Obama Created ZERO Jobs.

[pinqy]

1. "In Saturday’s weekly address President Obama said we’ve created nearly 4 million new jobs in the United States in the last 2 years."
Obama Claims 4 Million New Jobs « Inform The Pundits!

2. "In the State of the Union Address on January 24th 2012, President Obama said:

In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than 3 million jobs. (Applause) – Barack Obama, State of the Union, 1/24/2012" Ibid.

3 .the White House link to the video includes a pretty graphic that clearly shows that 3.2 million new jobs had been created.

Thirteen days later, in an Obama campaign ad on February 6th 2012, the President said:

There’s more work to do, but you might be surprised to hear the progress we’ve made. Twenty-three straight months of jobs growth, nearly 3.7 million jobs added.
– Barack Obama, Campaign Ad, 2/6/2012

Now, in last Saturday’s White House Weekly Address, President Obama upped that number to “nearly” 4 million..." Ibid.



Now...ready?



4. 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.

In terms of employment, the private sector is smaller now than when Obama was sworn in. In January 2009, 110.9 million people were working in the (nonfarm) private sector, but by July 2011 there were only 109.9 million - despite the larger U.S. population in 2011.
RealClearMarkets - More Unemployed Presently, Than In 2009

a. Employed, June 2012 142 million
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted


Again?
Sure....'cause it's a little tricky, numbers and all....


"...[in 2009] 142 million people had jobs. In July 2011, 139.2 million people had jobs."


So....wadda ya' think...142 million plus 4 million is.........

....139 million?



5. ZERO net job growth from 2009 through 2011
Obama Claims 4 Million New Jobs « Inform The Pundits!

ZERO?????

ZERO JOBS?????

Now....Barack Hussein Obama wouldn't lie about this......

....would he????



So....what the heck has this guy been doing for three and a half years????

All of the President' claims of jobs were based on a reference of February, 2010. You're citing speeches a few months old, and things have gone up a little since then, but let's use current data.
January 2009 there were 133,561,000 total and 110,985,000 private sector non-farm pay roll jobs.
February 2010 there were 129,244,000 total and 106,773,000 private sector jobs. Losses of -4,317,000 and -4,212,000 respectively.
June 2012, there were 133,088,000 total and 111,145,000 private sector jobs. Gains of 3,844,000 total and 4,372,000 private sector.
But that is still -473,000 total jobs since Jan 2009. +160,000 private sector (though it still would have been a loss when he gave those speeches).

So Obama was right about gaining 3-4 million jobs since the low point of Feb 2010 though misleading since it was still not up to the level when he took office.

And the critics are right that it was still down from when he took office, but misleading in that they ignored that it had gotten a lot worse and then has improved from the worst.

To sum up: We lost approx 4.3 million jobs in the first 13 months Obama was in office, and have gained back 3.8 million of them in 28 months. So we are recovering, but very slowly. I expect we'll gain back the next half-million by October so he'll have a around a net zero change going into re-election.

interesting, you believe that in the next 4 months we will average (by(?) October), so that leaves 3 months, well lets say 4, I think or assume you meant to include October so 125K a month for then next 4 months? certainly doable , but..not sure we will get there.

The latest numbers are from June, so we have
June-July
July-Aug
Aug-Sep
Sep-Oct.
So yep, 125k average. Doable. While the last 3 months have been week, average gains have been 137k/month since the bottom of Feb 2010, and that's including 4 months of job losses. Since Sep 2010 there have been no job losses and the average gain has been 153k/month.

I could be wrong, of course. The reason we have economists is to make weathermen look good.

 

[Trajan]

All of the President' claims of jobs were based on a reference of February, 2010. You're citing speeches a few months old, and things have gone up a little since then, but let's use current data.
January 2009 there were 133,561,000 total and 110,985,000 private sector non-farm pay roll jobs.
February 2010 there were 129,244,000 total and 106,773,000 private sector jobs. Losses of -4,317,000 and -4,212,000 respectively.
June 2012, there were 133,088,000 total and 111,145,000 private sector jobs. Gains of 3,844,000 total and 4,372,000 private sector.
But that is still -473,000 total jobs since Jan 2009. +160,000 private sector (though it still would have been a loss when he gave those speeches).

So Obama was right about gaining 3-4 million jobs since the low point of Feb 2010 though misleading since it was still not up to the level when he took office.

