No Jobs created since Obama took office, LINK

[hortysir]

CHART: Economy Has Recovered All Private Sector Jobs Lost Since Obama Took Office | ThinkProgress

Well if TP says so......

 

[pinqy]

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are fewer people employed now than back in January 2009 when Barack Obama was sworn in as President, and there are more people unemployed now than in January 2009.

Back then, a reported 142 million people had jobs. In July 2011, 139.2 million people had jobs
there are fewer people working today than in 2008
this data is 1 year old, it would have taken 3 million people to find jobs in 12 months to get back to those levels as reported.

I have no idea why you're choosing to use data that's a year old. But yes, 3 million people did gain employment in the last year. Jan 2009 seasonally adjusted employment (from the household survey) was at 142,187,000. In July 2011 it was 139,450,000 but in July 2012 it was 142,220,000.

Now since the population has grown, the employment-population ratio has dropped (from 60.6% when Obama took office to a current 58.4%) but you were just talking about level.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would a change of status for people already not working affect the Employment level????

Jobs is a different concept than Employment. The Jobs numbers come from a survey of businesses, exclude agriculture, the self employed, unpaid family workers, people who work in other people's houses (nannies, private chefs, etc) and it's a count of jobs, not people, so if someone works at a factory, but does a part time job at a retail store, they'd show up in the records of each business and so would be counted twice.

Employment is a count of people, so multiple jobholders are counted once, and the household survey includes everyone excluded in the establishment survey.

the way the govt tracks job creation is complicated, do your DD and vote on the facts

It's not complicated....every month about 486,000 worksites are asked how many people they have on the books for the pay period that contains the 12th of the month. Next month the survey is done again and if the result is higher, that's job creation. Now the actual sample selection and the math and statistical adjustments are pretty complicated, but the basics are simple....net change of jobs, up or down.

Links: Current Population Survey (CPS) for household data and ww.bls.gov/ces for establishment data.
For less timely data there's Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey Home Page for job openings, hires and separations, and Business Employment Dynamics Home Page for quarterly gross changes in jobs.

The U3 rate is the percentage of the "participating labor force" that is unemployed. That is all well and good, except that the Obama labor department has decided that it will simply manipulate the definition of "labor force" to suit its own needs. And what the Obama administration has done is simply shrink the definition of the "labor force" by pretending that hundreds of thousands of non-working adults are no longer in existence for all intents and purposes.
Advance Indiana: Obama Administration Manipulated Unemployment Statistics To Achieve Lower Rate


Though the labor force participation rate actually increased to 63.7 percent in February, it remains near historic lows. Those not looking for jobs are simply not counted in the official jobless rate. The rate is thus treated with skepticism as an accurate gauge for measuring the job market's health.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said in recent remarks to Congress that the current rate "no doubt understates the weakness in the labor market in some broad sense."

News Headlines
Jobless Rate Flat at 8.3% Even as Payrolls Grow 227,000 - US Business News - CNBC

Unemployment: The Dirty Little Secret Everyone's Ignoring | Fox News

Media Celebrate 'Good' September Jobs Number, But Obama's Still 6.2 Million Short of Promise | NewsBusters.org


Well, it turns out that the civilian labor force (the denominator of the unemployment rate) declined faster than the number of people who had jobs (the numerator). The civilian labor force ended June at 153.4 million vs. July’s 153.2 million. In contrast, 139.3 million people had jobs in June. The number of people with jobs declined by about 38,000 people from June to July, whereas about 193,000 people retired or simply stopped looking for work over the same period.

Both the Bush and Obama presidencies have been marked by a steady decline in the labor force participation rate. The labor force participation rate measures the number of people in the labor force as a percentage of the total working-age population. The labor force participation rate dropped 0.2% in July from 64.1% the previous month.

this link has a graph that ends the debate, If not I agree to dis agree, look you wnat 4 more years of this, have at it, but your being lied to
Bush vs. Obama: Unemployment (July 2011 Jobs Data) | Reflections of a Rational Republican

NFP Big Miss: 120K, Expectations 205K, Unemployment 8.2%, "Not In Labor Force" At New All Time High | ZeroHedge

AND FOR THE END GAME

2002 73278 72397 72490 72848 72671 71468 71441 72300 72940 73019 73695 73934 72707
2003 74596 74421 74516 74615 74701 72897 73430 74540 75612 75252 75310 76007 74658
2004 76093 76203 76025 76497 76308 74718 74204 75511 76755 76214 76176 76763 75956
2005 77712 77392 77492 77167 76792 75584 75031 75952 76855 76655 76964 77550 76762
2006 78463 78077 77948 77990 77732 76114 75704 76702 77785 77278 77315 77537 77387
2007 78726 78955 78798 79423 79130 77460 77087 78717 79061 79200 78904 79451 78743
2008 79788 80306 79860 79990 79402 78045 77564 78719 79851 79601 80204 80686 79501
2009 81293 81109 81358 81437 81116 79734 79614 81190 82706 82915 83204 84231 81659
2010 83876 83804 83499 83418 83633 82923 82620 83421 84468 84878 85017 85733 83941
2011 86168 86216 85977 86248 85864 84951 84859 85528 86049 86181 86757 87212 86001
2012 88784 88322 88288 88879 87968 86770 86828

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Do you have an actual point in there somewhere? Because that was all cut and paste and I doubt you understood any of it.

