Obama's First 9 Months - 2.5 million jobs lost

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

How many jobs has Obama lost in 9 months? Employment Situation Summary

Obama has lost 2.5 million jobs.


Total nonfarm ...................| -824,000 | -0.6
Total private ..................| -855,000 | -.8
Mining and logging............| -23,000 | -3.2
Construction .................| -152,000 | -2.5
Manufacturing ................| -67,000 | -.6
Trade, transportation, and | |
utilities...................| -282,000 | -1.1
Information ..................| -36,000 | -1.3
Financial activities .........| -9,000 | -.1
Professional and business | |
services ...................| -111,000 | -.7
Education and health services.| -57,000 | -.3
Leisure and hospitality.......| -76,000 | -.6
Other services ...............| -42,000 | -.8
Government .....................| 31,000


Ok Ok I was a tiny bit off, Obama has lost 2,503,000 jobs since taking office. I hope his administration and congress turns it around like reagan's did.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Job losses all thanks to Bush's and the Congress's (this includes the minority Dems) of the economy.

Recovery will be due to BHO and the majority in the Congress.

Your party, Plymouth, is going to be in the minority for a very long time.

 

[eagleseven]

Everything is Bush's fault, now and forever, Amen.

 

[Modbert]

How utterly pathetic, are you that angry about the facts over Reagan?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Job losses all thanks to Bush's and the Congress's (this includes the minority Dems) of the economy.

Recovery will be due to BHO and the majority in the Congress.

Your party, Plymouth, is going to be in the minority for a very long time.

My party has never even had power.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

How utterly pathetic, are you that angry about the facts over Reagan?

not at all. Reagan lost the same number of jobs as obama has so far, in about 3x the time period.

And like I said at the end of my post I hope the Obama admin and the Congress have the same roaring economic success (as far as unemployment goes) as Reagan (16 million jobs gained in 6 years after losing 2.5 million)

 

[Modbert]

not at all. Reagan lost the same number of jobs as obama has so far, in about 3x the time period.

And like I said at the end of my post I hope the Obama admin and the Congress have the same roaring economic success (as far as unemployment goes) as Reagan (16 million jobs net gain in 8 years)

I have a feeling that for a long time to come, Republicans will use Obama in every single instance. "Reagan lost 2.5 million jobs" SO WHAT? Obamaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa"

You wouldn't of made this thread if not for Toro's. Try not to act otherwise.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Meanwhile, in his weekly radio and Internet video address Saturday, the president linked one of his biggest challenges -- joblessness -- with passage of far-reaching changes to the nation's health care system.

The economic moves were recently pulled together by White House economic advisers as an act of economic triage aimed at millions of chronically unemployed Americans. The White House is loathe to call this emerging package a second economic stimulus.

Even so, President Obama tipped his hand that something was coming in Friday remarks on the economy in the Rose Garden.

"I'm working closely with my economic advisors to explore any and all additional options and measures that we might take to promote job creation," Obama said after the Labor Department reported that 263,000 Americans lost jobs in September and the unemployment rate rose to 9.8 percent.

Embedded in those numbers was this sobering statistic. The number of Americans unemployed for 27 weeks increased by 450,000 and now totals 5.4 million.

Obama Eyes Economic Triage for Unemployed - Political News - FOXNews.com

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

not at all. Reagan lost the same number of jobs as obama has so far, in about 3x the time period.

And like I said at the end of my post I hope the Obama admin and the Congress have the same roaring economic success (as far as unemployment goes) as Reagan (16 million jobs net gain in 6 years after losing 2.5 million)

I have a feeling that for a long time to come, Republicans will use Obama in every single instance. "Reagan lost 2.5 million jobs" SO WHAT? Obamaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa"

You wouldn't of made this thread if not for Toro's. Try not to act otherwise.

That is correct

as for the other part of you're post Did you ignore my wishes for obama to have the same success (13.5 million net jobs created)?

Why did you ignore that and turn it partisan?

 

[Modbert]

as for the other part of you're post Did you ignore my wishes for obama to have the same success (13.5 million net jobs created)?

Why did you ignore that and turn it partisan?

I saw your wishes, but due to the intent of the thread, they seem empty when it comes to the political aspect. This entire premise of the thread is a partisan reaction. I'm sure you want to see 13.5 million net jobs created as would anyone. However, the intent of this thread stands.

 

[Zander]

Obama has 3 years for the economy to improve. If it does, he will be reelected. If it doesn't, he won't be reelected. The reality of American politics: it's the economy, stupid.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

as for the other part of you're post Did you ignore my wishes for obama to have the same success (13.5 million net jobs created)?

Why did you ignore that and turn it partisan?

I saw your wishes, but due to the intent of the thread, they seem empty when it comes to the political aspect. This entire premise of the thread is a partisan reaction. I'm sure you want to see 13.5 million net jobs created as would anyone. However, the intent of this thread stands.

And that intent, in your mind, is?

I read TORO's thread and checked the numbers for our current admin and found it to be even worse, I stated such (with the numbers to back up the statement), and then stated my wishes that he gets it right.

I have not once said I want him to fail with the economy and i'm not going to let someone misrepresent my opinion on that.

 

[Toro]

How many jobs has Obama lost in 9 months? Employment Situation Summary

Obama has lost 2.5 million jobs.


Total nonfarm ...................| -824,000 | -0.6
Total private ..................| -855,000 | -.8
Mining and logging............| -23,000 | -3.2
Construction .................| -152,000 | -2.5
Manufacturing ................| -67,000 | -.6
Trade, transportation, and | |
utilities...................| -282,000 | -1.1
Information ..................| -36,000 | -1.3
Financial activities .........| -9,000 | -.1
Professional and business | |
services ...................| -111,000 | -.7
Education and health services.| -57,000 | -.3
Leisure and hospitality.......| -76,000 | -.6
Other services ...............| -42,000 | -.8
Government .....................| 31,000


Ok Ok I was a tiny bit off, Obama has lost 2,503,000 jobs since taking office. I hope his administration and congress turns it around like reagan's did.