And the critics are right that it was still down from when he took office, but misleading in that they ignored that it had gotten a lot worse and then has improved from the worst.

To sum up: We lost approx 4.3 million jobs in the first 13 months Obama was in office, and have gained back 3.8 million of them in 28 months. So we are recovering, but very slowly. I expect we'll gain back the next half-million by October so he'll have a around a net zero change going into re-election.

interesting, you believe that in the next 4 months we will average (by(?) October), so that leaves 3 months, well lets say 4, I think or assume you meant to include October so 125K a month for then next 4 months? certainly doable , but..not sure we will get there.

The latest numbers are from June, so we have
June-July
July-Aug
Aug-Sep
Sep-Oct.
So yep, 125k average. Doable. While the last 3 months have been week, average gains have been 137k/month since the bottom of Feb 2010, and that's including 4 months of job losses. Since Sep 2010 there have been no job losses and the average gain has been 153k/month.

I could be wrong, of course. The reason we have economists is to make weathermen look good.

*shrugs*....things aren't now what they were then, the last 2 years Q 1 and 2 were better or par with better core indicators ahead to Q3 and Q4,( you think we will crack 2.0 for q3 this year?) before stalling again and the core ind. ahead now are steeper, the perfect storm may be upon us; with India china eur. all pulling back, January is starting weigh on bus.'s minds - the tax man cometh-obamacare cometh etc etc ...

if you were a medium size bus, of medium sophistication, surveying the field- would you expand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So, you blame the the dem pres who inherited a repub recession, ?

repub recession??? too stupid!!! IF BO is not responsible for what happens in his administration why is any president??

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Obama Created ZERO Jobs.

Well sure ... if you subtract the more than 4million NEW jobs and many millions of saved jobs, yep, sure nuff, that comes to ZERO.

Thanks.

Now, how does that compare to the actual ZERO jobs the pubs/bags have created?

Try as you might, you cannot change reality.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Obama Created ZERO Jobs.

Well sure ... if you subtract the more than 4million NEW jobs and many millions of saved jobs, yep, sure nuff, that comes to ZERO.

Thanks.

Now, how does that compare to the actual ZERO jobs the pubs/bags have created?

Try as you might, you cannot change reality.

You're exactly the kind of voter Obama is looking for.

 

[Rshermr]

So, you blame the the dem pres who inherited a repub recession, ?

repub recession??? too stupid!!! IF BO is not responsible for what happens in his administration why is any president??

Well, ed. Back to your old tack of calling people stupid. You are a con. That proves you ARE stupid.
And yes, I give any president the right to call out the mess the previous president may have left. But there should be some validity, ie, proof. Like the worst recession since the great depression 80 years previous. And then there is the do nothing congress, which has blocked every rational attempt to help with unemployment.
By the way, ed, when is it that you are going to answer when it was that a Federal Income tax decrease has helped unemployment in a bad economy?? You seem to be at a loss for words. I keep asking, and you can not seem to come up with a rational answer, hopefully complete with proof.

 

[Rshermr]

Obama Created ZERO Jobs.

Well sure ... if you subtract the more than 4million NEW jobs and many millions of saved jobs, yep, sure nuff, that comes to ZERO.

Thanks.

Now, how does that compare to the actual ZERO jobs the pubs/bags have created?

Try as you might, you cannot change reality.

You're exactly the kind of voter Obama is looking for.

Interesting numbers. Zero jobs. Got any nonpartisan proof. The CBO totally disagrees with you. So, why would anyone believe you for rational reasons?

 

[edthecynic]

1. "In Saturday’s weekly address President Obama said we’ve created nearly 4 million new jobs in the United States in the last 2 years."
Obama Claims 4 Million New Jobs « Inform The Pundits!

2. "In the State of the Union Address on January 24th 2012, President Obama said:

In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than 3 million jobs. (Applause) – Barack Obama, State of the Union, 1/24/2012" Ibid.

3 .the White House link to the video includes a pretty graphic that clearly shows that 3.2 million new jobs had been created.

Thirteen days later, in an Obama campaign ad on February 6th 2012, the President said:

There’s more work to do, but you might be surprised to hear the progress we’ve made. Twenty-three straight months of jobs growth, nearly 3.7 million jobs added.
– Barack Obama, Campaign Ad, 2/6/2012

Now, in last Saturday’s White House Weekly Address, President Obama upped that number to “nearly” 4 million..." Ibid.