See, what JRK expects to happen is that I'll try and rebut the articles, which he'll then disavow because he didn't write them, then he'll cut and paste more things without ever making his own argument ( because he's unable to).

 

[Too Tall]

And what exactly did going from a deficit of 163 billion in 2007 to where we are today do for us? (budget short-fall 2007, from 2006 congress) what is it 1.4 trillion a year now?

That's a very reasonable question, and if anyone says that they can answer it with certainty and clarity, they're just not being intellectually honest.

I had to spend about a year trying to explain this to my advisory clients, and it wasn't easy. The administration threw massive amounts of borrowed cash at the problem, trying to fix one problem by creating another. I understand their point, but I don't know if it was the best way to go. And, I would submit, neither does anyone else.

When you pump that much cash (borrowed, I know, believe me I know) into the system it is going to buoy the system and create a foundation. And I believe that is precisely what happened. But the system was, IS, so damaged that only so much could be done. We now seem to be (slowly) coming out of it, but that growth will surely be retarded by our debt. So the question is, on balance, was it worth it? No one can say they know, not yet.

But that wasn't the point. The point is that the mess Obama was handed is literally unprecedented, and I don't blame someone for not pretending this situation is all his fault.

Trajectory, it'll all be about trajectory.

This is a much better than what you normally post. Can we agree that 95% of the problem was caused by the housing boom that went south in 2007? And, do agree that this was started under Clinton and continued under Bush?

The banking industry contributed to the bust with their questionable practice of bundling sub prime mortgages and selling them as asset based securities.

Until the housing industry recovers, and I have every confidence that it will, the economy is going to struggle along with high unemployment and very soon, high inflation that only hurts the poor and those elderly on fixed income.

 

[JRK]

I have no idea why you're choosing to use data that's a year old. But yes, 3 million people did gain employment in the last year. Jan 2009 seasonally adjusted employment (from the household survey) was at 142,187,000. In July 2011 it was 139,450,000 but in July 2012 it was 142,220,000.

Now since the population has grown, the employment-population ratio has dropped (from 60.6% when Obama took office to a current 58.4%) but you were just talking about level.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would a change of status for people already not working affect the Employment level????

Jobs is a different concept than Employment. The Jobs numbers come from a survey of businesses, exclude agriculture, the self employed, unpaid family workers, people who work in other people's houses (nannies, private chefs, etc) and it's a count of jobs, not people, so if someone works at a factory, but does a part time job at a retail store, they'd show up in the records of each business and so would be counted twice.

Employment is a count of people, so multiple jobholders are counted once, and the household survey includes everyone excluded in the establishment survey.


It's not complicated....every month about 486,000 worksites are asked how many people they have on the books for the pay period that contains the 12th of the month. Next month the survey is done again and if the result is higher, that's job creation. Now the actual sample selection and the math and statistical adjustments are pretty complicated, but the basics are simple....net change of jobs, up or down.

Links: Current Population Survey (CPS) for household data and ww.bls.gov/ces for establishment data.
For less timely data there's Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey Home Page for job openings, hires and separations, and Business Employment Dynamics Home Page for quarterly gross changes in jobs.

The U3 rate is the percentage of the "participating labor force" that is unemployed. That is all well and good, except that the Obama labor department has decided that it will simply manipulate the definition of "labor force" to suit its own needs. And what the Obama administration has done is simply shrink the definition of the "labor force" by pretending that hundreds of thousands of non-working adults are no longer in existence for all intents and purposes.
Advance Indiana: Obama Administration Manipulated Unemployment Statistics To Achieve Lower Rate


Though the labor force participation rate actually increased to 63.7 percent in February, it remains near historic lows. Those not looking for jobs are simply not counted in the official jobless rate. The rate is thus treated with skepticism as an accurate gauge for measuring the job market's health.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said in recent remarks to Congress that the current rate "no doubt understates the weakness in the labor market in some broad sense."

News Headlines
Jobless Rate Flat at 8.3% Even as Payrolls Grow 227,000 - US Business News - CNBC

Unemployment: The Dirty Little Secret Everyone's Ignoring | Fox News

Media Celebrate 'Good' September Jobs Number, But Obama's Still 6.2 Million Short of Promise | NewsBusters.org


Well, it turns out that the civilian labor force (the denominator of the unemployment rate) declined faster than the number of people who had jobs (the numerator). The civilian labor force ended June at 153.4 million vs. July’s 153.2 million. In contrast, 139.3 million people had jobs in June. The number of people with jobs declined by about 38,000 people from June to July, whereas about 193,000 people retired or simply stopped looking for work over the same period.

