Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Obama has added 3.9 million jobs since 2009.
Heres what Bush left us with.....
Aug 2008 - 334,000 net JOBS LOST
Sep 2008 - 458,000 net JOBS LOST
Oct 2008 - 554,000 net JOBS LOST
Nov 2008 - 728,000 net JOBS LOST
Dec 2008 - 673,000 net JOBS LOST
Jan 2009 - 779,000 net JOBS LOST
I can't wait to see the Obamacrat's poll numbers dive when they try to run on their job record since they took power in 2007.
Looks like the american public for good reason is not buying it, and yes the Obama Admin has changed the available job # so it has been modified
No, they didn't.
How would the Obama Administration be able to "change" the number of available jobs?
Yes they did
If you are offended that under ObamaCare you may be considered "a unit," you should know that under Obama employment stats you may not even exist! In fact, a lot of non-working adults who existed in October apparently no longer do exist officially.
In other words, in the universe Obama took over from George W. Bush, the unemployment rate would still be over 11%. Now, the last time I checked, the planet has not gotten smaller, nor has the population of the United States. (I am not sure about the sea levels.) To thinking people, there is no legitimate reason to shrink the potential labor pool. Of course, there is an illegitimate reason to do so: to protect the governing record of Barack Obama. Anyone who follows politics even casually knows that if the general public ever really figured out that the real unemployment rate is over 11%, Obama would have zero chance of re-election.
Can you imagine the screams of protest from the media if a Republican president had altered the formula for calculating the rate of the unemployed to magically make the numbers appear better than what they really are on the eve of his re-election campaign? The real unemployment rate is over 11%, and even that rate is misleading because it doesn't include the people who no longer qualify for unemployment benefits because they've been unemployed so long. Only one person in the media seemed to question the unemployment rate statistics released on Friday, and he's the man credited with being the father of the Tea Party movement.
Advance Indiana: Obama Administration Manipulated Unemployment Statistics To Achieve Lower Rate
The argument is that the labor pool is changing due to "demographics" apples to apples is not the same as it was when Obama took office
I can't wait to see the Obamacrat's poll numbers dive when they try to run on their job record since they took power in 2007.
Me too. From bleeding 7 million jobs to this???
"In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than 3 million jobs. Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005."
Barack Obama on Tuesday, January 24th, 2012 in the State of the Union address
Have private-sector jobs grown by 3 million in 22 months, with the best annual totals since 2005?
PolitiFact | Have private-sector jobs grown by 3 million in 22 months, with the best annual totals since 2005?
You guys think you sound so smart in those GOP debates but when you go up against Obama he's going to make you look so stupid. Like when McCain said he was going to suspend his campaign to fix the economy that a week prior he denied was a problem and then he fell asleep during the talks.
LOL. You whining assholes. The President could pay off the deficit, find a way to give us all a million dollar refund, and have full employment, and you would still be whining. You guys are not only liars, you are total fruitcakes.
Employment is improving, the market is going up, and housing will be coming back. And you will be damning the whole thing, hoping for more misery for your fellow Americans.
youre sorely mistaken. 3 millions jobs in fact have been created since Obama took office, we have just no replaced all the jobs that were lost due to the recession which started while Bush was in office.I can't wait to see the Obamacrat's poll numbers dive when they try to run on their job record since they took power in 2007.
Me too. From bleeding 7 million jobs to this???
"In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than 3 million jobs. Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005."
Barack Obama on Tuesday, January 24th, 2012 in the State of the Union address
Have private-sector jobs grown by 3 million in 22 months, with the best annual totals since 2005?
PolitiFact | Have private-sector jobs grown by 3 million in 22 months, with the best annual totals since 2005?
You guys think you sound so smart in those GOP debates but when you go up against Obama he's going to make you look so stupid. Like when McCain said he was going to suspend his campaign to fix the economy that a week prior he denied was a problem and then he fell asleep during the talks.
we are still short of 09 numbers and your comparing 163 billion defict vs 1.5 trillion
are you joking?
163 billion was the last GOP budget, 2007 year
Media Celebrate 'Good' September Jobs Number, But Obama's Still 6.2 Million Short of Promise | NewsBusters.org
no jobs created, we are still short of 09 numbers
Obama has added 3.9 million jobs since 2009.
Here’s what Bush left us with.....
Aug 2008 - 334,000 net JOBS LOST
Sep 2008 - 458,000 net JOBS LOST
Oct 2008 - 554,000 net JOBS LOST
Nov 2008 - 728,000 net JOBS LOST
Dec 2008 - 673,000 net JOBS LOST
Jan 2009 - 779,000 net JOBS LOST
They only hate you Chris because you won't back down and because you won't forget the facts. Keep up the good work.
They want to adamently defend Bush/Romney/McCain/Santorum/Cain/Newt/Bachmann & Palin but we are crazy for supporting Democrats who are clearly the better choice if you are a middle class or poor American?
No, they didn't.
How would the Obama Administration be able to "change" the number of available jobs?