Now...ready?



4. 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.

In terms of employment, the private sector is smaller now than when Obama was sworn in. In January 2009, 110.9 million people were working in the (nonfarm) private sector, but by July 2011 there were only 109.9 million - despite the larger U.S. population in 2011.
RealClearMarkets - More Unemployed Presently, Than In 2009

a. Employed, June 2012 142 million
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted


Again?
Sure....'cause it's a little tricky, numbers and all....


"...[in 2009] 142 million people had jobs. In July 2011, 139.2 million people had jobs."


So....wadda ya' think...142 million plus 4 million is.........

....139 million?



5. ZERO net job growth from 2009 through 2011
Obama Claims 4 Million New Jobs « Inform The Pundits!

ZERO?????

ZERO JOBS?????

Now....Barack Hussein Obama wouldn't lie about this......

....would he????



So....what the heck has this guy been doing for three and a half years????

All of the President' claims of jobs were based on a reference of February, 2010. You're citing speeches a few months old, and things have gone up a little since then, but let's use current data.
January 2009 there were 133,561,000 total and 110,985,000 private sector non-farm pay roll jobs.
February 2010 there were 129,244,000 total and 106,773,000 private sector jobs. Losses of -4,317,000 and -4,212,000 respectively.
June 2012, there were 133,088,000 total and 111,145,000 private sector jobs. Gains of 3,844,000 total and 4,372,000 private sector.
But that is still -473,000 total jobs since Jan 2009. +160,000 private sector (though it still would have been a loss when he gave those speeches).

So Obama was right about gaining 3-4 million jobs since the low point of Feb 2010 though misleading since it was still not up to the level when he took office.

And the critics are right that it was still down from when he took office, but misleading in that they ignored that it had gotten a lot worse and then has improved from the worst.

To sum up: We lost approx 4.3 million jobs in the first 13 months Obama was in office, and have gained back 3.8 million of them in 28 months. So we are recovering, but very slowly. I expect we'll gain back the next half-million by October so he'll have a around a net zero change going into re-election.

1. It's a feature of human nature to try to shield oneself from the embarrassment of having supported, believed, bought-hook-line-and-sinker, an incompetent candidate....

....I understand it.

But to pretend you still have the faith you had in 2008, in the face of over three years of mistakes and ineptitude borders on the dishonest.

2. That being said....yours is an articulate, valiant attempt to retain whatever self-esteem you have left.
But it is feeble.
Insupportable.


3. "January 2009 there were 133,561,000 total..."

No..."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."
Not 133 million.....142 million!

a. Again, from the OP..."Employed, June 2012 142 million"

142 minus 142= ZERO!!!

Q.E.D. the empty suit in the White House created ZERO jobs.




4. Now, to put the stake in deeper....let's consider why it is even worse than ZERO.


a. The population of the United States when the 'great mistake' was made, 2008, was
303,202,683 January 9, 2008
What is the population of the US in 2008

Including the illegal alien population, the total was upwards of 315 million persons.


b. Population growth is about 1% annually.
Population growth (annual %) | Data | Table

So...we can estimate today's population at almost 333 million persons.


5. Ready?
How many jobs above the 142 million should the United States have at this time merely to have kept up with growth????

a. Answer: an additional 125 thousand per month since 2008.
That amounts to over 5 million jobs above the 142 million!!!!

Note: The slowdown in job growth has been stark. From December through February, the economy produced an average of 252,000 jobs a month, twice what is needed to keep up with population growth.
But the jobs generator started sputtering in March, when job growth slowed to 143,000.
Job growth continues to be weak - The Reporter


This incompetent has the nerve to claim 4 million new jobs created....when he has created ZERO!!!


And....he has left the United States with 5 million fewer jobs than necessary to merely stay in pace with population growth!!!


What a loser.

Don't you be a loser:
Do NOT vote for this guy again!!!!

How many times have I said that CON$ are always on both sides of every issue depending on which way the wind blows at the time???

Back in the Bush years when the winds were blowing towards privatizing SS, CON$ were arguing that in just a few years there would be more Boomers leaving the workforce than new workers entering the workforce to fund SS and therefore SS needed to be privatized to save it. That would also mean that you would not need 125,000 new jobs to keep up with new workers entering the workforce. Economists at Barclays Capital have estimated that as little as 75 thousand new jobs per month would be sufficient. Others have said that there will not be enough new workers to take the place of retiring Boomers and we will need to increase the number of immigrants to fill the job vacancies.