Both the Bush and Obama presidencies have been marked by a steady decline in the labor force participation rate. The labor force participation rate measures the number of people in the labor force as a percentage of the total working-age population. The labor force participation rate dropped 0.2% in July from 64.1% the previous month.

this link has a graph that ends the debate, If not I agree to dis agree, look you wnat 4 more years of this, have at it, but your being lied to
Bush vs. Obama: Unemployment (July 2011 Jobs Data) | Reflections of a Rational Republican

NFP Big Miss: 120K, Expectations 205K, Unemployment 8.2%, "Not In Labor Force" At New All Time High | ZeroHedge

AND FOR THE END GAME

2002 73278 72397 72490 72848 72671 71468 71441 72300 72940 73019 73695 73934 72707
2003 74596 74421 74516 74615 74701 72897 73430 74540 75612 75252 75310 76007 74658
2004 76093 76203 76025 76497 76308 74718 74204 75511 76755 76214 76176 76763 75956
2005 77712 77392 77492 77167 76792 75584 75031 75952 76855 76655 76964 77550 76762
2006 78463 78077 77948 77990 77732 76114 75704 76702 77785 77278 77315 77537 77387
2007 78726 78955 78798 79423 79130 77460 77087 78717 79061 79200 78904 79451 78743
2008 79788 80306 79860 79990 79402 78045 77564 78719 79851 79601 80204 80686 79501
2009 81293 81109 81358 81437 81116 79734 79614 81190 82706 82915 83204 84231 81659
2010 83876 83804 83499 83418 83633 82923 82620 83421 84468 84878 85017 85733 83941
2011 86168 86216 85977 86248 85864 84951 84859 85528 86049 86181 86757 87212 86001
2012 88784 88322 88288 88879 87968 86770 86828

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Do you have an actual point in there somewhere? Because that was all cut and paste and I doubt you understood any of it.

See, what JRK expects to happen is that I'll try and rebut the articles, which he'll then disavow because he didn't write them, then he'll cut and paste more things without ever making his own argument ( because he's unable to).

No I provide information.
You want my opinion?
We have fewer people working today than in 2008
the federal govt spent 2.8 trillion in 2007 with 2 wars wide open
we spent 3.6 trillion in 2011 with Iraq won and 50% of the troops there, none by years end

and somehow your trying to defend this as a success
we spent more money on the failed stimulus than we did on the Iraq war for 8 years, yet the stimulus that created debt on GWB budget was a success?

Texas
ND
SD
Louisiana are creating jobs, why?
drill baby drill

that is all BHO has

you want more?

 

[JRK]

I have no idea why you're choosing to use data that's a year old. But yes, 3 million people did gain employment in the last year. Jan 2009 seasonally adjusted employment (from the household survey) was at 142,187,000. In July 2011 it was 139,450,000 but in July 2012 it was 142,220,000.

Now since the population has grown, the employment-population ratio has dropped (from 60.6% when Obama took office to a current 58.4%) but you were just talking about level.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would a change of status for people already not working affect the Employment level????

Jobs is a different concept than Employment. The Jobs numbers come from a survey of businesses, exclude agriculture, the self employed, unpaid family workers, people who work in other people's houses (nannies, private chefs, etc) and it's a count of jobs, not people, so if someone works at a factory, but does a part time job at a retail store, they'd show up in the records of each business and so would be counted twice.

Employment is a count of people, so multiple jobholders are counted once, and the household survey includes everyone excluded in the establishment survey.


It's not complicated....every month about 486,000 worksites are asked how many people they have on the books for the pay period that contains the 12th of the month. Next month the survey is done again and if the result is higher, that's job creation. Now the actual sample selection and the math and statistical adjustments are pretty complicated, but the basics are simple....net change of jobs, up or down.

Links: Current Population Survey (CPS) for household data and ww.bls.gov/ces for establishment data.
For less timely data there's Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey Home Page for job openings, hires and separations, and Business Employment Dynamics Home Page for quarterly gross changes in jobs.

The U3 rate is the percentage of the "participating labor force" that is unemployed. That is all well and good, except that the Obama labor department has decided that it will simply manipulate the definition of "labor force" to suit its own needs. And what the Obama administration has done is simply shrink the definition of the "labor force" by pretending that hundreds of thousands of non-working adults are no longer in existence for all intents and purposes.
Advance Indiana: Obama Administration Manipulated Unemployment Statistics To Achieve Lower Rate


Though the labor force participation rate actually increased to 63.7 percent in February, it remains near historic lows. Those not looking for jobs are simply not counted in the official jobless rate. The rate is thus treated with skepticism as an accurate gauge for measuring the job market's health.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said in recent remarks to Congress that the current rate "no doubt understates the weakness in the labor market in some broad sense."