Yes they did
If you are offended that under ObamaCare you may be considered "a unit," you should know that under Obama employment stats you may not even exist! In fact, a lot of non-working adults who existed in October apparently no longer do exist officially.
In other words, in the universe Obama took over from George W. Bush, the unemployment rate would still be over 11%. Now, the last time I checked, the planet has not gotten smaller, nor has the population of the United States. (I am not sure about the sea levels.) To thinking people, there is no legitimate reason to shrink the potential labor pool. Of course, there is an illegitimate reason to do so: to protect the governing record of Barack Obama. Anyone who follows politics even casually knows that if the general public ever really figured out that the real unemployment rate is over 11%, Obama would have zero chance of re-election.
Can you imagine the screams of protest from the media if a Republican president had altered the formula for calculating the rate of the unemployed to magically make the numbers appear better than what they really are on the eve of his re-election campaign? The real unemployment rate is over 11%, and even that rate is misleading because it doesn't include the people who no longer qualify for unemployment benefits because they've been unemployed so long. Only one person in the media seemed to question the unemployment rate statistics released on Friday, and he's the man credited with being the father of the Tea Party movement.
Advance Indiana: Obama Administration Manipulated Unemployment Statistics To Achieve Lower Rate
The argument is that the labor pool is changing due to "demographics" apples to apples is not the same as it was when Obama took office
Looking, again, JRK, I see that those weren't your own words. The idiot you quoted doesn't understand anything. You don't need to "alter the formula" for the Labor Force to change...it changes on its own as people enter and leave. And it's an outright lie from your source that the rate doesn't include people who no longer qualify for benefits.
Please do your own research: How the Government Measures Unemployment
or the fact the GOP passed all war spending as emergency spending thus the cost was not fully reflected in the budget from 2004-2007.Obama has added 3.9 million jobs since 2009.
Here’s what Bush left us with.....
Aug 2008 - 334,000 net JOBS LOST
Sep 2008 - 458,000 net JOBS LOST
Oct 2008 - 554,000 net JOBS LOST
Nov 2008 - 728,000 net JOBS LOST
Dec 2008 - 673,000 net JOBS LOST
Jan 2009 - 779,000 net JOBS LOST
They only hate you Chris because you won't back down and because you won't forget the facts. Keep up the good work.
They want to adamently defend Bush/Romney/McCain/Santorum/Cain/Newt/Bachmann & Palin but we are crazy for supporting Democrats who are clearly the better choice if you are a middle class or poor American?
You mean like the FACT that Dems controlled the government since Jan 2007? Chrissy don't like to talk about that fact.
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.
I can't wait to see the Obamacrat's poll numbers dive when they try to run on their job record since they took power in 2007.
Me too. From bleeding 7 million jobs to this???
"In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than 3 million jobs. Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005."
Barack Obama on Tuesday, January 24th, 2012 in the State of the Union address
Have private-sector jobs grown by 3 million in 22 months, with the best annual totals since 2005?
PolitiFact | Have private-sector jobs grown by 3 million in 22 months, with the best annual totals since 2005?
You guys think you sound so smart in those GOP debates but when you go up against Obama he's going to make you look so stupid. Like when McCain said he was going to suspend his campaign to fix the economy that a week prior he denied was a problem and then he fell asleep during the talks.
who said 9/11 was bush's fault?You're counting the job creation against the job loss which was net negative until sometime into Obama's first year.
Why wouldn't we count net-loss jobs during his first year?
Doesn that mean we can quit blaming Boooosh for 9-11???
his management of the aftermath was poor, but he didnt cause the event to happen.
Obama has added 3.9 million jobs since 2009.
Heres what Bush left us with.....
Aug 2008 - 334,000 net JOBS LOST
Sep 2008 - 458,000 net JOBS LOST
Oct 2008 - 554,000 net JOBS LOST
Nov 2008 - 728,000 net JOBS LOST
Dec 2008 - 673,000 net JOBS LOST
Jan 2009 - 779,000 net JOBS LOST
Yes they did
If you are offended that under ObamaCare you may be considered "a unit," you should know that under Obama employment stats you may not even exist! In fact, a lot of non-working adults who existed in October apparently no longer do exist officially.
In other words, in the universe Obama took over from George W. Bush, the unemployment rate would still be over 11%. Now, the last time I checked, the planet has not gotten smaller, nor has the population of the United States. (I am not sure about the sea levels.) To thinking people, there is no legitimate reason to shrink the potential labor pool. Of course, there is an illegitimate reason to do so: to protect the governing record of Barack Obama. Anyone who follows politics even casually knows that if the general public ever really figured out that the real unemployment rate is over 11%, Obama would have zero chance of re-election.
Can you imagine the screams of protest from the media if a Republican president had altered the formula for calculating the rate of the unemployed to magically make the numbers appear better than what they really are on the eve of his re-election campaign? The real unemployment rate is over 11%, and even that rate is misleading because it doesn't include the people who no longer qualify for unemployment benefits because they've been unemployed so long. Only one person in the media seemed to question the unemployment rate statistics released on Friday, and he's the man credited with being the father of the Tea Party movement.
