Loss of jobs. Is it the whole story?

[ChrisH]

We all know the democrats are quick to attack Bush and accuse him of being the first president in 72 years to have a net loss in jobs. However, I don't know if it is the whole story. After all, Bush has experienced some things that other presidents who had a net gain in jobs, have not. I would be interested in knowing the following;

1) What percentage of the loss of jobs was after 9/11?

2) What percentage of jobs lost were in the airline/aviation/travel industry?

3) What percentage of jobs were factory jobs and lost as a result of man being replaced by machines/computers (technology)?
____________
1) The economy took a huge down turn after 9/11. I am sure a large number of jobs were lost after 9/11. I don't think democrats will admit or recognize this.

2) Many, Many jobs were lost in the airline and aviation industry in general. Jobs were lost, overall, in the entire travel industry after 9/11, not just airlines. And the affects are still being felt today. Delta Airlines, for example, just recently laid off 6,000 employees in Dallas, TX alone. This is not Bush's fault, it is Delta's attempt to avoid bankcruptcy. These are just a few of the employees Delta and all of the other airlines have had to lay off. These are just a few of the employees that have been laid off in the travel industry period, not just the airlines.

3) Many factory jobs have been lost. In fact, it seems factory workers are the main ones complaining. I would be willing to guarantee that a large number of the jobs lost in factories were lost as a result of man being replaced by technology.

In conclusion, add all of the above, and I would be curious to know the total percentage of the above, with regards to the total number of jobs lost. I would be willing to bet it is a pretty high percentage. None of the above is the 'fault' of Bush. Much of it has to do with the events of 9/11 and the shift in the day and age we now live in with technology replacing many jobs.

 

[dmp]

what the Politicians don't want people to understand is, The President cannot do much of ANYTHING w/o congressional approval. No matter what his economic plans, he is NOT the end-all cause for growth or decline.

 

[ChrisH]

I agree. When it comes to the economy, the president cannot directly affect what the economy does. He can put policies in place that can affect the economy, however. But, these policies have to go through congress. A president is not the complete blame when an economy goes bad.

As in my first post, starting this thread, I would be curious to know those numbers. I think the economy is doing good right now, I don't think jobs are few, and I am not at all convinced, that considering my three points, Bush has lost as many jobs as the democrats would like you to believe.