News Headlines
Jobless Rate Flat at 8.3% Even as Payrolls Grow 227,000 - US Business News - CNBC

Unemployment: The Dirty Little Secret Everyone's Ignoring | Fox News

Media Celebrate 'Good' September Jobs Number, But Obama's Still 6.2 Million Short of Promise | NewsBusters.org


Well, it turns out that the civilian labor force (the denominator of the unemployment rate) declined faster than the number of people who had jobs (the numerator). The civilian labor force ended June at 153.4 million vs. July’s 153.2 million. In contrast, 139.3 million people had jobs in June. The number of people with jobs declined by about 38,000 people from June to July, whereas about 193,000 people retired or simply stopped looking for work over the same period.

Both the Bush and Obama presidencies have been marked by a steady decline in the labor force participation rate. The labor force participation rate measures the number of people in the labor force as a percentage of the total working-age population. The labor force participation rate dropped 0.2% in July from 64.1% the previous month.

this link has a graph that ends the debate, If not I agree to dis agree, look you wnat 4 more years of this, have at it, but your being lied to
Bush vs. Obama: Unemployment (July 2011 Jobs Data) | Reflections of a Rational Republican

NFP Big Miss: 120K, Expectations 205K, Unemployment 8.2%, "Not In Labor Force" At New All Time High | ZeroHedge

AND FOR THE END GAME

2002 73278 72397 72490 72848 72671 71468 71441 72300 72940 73019 73695 73934 72707
2003 74596 74421 74516 74615 74701 72897 73430 74540 75612 75252 75310 76007 74658
2004 76093 76203 76025 76497 76308 74718 74204 75511 76755 76214 76176 76763 75956
2005 77712 77392 77492 77167 76792 75584 75031 75952 76855 76655 76964 77550 76762
2006 78463 78077 77948 77990 77732 76114 75704 76702 77785 77278 77315 77537 77387
2007 78726 78955 78798 79423 79130 77460 77087 78717 79061 79200 78904 79451 78743
2008 79788 80306 79860 79990 79402 78045 77564 78719 79851 79601 80204 80686 79501
2009 81293 81109 81358 81437 81116 79734 79614 81190 82706 82915 83204 84231 81659
2010 83876 83804 83499 83418 83633 82923 82620 83421 84468 84878 85017 85733 83941
2011 86168 86216 85977 86248 85864 84951 84859 85528 86049 86181 86757 87212 86001
2012 88784 88322 88288 88879 87968 86770 86828

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Do you have an actual point in there somewhere? Because that was all cut and paste and I doubt you understood any of it.

See, what JRK expects to happen is that I'll try and rebut the articles, which he'll then disavow because he didn't write them, then he'll cut and paste more things without ever making his own argument ( because he's unable to).

one other item here
these people (86 million) are not in the labor force
that number was 81 million in 009

there is your job creation
5 million people left the work force, that has allowed the UE rate to lower by 3%
U want more?

 

[JRK]

And what exactly did going from a deficit of 163 billion in 2007 to where we are today do for us? (budget short-fall 2007, from 2006 congress) what is it 1.4 trillion a year now?

That's a very reasonable question, and if anyone says that they can answer it with certainty and clarity, they're just not being intellectually honest.

I had to spend about a year trying to explain this to my advisory clients, and it wasn't easy. The administration threw massive amounts of borrowed cash at the problem, trying to fix one problem by creating another. I understand their point, but I don't know if it was the best way to go. And, I would submit, neither does anyone else.

When you pump that much cash (borrowed, I know, believe me I know) into the system it is going to buoy the system and create a foundation. And I believe that is precisely what happened. But the system was, IS, so damaged that only so much could be done. We now seem to be (slowly) coming out of it, but that growth will surely be retarded by our debt. So the question is, on balance, was it worth it? No one can say they know, not yet.

But that wasn't the point. The point is that the mess Obama was handed is literally unprecedented, and I don't blame someone for not pretending this situation is all his fault.

Trajectory, it'll all be about trajectory.

This is a much better than what you normally post. Can we agree that 95% of the problem was caused by the housing boom that went south in 2007? And, do agree that this was started under Clinton and continued under Bush?

The banking industry contributed to the bust with their questionable practice of bundling sub prime mortgages and selling them as asset based securities.

Until the housing industry recovers, and I have every confidence that it will, the economy is going to struggle along with high unemployment and very soon, high inflation that only hurts the poor and those elderly on fixed income.

The problem here is Obama has used this event to grow the federal budget.
simple
If you look at the problem which was the consumer and those who loan the consumer wealth over extended that wealth to a point in which a bubble was created, a wealth bubble

When the lender has assets that became worthless his balance sheet caught up with the consumers. AIG had insured these assets against default
No different than betting on your homes value continuing to grow. People I knew that had 500,000 homes and 350,000 mortgages found that asset worth 250,000 in 12 months
you wake up owing more wealth than you have, the same occurred to Lehman

You have more going out than coming in, the consumer no longer can borrow
growth stops

This problem was no-ones fault in the federal govt
what was GWB or for that matter Harry Reid suppose to do?
Sit in a BAC office and stop the lending?
How do we legislate morality at that level?