But now the blowhards want to make the UE numbers look worse and suddenly no Boomers will ever retire and therefore we will need a new job for every new worker that enters the workforce (giving us an ever expanding workforce to fund SS forever. That is until CON$ want to push for privatizing SS again, and they will.)

“In 1950, there were 16 workers per one putting money into the system—which means that when somebody retired, there’s 16 workers contributing to that person’s retirement. Today there’s 3.3 workers contributing for each beneficiary. And when youngsters retire, it’s going to be 2.1—two workers per beneficiary. In other words, the burden of paying for retirees is increasing on workers.”
—President Bush, February 10, 2005

A Look Ahead at Social Security

Will Social Security be there for you when you’re ready to retire? Most Americans are concerned about the future of Social Security. The problem is simple—the lifespan of the average American increased and therefore outpaced workers’ contributions into the system. When Social Security was enacted in the 1930s, life expectancies were much shorter than they are today. Now, with people living longer, there are more Social Security recipients than ever imagined.

In addition, more people are retiring than entering the workforce, lowering the ratio of workers to beneficiaries. In 1950, there were 16 workers for each Social Security recipient. Today that number has decreased to 3.3-to-1. According to the Social Security Administration (SSA), in 40 years, this ratio may be expected to drop to 2-to-1. If these projections are accurate, future retirees can expect reduced Social Security benefits.

 

[editec]

The economy is shytte.

Obama hasn't fixed it.

Neither has Congress.

Agreed.

Throw all the bums out and lets start over.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well sure ... if you subtract the more than 4million NEW jobs and many millions of saved jobs, yep, sure nuff, that comes to ZERO.

Thanks.

Now, how does that compare to the actual ZERO jobs the pubs/bags have created?

Try as you might, you cannot change reality.

You're exactly the kind of voter Obama is looking for.

Interesting numbers. Zero jobs. Got any nonpartisan proof. The CBO totally disagrees with you. So, why would anyone believe you for rational reasons?

To a partisan like you, only total agreement with your erroneous view is nonpartisan.

Try to apply the JDLR dictum* to Obama's tales....

It's always Groundhog Day 2008....no matter how many fibs this pretender in the people's house tells.





* Just Doesn't Look Right

 

[iamwhatiseem]

...if you were a medium size bus, of medium sophistication, surveying the field- would you expand?

No. As in hell no.
Thus why capital spending is at 20 year lows.
Businesses are in survival mode, not growth mode.
Survival mode = hoard cash, reduce expenses and make do with what you have.
That is what we are doing.
I have spent not one dime since 2009 on capital purchasing. I didn't budget any for 2012, and plan on budgeting $0 for 2013....that soft creaking sound you hear is our doors slowly closing if this doesn't come to an end. And there are many, many more out there just like us. We are not making sustainable profits...very few manufacturers are.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Gotta love still blaming Bush. Should Obama get re-elected, they'll be saying thhat all the way to year 8.


But really, the president can not create private sector jobs. he can merely steer the govt. away from curtailing private sector initiative adn making ventures look enticing.

Now, he did create jobs though. Several 100,000 new federal govt. jobs. Which of course, cost the taxpayers. So while he's a business man's nightmare, he's a big govt. hero.

How many Federal Jobs did GWB create when he created a new federal bureaucracy: Homeland Security?

The stimulus created some federal jobs but mostly jobs for private sector contractors and tax benefits for small business. So, in fact, a president can create private sector jobs, temporary but may lead to permanent jobs depending on the project.

Seem to me GWB was the big government hero.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

‘Uncertainty Reigns Supreme’ in NFIB’s June Optimism Index | Fox Small Business Center

 

[Rshermr]

So, you blame the the dem pres who inherited a repub recession, ?

repub recession??? too stupid!!! IF BO is not responsible for what happens in his administration why is any president??

He is, of course, ed me boy. And unemployment is getting better. And the economy is doing better in terms of corporate profits and sales. But, of course, he can only do what a president can do. And of course, congress must cooperate. And this congress is obstructionist, as demonstrated by the record number of filibusters and absolute refusal to pass any initiative he gets sent their way. So, I know you take no credit for the record recession that he INHERITED. But there it is, in recorded history.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, you blame the the dem pres who inherited a repub recession, ?

repub recession??? too stupid!!! IF BO is not responsible for what happens in his administration why is any president??