Advance Indiana: Obama Administration Manipulated Unemployment Statistics To Achieve Lower Rate
The argument is that the labor pool is changing due to "demographics" apples to apples is not the same as it was when Obama took office
Looking, again, JRK, I see that those weren't your own words. The idiot you quoted doesn't understand anything. You don't need to "alter the formula" for the Labor Force to change...it changes on its own as people enter and leave. And it's an outright lie from your source that the rate doesn't include people who no longer qualify for benefits.
Please do your own research: How the Government Measures Unemployment
I have done re search and bud your being har headed
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. Julys 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
Looking, again, JRK, I see that those weren't your own words. The idiot you quoted doesn't understand anything. You don't need to "alter the formula" for the Labor Force to change...it changes on its own as people enter and leave. And it's an outright lie from your source that the rate doesn't include people who no longer qualify for benefits.
Please do your own research: How the Government Measures Unemployment
I have done re search and bud your being har headed
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. Julys 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
And all that's true. What I was objecting to was the ridiculous idea that the decline in the labor force was "manipulation." Or that the formula changed. Or that it could somehow be set or it reoresented "available jobs." And now the labor force is going back up as more people are starting to look for work again
But no one made it change, which is the accusation. The numbers changed because they changed, not because of anything BLS or the administration did.I have done re search and bud your being har headed
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. Julys 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
And all that's true. What I was objecting to was the ridiculous idea that the decline in the labor force was "manipulation." Or that the formula changed. Or that it could somehow be set or it reoresented "available jobs." And now the labor force is going back up as more people are starting to look for work again
it is a change in data, right or wrong does not matter unless your trying to get re elected
But no one made it change, which is the accusation. The numbers changed because they changed, not because of anything BLS or the administration did.And all that's true. What I was objecting to was the ridiculous idea that the decline in the labor force was "manipulation." Or that the formula changed. Or that it could somehow be set or it reoresented "available jobs." And now the labor force is going back up as more people are starting to look for work again
it is a change in data, right or wrong does not matter unless your trying to get re elected
Your source is over half a year out of date. Looking at the BLS database and using Not Seasonally Adjusted data, Total Private, we see that in Jan 2009 there were 109,084,000 jobs. (these numbers don't count agriculture or the self employed or unpaid family workers). In Jan 2012, there were 108,436,000; a loss of 648,000But no one made it change, which is the accusation. The numbers changed because they changed, not because of anything BLS or the administration did.it is a change in data, right or wrong does not matter unless your trying to get re elected
In contrast, under President Obama’s administration, the private sector has still lost a net 2.67 million private sector jobs.
When George W. Bush took office in Jan 2001, there were 109,680,000 private sector jobs. As already noted, in Jan 2009, there were 109,084,000 private secor jobs: a loss of 596,000 So I'm not sure what you're talking about for jobs created under Bush. Your source is mistaken.For every job that the private sector created under George W. Bush, the private sector eliminated ~19 jobs under Barack Obama. While the private sector job outlook has improved recently, the economy still must create 2.67 million private sector jobs to break even.
Well, we can agree on that.The country still has a long way to go to restoring full employment and the President is running out of time. According to The New York Times, no sitting President since Franklin Roosevelt has won re-election when unemployment was over 7.2% on election day.
And President Obama is no FDR.
Update: Click here for the most recent jobs statistics.
This is not what the press nor the white house is reporting, it is in a fact a lie, no other way to put it
Bush vs. Obama: Unemployment (July 2011 Jobs Data) | Reflections of a Rational Republican
Your source is over half a year out of date. Looking at the BLS database and using Not Seasonally Adjusted data, Total Private, we see that in Jan 2009 there were 109,084,000 jobs. (these numbers don't count agriculture or the self employed or unpaid family workers). In Jan 2012, there were 108,436,000; a loss of 648,000But no one made it change, which is the accusation. The numbers changed because they changed, not because of anything BLS or the administration did.
In contrast, under President Obamas administration, the private sector has still lost a net 2.67 million private sector jobs.
When George W. Bush took office in Jan 2001, there were 109,680,000 private sector jobs. As already noted, in Jan 2009, there were 109,084,000 private secor jobs: a loss of 596,000 So I'm not sure what you're talking about for jobs created under Bush. Your source is mistaken.
Well, we can agree on that.The country still has a long way to go to restoring full employment and the President is running out of time. According to The New York Times, no sitting President since Franklin Roosevelt has won re-election when unemployment was over 7.2% on election day.
And President Obama is no FDR.
Update: Click here for the most recent jobs statistics.
This is not what the press nor the white house is reporting, it is in a fact a lie, no other way to put it
Bush vs. Obama: Unemployment (July 2011 Jobs Data) | Reflections of a Rational Republican
How on earth is July 2011 the most recent statistics?