My issue with BHO is he used this to grow the federal budget, and did nothing to attack this problem
Not sure there was anything he could have done as this 5 trillion in added deficit has proved

GM still owes us billions, they will never pay us back (the UAW)
yet this is a success?

My issue with BHO is he has not been honest with those who elected him. Its easy to see right thru this if U just look

 

[tjvh]

When Obama took office, the country was losing jobs at the rate of 750,000 a month.

Bush's final budget was in effect until October of that year when unemployment ballooned to 10.1%.

From 2001 to 2008, the country lost millions of jobs.

Thanks for giving me a chance to point that out.

Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, and ahhhh.... Bush. How about admitting that Obama had three and a half years to fix the unemployment problem and he has failed miserably... How about it? Honesty can be your friend.

 

[JRK]

When Obama took office, the country was losing jobs at the rate of 750,000 a month.

Bush's final budget was in effect until October of that year when unemployment ballooned to 10.1%.

From 2001 to 2008, the country lost millions of jobs.

Thanks for giving me a chance to point that out.

Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, and ahhhh.... Bush. How about admitting that Obama had three and a half years to fix the unemployment problem and he has failed miserably... How about it? Honesty can be your friend.

GWB last budget?
are you kidding?
he did not sign the 09 budget, BHO did and them added the failed stimulus to it
3 trillion asked for
3.5 billion in acted
2009 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
First, Nutting writes, “In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion.” This is inaccurate for two reasons: first, as Nutting notes in a separate chart, Obama was responsible for $140 billion in stimulus spending in 2009. Therefore, insinuating that the 2009 deficit was garnered entirely under President Bush’s watch is misleading.

Second, and related, Nutting fails to place blame for a number of other spending items President Obama signed into law on the President, particularly those from the $410 billion H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009. This Act, signed into law by President Obama on March 11, 2009, included the following:

Five billion dollars worth of earmarks added by Members of Congress.
A funding increase of $8.5 billion in the Labor-HHS-Education portion of the law, excluding emergency appropriations.
A $31 billion increase in nine bills funding various federal agencies over FY 2008, as totaled by the U.S. Conference of Mayor.

Correcting the media on Obama’s spending record… again « Hot Air

when you add the millions of lost jobs under Obama's watch, you add lost revenue
People stopped hiring in Sept of 08
the exact moment BHO took the lead in the polls
In Nov of 08 the wheels came off
the GOP was kicked out of congress and BHO was elected

 

[JRK]

When Obama took office, the country was losing jobs at the rate of 750,000 a month.

Bush's final budget was in effect until October of that year when unemployment ballooned to 10.1%.

From 2001 to 2008, the country lost millions of jobs.

Thanks for giving me a chance to point that out.

A lie.

ONE month saw a loss of 750k jobs. There never was a RATE of 750k per month.

From 2001 to 2007 (when democrats took control of the congress) the country added millions of jobs.

Thanks for letting Me point out the lies.

jobs were added when the UE rate was 5%
From 09 till present no jobs where added with 8-10%UE

 

[Lakhota]

The OP is a LIE.

 

[hortysir]

The OP is a LIE.

Link?

 

[Middleoftheroad]

When Obama took office, the country was losing jobs at the rate of 750,000 a month.

Bush's final budget was in effect until October of that year when unemployment ballooned to 10.1%.

From 2001 to 2008, the country lost millions of jobs.

Thanks for giving me a chance to point that out.

Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, and ahhhh.... Bush. How about admitting that Obama had three and a half years to fix the unemployment problem and he has failed miserably... How about it? Honesty can be your friend.

GWB last budget?
are you kidding?
he did not sign the 09 budget, BHO did and them added the failed stimulus to it
3 trillion asked for
3.5 billion in acted
2009 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
First, Nutting writes, “In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion.” This is inaccurate for two reasons: first, as Nutting notes in a separate chart, Obama was responsible for $140 billion in stimulus spending in 2009. Therefore, insinuating that the 2009 deficit was garnered entirely under President Bush’s watch is misleading.

Second, and related, Nutting fails to place blame for a number of other spending items President Obama signed into law on the President, particularly those from the $410 billion H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009. This Act, signed into law by President Obama on March 11, 2009, included the following:

Five billion dollars worth of earmarks added by Members of Congress.
A funding increase of $8.5 billion in the Labor-HHS-Education portion of the law, excluding emergency appropriations.
A $31 billion increase in nine bills funding various federal agencies over FY 2008, as totaled by the U.S. Conference of Mayor.

Correcting the media on Obama’s spending record… again « Hot Air

when you add the millions of lost jobs under Obama's watch, you add lost revenue
People stopped hiring in Sept of 08the exact moment BHO took the lead in the polls
In Nov of 08 the wheels came off
the GOP was kicked out of congress and BHO was elected

I'm responding to the part I underlined.