One big difference is that there are ~50% more people in the workforce today than in 1980.

So apples to apples, we would have to see 4 million jobs lost under Obama.

 

[Modbert]

And that intent, in your mind, is?

I read TORO's thread and checked the numbers for our current admin and found it to be even worse, I stated such (with the numbers to back up the statement), and then stated my wishes that he gets it right.

I have not once said I want him to fail with the economy and i'm not going to let someone misrepresent my opinion on that.

The intent was to paint Obama as worse than Reagan. It was a partisan reaction with partisan intent. It wasn't to wish Obama well. I have never said you want him to fail either, you're being overly defensive.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

How many jobs has Obama lost in 9 months? Employment Situation Summary

Obama has lost 2.5 million jobs.


Total nonfarm ...................| -824,000 | -0.6
Total private ..................| -855,000 | -.8
Mining and logging............| -23,000 | -3.2
Construction .................| -152,000 | -2.5
Manufacturing ................| -67,000 | -.6
Trade, transportation, and | |
utilities...................| -282,000 | -1.1
Information ..................| -36,000 | -1.3
Financial activities .........| -9,000 | -.1
Professional and business | |
services ...................| -111,000 | -.7
Education and health services.| -57,000 | -.3
Leisure and hospitality.......| -76,000 | -.6
Other services ...............| -42,000 | -.8
Government .....................| 31,000


Ok Ok I was a tiny bit off, Obama has lost 2,503,000 jobs since taking office. I hope his administration and congress turns it around like reagan's did.

One big difference is that there are ~50% more people in the workforce today than in 1980.

So apples to apples, we would have to see 4 million jobs lost under Obama.

Good point Toro, very good point.

now to do math. 50% more people in the workforce means that the number would have to be 3.8 million for them to be the same.

Now we also have to take time periods into account. so reagan lost 105,000 jobs/month over 2 years.

Obama's number, adjusted for the increase in the labor force would be 185,000 jobs/month over 9 months, that is adjusted for the larger workforce. without adjustment it would be 275,000/month

 

[Toro]

And that intent, in your mind, is?

I read TORO's thread and checked the numbers for our current admin and found it to be even worse, I stated such (with the numbers to back up the statement), and then stated my wishes that he gets it right.

I have not once said I want him to fail with the economy and i'm not going to let someone misrepresent my opinion on that.

The intent was to paint Obama as worse than Reagan. It was a partisan reaction with partisan intent. It wasn't to wish Obama well. I have never said you want him to fail either, you're being overly defensive.

My point wasn't to be partisan, though it was in a partisan arena.

Rather, it is to point out - especially to the partisans - that the same arguments were made during the first few years of Reagan's term and things turned out very different.

The simple fact is that much of what happens in the economy happens outside of the political arena. The recession and collapse was not Bush's "fault," nor is the current recession Obama's "fault."

But highly partisan people see the world through a political spectrum, and always want to blame "them" and take credit for "us."

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

And that intent, in your mind, is?

I read TORO's thread and checked the numbers for our current admin and found it to be even worse, I stated such (with the numbers to back up the statement), and then stated my wishes that he gets it right.

I have not once said I want him to fail with the economy and i'm not going to let someone misrepresent my opinion on that.

The intent was to paint Obama as worse than Reagan. It was a partisan reaction with partisan intent. It wasn't to wish Obama well. I have never said you want him to fail either, you're being overly defensive.

It was a truthful reaction with the intent of showing that we have come out of similar situations before and could do it again. As you have asked I will stop overly defending myself from bogus ( I added bogus) claims about my intent.

 

[Modbert]

My point wasn't to be partisan, though it was in a partisan arena.

Rather, it is to point out - especially to the partisans - that the same arguments were made during the first few years of Reagan's term and things turned out very different.

The simple fact is that much of what happens in the economy happens outside of the political arena. The recession and collapse was not Bush's "fault," nor is the current recession Obama's "fault."

But highly partisan people see the world through a political spectrum, and always want to blame "them" and take credit for "us."

I wasn't referring to your post being partisan. It was in the partisan area, but it was pointing out a fact. I got what you were trying to get across.

 

[Modbert]

It was a truthful reaction with the intent of showing that we have come out of similar situations before and could do it again. As you have asked I will stop overly defending myself from bogus ( I added bogus) claims about my intent.

Why lie? It was to try and prove Toro wrong by pointing out how Obama has done. Again, I have never said you want the economy or Obama to fail. However, you have no problem in digging up these statistics because you saw Toro's post as an insult towards Reagan. When it wasn't at all.

Edit: You didn't add the part about turning it around except in your own edit.

 

[L.K.Eder]

And that intent, in your mind, is?

I read TORO's thread and checked the numbers for our current admin and found it to be even worse, I stated such (with the numbers to back up the statement), and then stated my wishes that he gets it right.

I have not once said I want him to fail with the economy and i'm not going to let someone misrepresent my opinion on that.

The intent was to paint Obama as worse than Reagan. It was a partisan reaction with partisan intent. It wasn't to wish Obama well. I have never said you want him to fail either, you're being overly defensive.

It was a truthful reaction with the intent of showing that we have come out of similar situations before and could do it again. As you have asked I will stop overly defending myself from bogus ( I added bogus) claims about my intent.

your truthful reactions smell like pee, pilgrim.