and when.

Notice the difference in appearance of your chart and the OP?

Only takes the last ONE year of bush whole showing THREE of Obama.

 

[Black_Label]

the truth about Obama's job 'growth'...
http://http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-economic-sleight-of-hand/

We’ve highlighted the best month under Bush — a 374,000 job gain in July 2005 — and the worst, the 818,000 job loss that took place during his final month in office, January 2009. (Since the Bureau of Labor Statistics bases its figures on a monthly survey covering the week that contains the 12th day, the entire January job loss took place before Obama was sworn in on the 20th.)

Obama’s best month was May 2010, but that’s due primarily to an artificial spike in temporary hiring by the Census Bureau to conduct the 2010 Census (427,000 federal jobs were added that month alone, of the 516,000 total jobs). That gain was erased in the months following, once the door-to-door Census canvass was completed.

Aside from the Census spike, Obama’s best month was January of this year, with a 275,000 job gain. That didn’t equal Bush’s best month, and it’s been downhill since then.

Our point here is that Obama’s jobs record can be made to look better or worse, depending on what’s being counted, and when.

Holy hell are you right wingers dumb, did you not see the private sector jobs gain in the first post of the topic or clearly of the graph?

 

[hortysir]

Holy shit, BlackLabel, you didn't see that your pretty chart credits a Maddow BLOG, while Conservative's credits FactCheck?

 

[Black_Label]

the truth about Obama's job 'growth'...
http://http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-economic-sleight-of-hand/

We’ve highlighted the best month under Bush — a 374,000 job gain in July 2005 — and the worst, the 818,000 job loss that took place during his final month in office, January 2009. (Since the Bureau of Labor Statistics bases its figures on a monthly survey covering the week that contains the 12th day, the entire January job loss took place before Obama was sworn in on the 20th.)

Obama’s best month was May 2010, but that’s due primarily to an artificial spike in temporary hiring by the Census Bureau to conduct the 2010 Census (427,000 federal jobs were added that month alone, of the 516,000 total jobs). That gain was erased in the months following, once the door-to-door Census canvass was completed.

Aside from the Census spike, Obama’s best month was January of this year, with a 275,000 job gain. That didn’t equal Bush’s best month, and it’s been downhill since then.

Our point here is that Obama’s jobs record can be made to look better or worse, depending on what’s being counted, and when.

Notice the difference in appearance of your chart and the OP?

Only takes the last ONE year of bush whole showing THREE of Obama.

Why are you right wingers so dumb? W had a net private sector jobs gain of -663,000. We were losing 3/4 of a million jobs a month because of W and the GOP's horrific policies.

Thank god the dems whooped the GOP's asses in 06' taking back both houses and the presidency in 08' or else we would be in a complete meltdown right now.

Not to mention Obama has created over 4.5 million private sector jobs and counting. Thanks Obama!

 

[kaz]

Conservative has been trolling up a storm in numerous threads stating that I've been too mean to Willard and don't have enough pro-Obama topics, so here you go big guy

Obama still continues to show month after month of positive private sector jobs gains. He's created over 4.5 million new jobs and counting by the day. Thanks Obama!

Which brings him back to about net zero from when he took office. Only a liberal could be proud of a President who has reigned over 3 1/2 years of eight percent plus unemployment. He's a deficit cutter too, right Black Label?

 

[Mr.Nick]

Conservative has been trolling up a storm in numerous threads stating that I've been too mean to Willard and don't have enough pro-Obama topics, so here you go big guy

Obama still continues to show month after month of positive private sector jobs gains. He's created over 4.5 million new jobs and counting by the day. Thanks Obama!

There is only one epic flaw in this - that graph doesn't show job losses. That graph shows "jobs created."

-3+2 doesn't equal 5, it equals -1...

Of course the idiot progressives only focus on the +2 and not the -3....

 

[RDD_1210]

Conservative has been trolling up a storm in numerous threads stating that I've been too mean to Willard and don't have enough pro-Obama topics, so here you go big guy

Obama still continues to show month after month of positive private sector jobs gains. He's created over 4.5 million new jobs and counting by the day. Thanks Obama!

There is only one epic flaw in this - that graph doesn't show job losses. That graph shows "jobs created."

-3+2 doesn't equal 5, it equals -1...

Of course the idiot progressives only focus on the +2 and not the -3....

So in your "expert" opinion what do all those bars on the left side of the graph that dip below 0 represent? How can losses not be included if there are negative numbers represented? I'd love your "epic" opinion.

 

[auditor0007]

Obama also gave us 42 consecutive months of 8% unemployment

This is where you are just flat out wrong. Obama never gave us 8% unemployment. Here is the kicker though, I'm not even going to blame it on Bush although the economic crash started before Obama even got into office. Presidents don't have enough power and authority to determine or radically change the outcome of the economy. Yes, sometimes, if government cuts taxes a bit or raises them, it might help or hurt a little, but in the big picture of things, the government is more affected by the economy than the economy is affected by government.

To prove my point, most of you say the stimulus was a massive failure, that things would have been better had we done nothing. Now I'm not sure things would have been better, but I doubt they would have been much worse. However, on the flipside, the bad economy has cost the federal government 30% of its revenues. Now that is a massive affect of the economy on government. Government couldn't do much to stop the recession or reverse it quickly enough. You think that Reagan really turned around the economy in the 80's? In 1980, unemployment was 7.1%. By 1982, it had jumped to 9.7% under Reagan. By 1984, it had dropped to 7.5% but was still higher than it was when Reagan took office. Only in Reagan's second term did unemployment drop. It took nearly six years to get it below the point it was when Reagan took office, and it had nothing to do with Reagan's policies. You may want to believe it did, but it didn't.

To prove my point again, look at tax revenues during the Reagan years. As a percentage of GDP, tax revenues actually dropped during the Reagan years. Of course as revenue dropped, deficits soared. Revenues dropped from 19.6% of GDP in 1981 to 18.4% of GDP in 1989, Reagan's last budget. Oh, and as far as lowering taxes increasing revenue, Reagan proved that didn't work either. Revenues decreased as a percentage of GDP as shown above at a time when unemployment dropped. By the end of Reagan's second term, unemployment had dropped from over 7% to just over 5%, yet revenue as a percentage of GDP dropped.

Anyway, for those of you who continue to believe the President can wave a magic wand and everything turns to gold, go ahead and vote for Romney. Nothing will change. Things might get a little better; they might get a little worse. If Romney cuts taxes, revenue will drop even more for the federal government just as it did under Reagan. Considering revenues currently are at least 20% less as a percentage of GDP than they were under Reagan, reducing them further really seems like committing suicide when at the same time the cost of SS and Medicare are skyrocketing. But hey, I think we should cut taxes some more anyway, because cutting taxes is such an easy sell compared to raising them.

 

[Avatar4321]

Obama also gave us 42 consecutive months of 8% unemployment

You are being extremely generous with that 8% figure.

 

[Avatar4321]

BTW. for those that believe this, I have swamp land in Florida for sale