2008 41 -84 -95 -208 -190 -198 -210 -274 -432 -489 -803 -661
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
So by stopped hiring in Seuptmber 2008, you really mean January 2008 right? And really not enough to keep up with population growth since March of 2007.

Obama was the effect of the economic crisis, not the cause as you keep trying to say. We all remember what happened. As the crisis got worse McCain had no answer to it. Obama started touting stimulus which shot him up in the polls ahead of McCain.

Stop trying to re-write history, or at least wait long enough until some people forget it.

 

[JRK]

The OP is a LIE.

The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was increased by one-tenth of a percentage point to 8.3% — the sixth lowest month of unemployment during the Obama presidency. This number remains one percentage point higher than President Bush’s last full month in office in December 2008. It also marks 42 consecutive months in which the unemployment rate has been 8% or higher in the 43rd month of the Obama presidency.
Bush vs. Obama: Unemployment (July 2011 Jobs Data) | Reflections of a Rational Republican



2.4 Million Fewer Americans Working Now Than When Obama Signed Economic Stimulus | CNSNews.com

There were approximately 2.4 million fewer Americans working in June 2011 than there were when President Barack Obama signed the economic stimulus bill on Feb. 17, 2009, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

According to the BLS, there were approximately 141.
the op is not a lie
this data is 1 year old
this would mean that we would have added 200,00 jobs each month to get back to 09 levels
I have numerous links here-in to back this claim
where is your link to back up your claim that we have more people working today than in when BHO took office

 

[pinqy]

The OP is a LIE.

The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was increased by one-tenth of a percentage point to 8.3% — the sixth lowest month of unemployment during the Obama presidency. This number remains one percentage point higher than President Bush’s last full month in office in December 2008. It also marks 42 consecutive months in which the unemployment rate has been 8% or higher in the 43rd month of the Obama presidency.
Bush vs. Obama: Unemployment (July 2011 Jobs Data) | Reflections of a Rational Republican



2.4 Million Fewer Americans Working Now Than When Obama Signed Economic Stimulus | CNSNews.com

There were approximately 2.4 million fewer Americans working in June 2011 than there were when President Barack Obama signed the economic stimulus bill on Feb. 17, 2009, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

According to the BLS, there were approximately 141.
the op is not a lie
this data is 1 year old
this would mean that we would have added 200,00 jobs each month to get back to 09 levels
I have numerous links here-in to back this claim
where is your link to back up your claim that we have more people working today than in when BHO took office

Umm why haven't you looked at the BLS data? Go to Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age select "employed" and "seasonally adjusted." you will then see that there were 142,187,000 people employe in Jan 2009, and 142,220,000 in July 2012. So that 's more.

However, the OP was about jobs, not employment. You don't seem to understand the difference, though I think I explained it.

 

[JRK]

Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, and ahhhh.... Bush. How about admitting that Obama had three and a half years to fix the unemployment problem and he has failed miserably... How about it? Honesty can be your friend.

GWB last budget?
are you kidding?
he did not sign the 09 budget, BHO did and them added the failed stimulus to it
3 trillion asked for
3.5 billion in acted
2009 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
First, Nutting writes, “In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion.” This is inaccurate for two reasons: first, as Nutting notes in a separate chart, Obama was responsible for $140 billion in stimulus spending in 2009. Therefore, insinuating that the 2009 deficit was garnered entirely under President Bush’s watch is misleading.

Second, and related, Nutting fails to place blame for a number of other spending items President Obama signed into law on the President, particularly those from the $410 billion H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009. This Act, signed into law by President Obama on March 11, 2009, included the following:

Five billion dollars worth of earmarks added by Members of Congress.
A funding increase of $8.5 billion in the Labor-HHS-Education portion of the law, excluding emergency appropriations.
A $31 billion increase in nine bills funding various federal agencies over FY 2008, as totaled by the U.S. Conference of Mayor.

Correcting the media on Obama’s spending record… again « Hot Air

when you add the millions of lost jobs under Obama's watch, you add lost revenue
People stopped hiring in Sept of 08the exact moment BHO took the lead in the polls
In Nov of 08 the wheels came off
the GOP was kicked out of congress and BHO was elected

I'm responding to the part I underlined.

2008 41 -84 -95 -208 -190 -198 -210 -274 -432 -489 -803 -661
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
So by stopped hiring in Seuptmber 2008, you really mean January 2008 right? And really not enough to keep up with population growth since March of 2007.

Obama was the effect of the economic crisis, not the cause as you keep trying to say. We all remember what happened. As the crisis got worse McCain had no answer to it. Obama started touting stimulus which shot him up in the polls ahead of McCain.

Stop trying to re-write history, or at least wait long enough until some people forget it.

The truth needs no re writing
losing 200k a month and 800k a month is miles apart
Let me add I ever blamed Obama for any of those events any more than I blame reid or GWB, or for that matter Pelosi (2008 now, not 2009 to present)

what were they suppose to do? Sit in BACs office and stop people from borrowing? Lending?
The facts are the wheels came off in 2008, the job market has never recovered
Obama has had close to 4 years to fix it
The Dem congress has had close to 6

 

[JRK]

The OP is a LIE.