He is, of course, ed me boy. And unemployment is getting better. And the economy is doing better in terms of corporate profits and sales. But, of course, he can only do what a president can do. And of course, congress must cooperate. And this congress is obstructionist, as demonstrated by the record number of filibusters and absolute refusal to pass any initiative he gets sent their way. So, I know you take no credit for the record recession that he INHERITED. But there it is, in recorded history.

Speaking of what a President can...or should do....

...prior to the megalomaniac FDR, folks didn't believe the government had a role in the normal ups and downs of the economic cycles...
...and there were many. A number of 'em lasted 2-3 years.


Then came the Keynesian do-gooders, and they managed to extend a recession into a "Great Depression"...increasing its length by some 7-10 years.


So, of course, the current pretender in the people's house chose to follow the road of failure....


You agree with him, don't you.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And this congress is obstructionist,.

of course you have no idea what on earth you are talking about. If Republicans obstruct Democrats from being stupid that helps the situation, not hurts.

If you think Democrats have even one way to create jobs why not tell us what it is or admit to being a complete fool liberal.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Then came the Keynesian do-gooders, and they managed to extend a recession into a "Great Depression"...increasing its length by some 7-10 years.

Imagine what a hero BO will be, to liberals, if he can extend this depression for 7-10 years! He's well on his way!!

 

[Rshermr]

repub recession??? too stupid!!! IF BO is not responsible for what happens in his administration why is any president??

He is, of course, ed me boy. And unemployment is getting better. And the economy is doing better in terms of corporate profits and sales. But, of course, he can only do what a president can do. And of course, congress must cooperate. And this congress is obstructionist, as demonstrated by the record number of filibusters and absolute refusal to pass any initiative he gets sent their way. So, I know you take no credit for the record recession that he INHERITED. But there it is, in recorded history.

Speaking of what a President can...or should do....

...prior to the megalomaniac FDR, folks didn't believe the government had a role in the normal ups and downs of the economic cycles...
...and there were many. A number of 'em lasted 2-3 years.


Then came the Keynesian do-gooders, and they managed to extend a recession into a "Great Depression"...increasing its length by some 7-10 years.


So, of course, the current pretender in the people's house chose to follow the road of failure....


You agree with him, don't you.

I follow truth. Which leaves you out. You are a tea bagger, just quoting dogma. Always the same. No real evidence of anything.

 

[Rshermr]

And this congress is obstructionist,.

of course you have no idea what on earth you are talking about. If Republicans obstruct Democrats from being stupid that helps the situation, not hurts.

If you think Democrats have even one way to create jobs why not tell us what it is or admit to being a complete fool liberal.

Try to follow this, ed me boy. Congress votes on a new bill. If they pass it, the bill goes to the senate. the senate may or may not pass it. But since the house is republican, and the repubs have always had a minority capable of filibuster, nothing has gone forward that is anything close to what the pres wants. New all time record of filibusters in the senate. House brings nothing the pres wants forward. So, ed, me boy, we could do more of what W did, simply agree with congress and we would have more tax decreases. Great, eh, ed. Sure worked for W.

Any more dogma you would like to sling? Still waiting for you to tell me when a decrease in federal income taxes have helped a bad economy. Can't find a case, can you, ed. Just makes the wealthy that pay your repub candidates more wealthy, and the middle class smaller.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

1. "In Saturday’s weekly address President Obama said we’ve created nearly 4 million new jobs in the United States in the last 2 years."
Obama Claims 4 Million New Jobs « Inform The Pundits!

2. "In the State of the Union Address on January 24th 2012, President Obama said:

In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than 3 million jobs. (Applause) – Barack Obama, State of the Union, 1/24/2012" Ibid.

3 .the White House link to the video includes a pretty graphic that clearly shows that 3.2 million new jobs had been created.

Thirteen days later, in an Obama campaign ad on February 6th 2012, the President said:

There’s more work to do, but you might be surprised to hear the progress we’ve made. Twenty-three straight months of jobs growth, nearly 3.7 million jobs added.
– Barack Obama, Campaign Ad, 2/6/2012

Now, in last Saturday’s White House Weekly Address, President Obama upped that number to “nearly” 4 million..." Ibid.



Now...ready?

4. 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.

"now" is July 2011? Who knew?