The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was increased by one-tenth of a percentage point to 8.3% — the sixth lowest month of unemployment during the Obama presidency. This number remains one percentage point higher than President Bush’s last full month in office in December 2008. It also marks 42 consecutive months in which the unemployment rate has been 8% or higher in the 43rd month of the Obama presidency.
Bush vs. Obama: Unemployment (July 2011 Jobs Data) | Reflections of a Rational Republican



2.4 Million Fewer Americans Working Now Than When Obama Signed Economic Stimulus | CNSNews.com

There were approximately 2.4 million fewer Americans working in June 2011 than there were when President Barack Obama signed the economic stimulus bill on Feb. 17, 2009, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

According to the BLS, there were approximately 141.
the op is not a lie
this data is 1 year old
this would mean that we would have added 200,00 jobs each month to get back to 09 levels
I have numerous links here-in to back this claim
where is your link to back up your claim that we have more people working today than in when BHO took office

Umm why haven't you looked at the BLS data? Go to Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age select "employed" and "seasonally adjusted." you will then see that there were 142,187,000 people employe in Jan 2009, and 142,220,000 in July 2012. So that 's more.

However, the OP was about jobs, not employment. You don't seem to understand the difference, though I think I explained it.

Try Feb 2009
let me add that if you want o take credit for that as job creation, good for you
It just shows how desperate the left is
It is funny that many state the job loss number for Jan of 09 as GWB, unless of course it helps BHO, then, never mind
you get my point

when I worte the thread in 3/2012 this numbers were correct using the Feb numbers
you want to use the Jan numbers?
fine with me

Then BHO has created 400,000 jobs? 300k?
just cost is 1 trillion dollars in failed stimulus (Tarp added well over 100k that he used, close to 200)
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- President-elect Barack Obama secured access to the second half of the $700 billion financial rescue package Thursday, after the Senate voted 52-42 to kill a measure that would have blocked the funds' release.

Senate vote fails, Obama gets $350B - Jan. 15, 2009

 

[pinqy]

The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was increased by one-tenth of a percentage point to 8.3% — the sixth lowest month of unemployment during the Obama presidency. This number remains one percentage point higher than President Bush’s last full month in office in December 2008. It also marks 42 consecutive months in which the unemployment rate has been 8% or higher in the 43rd month of the Obama presidency.
Bush vs. Obama: Unemployment (July 2011 Jobs Data) | Reflections of a Rational Republican



2.4 Million Fewer Americans Working Now Than When Obama Signed Economic Stimulus | CNSNews.com

There were approximately 2.4 million fewer Americans working in June 2011 than there were when President Barack Obama signed the economic stimulus bill on Feb. 17, 2009, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

According to the BLS, there were approximately 141.
the op is not a lie
this data is 1 year old
this would mean that we would have added 200,00 jobs each month to get back to 09 levels
I have numerous links here-in to back this claim
where is your link to back up your claim that we have more people working today than in when BHO took office

Umm why haven't you looked at the BLS data? Go to Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age select "employed" and "seasonally adjusted." you will then see that there were 142,187,000 people employe in Jan 2009, and 142,220,000 in July 2012. So that 's more.

However, the OP was about jobs, not employment. You don't seem to understand the difference, though I think I explained it.

Try Feb 2009

Ah, didn't notice you switched from when Obama took office to when he signed the stimulus.

let me add that if you want o take credit for that as job creation, good for you
It just shows how desperate the left is

I'm just saying the facts. The level of Employment is higher now than either Jan or Feb 2009. I am not saying that's good or bad or who is responsible good or bad.

Then BHO has created 400,000 jobs? 300k?

Again, you don't know the difference between jobs and employment. They're not interchangable. Employment is higher now than than either Jan or Feb 2009 (142,220,000 vs 142,187,000 or 141,660,000 but Jobs are still below the Jan or Feb 2009 level (133,245,000 down from 133,561,000 or 132,837,000)
What the Obama administration is doing though, is using the low point of jobs as their reference point. Like I said, Jan 2009 there were 133,561,000 jobs, but by Feb 2010 it was 129,244,000. That's been the low point. So it's true that since Feb 2010 we've gained 4 million jobs, though that's ignoring that under Obama alone we lost 4.5 million first (lost 4.5 million under Bush, first).

So it's a matter of spin...the Republicans only talk about the 4.5 million lost under Obama and point out that we haven't gotten them back yet. And the Democrats only talk about the 4 million gained since the low point and the 4.5 million lost under Bush.

Both sides are right and both sides misleading.

 

[JRK]

Umm why haven't you looked at the BLS data? Go to Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age select "employed" and "seasonally adjusted." you will then see that there were 142,187,000 people employe in Jan 2009, and 142,220,000 in July 2012. So that 's more.

However, the OP was about jobs, not employment. You don't seem to understand the difference, though I think I explained it.

Try Feb 2009

Ah, didn't notice you switched from when Obama took office to when he signed the stimulus.

let me add that if you want o take credit for that as job creation, good for you
It just shows how desperate the left is

I'm just saying the facts. The level of Employment is higher now than either Jan or Feb 2009. I am not saying that's good or bad or who is responsible good or bad.

Then BHO has created 400,000 jobs? 300k?

Again, you don't know the difference between jobs and employment. They're not interchangable. Employment is higher now than than either Jan or Feb 2009 (142,220,000 vs 142,187,000 or 141,660,000 but Jobs are still below the Jan or Feb 2009 level (133,245,000 down from 133,561,000 or 132,837,000)
What the Obama administration is doing though, is using the low point of jobs as their reference point. Like I said, Jan 2009 there were 133,561,000 jobs, but by Feb 2010 it was 129,244,000. That's been the low point. So it's true that since Feb 2010 we've gained 4 million jobs, though that's ignoring that under Obama alone we lost 4.5 million first (lost 4.5 million under Bush, first).

So it's a matter of spin...the Republicans only talk about the 4.5 million lost under Obama and point out that we haven't gotten them back yet. And the Democrats only talk about the 4 million gained since the low point and the 4.5 million lost under Bush.

Both sides are right and both sides misleading.

at what point have I been mis leading?
Look dude you want to defend BHO claims he has created millions of jobs, cool
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,335 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,558 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,874 107,384 17,751 705 5,518 11,528
2011(p)... 131,358 109,253 18,021 784 5,504 11,733


5 million fewer people working
from the original thread
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

looks to me the numbers have been changed, wonder how and why that occurred?

 

[JRK]

34177 135443 135558 135903 136559 137181 137495 137295 137377 137551 136684 136599 136485
2003 135907(1) 136433 136783 137424 137567 138468 138503 138137 137731 138619 138700 138556 137736
2004 136924(1) 137384 137691 138423 138867 139861 140700 140226 139641 140447 140581 140278 139252
2005 138682(1) 139100 139759 140939 141591 142456 143283 143142 142579 143340 142968 142918 141730
2006 141481(1) 141994 142772 143405 144041 145216 145606 145379 145010 146125 146014 146081 144427
2007 144275(1) 144479 145323 145297 145864 146958 147315 146406 146448 146743 147118 146334 146047
2008 144607(1) 144550 145108 145921 145927 146649 146867 145909 145310 145543 144609 143350 145362
2009 140436(1) 140105 139833 140586 140363 140826 141055 140074 139079 139088 139132 137953 139877
2010 136809(1) 137203 137983 139302 139497 139882 140134 139919 139715 139749 139415 139159 139064
2011 137599(1) 138093 138962 139661 140028 140129 140384 140335 140502 140987 141070 140681 139869
2012 139944(1) 140684 141412 141995 142727 143202 143126
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

from your link
whats the diff from jobs and employed?

so you want to play the available work force, etc.... etc.... etc....
fine brother
have a blessed day

 

[pinqy]

34177 135443 135558 135903 136559 137181 137495 137295 137377 137551 136684 136599 136485
2003 135907(1) 136433 136783 137424 137567 138468 138503 138137 137731 138619 138700 138556 137736
2004 136924(1) 137384 137691 138423 138867 139861 140700 140226 139641 140447 140581 140278 139252
2005 138682(1) 139100 139759 140939 141591 142456 143283 143142 142579 143340 142968 142918 141730
2006 141481(1) 141994 142772 143405 144041 145216 145606 145379 145010 146125 146014 146081 144427
2007 144275(1) 144479 145323 145297 145864 146958 147315 146406 146448 146743 147118 146334 146047
2008 144607(1) 144550 145108 145921 145927 146649 146867 145909 145310 145543 144609 143350 145362
2009 140436(1) 140105 139833 140586 140363 140826 141055 140074 139079 139088 139132 137953 139877
2010 136809(1) 137203 137983 139302 139497 139882 140134 139919 139715 139749 139415 139159 139064
2011 137599(1) 138093 138962 139661 140028 140129 140384 140335 140502 140987 141070 140681 139869
2012 139944(1) 140684 141412 141995 142727 143202 143126
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

from your link

yes, those are employed numbers from the household survey. Not sure why you posted them.
whats the diff from jobs and employed?[/quote] yeah, I already covered that:

Jobs is a different concept than Employment. The Jobs numbers come from a survey of businesses, exclude agriculture, the self employed, unpaid family workers, people who work in other people's houses (nannies, private chefs, etc) and it's a count of jobs, not people, so if someone works at a factory, but does a part time job at a retail store, they'd show up in the records of each business and so would be counted twice.

Employment is a count of people, so multiple jobholders are counted once, and the household survey includes everyone excluded in the establishment survey

And it's also explained every month in the press release: Employment Situation Technical Note

so you want to play the available work force, etc.... etc.... etc...

What are you defining as "available" workforce? By definition, everyone in the labor force is available for work.