Why are so many more jobs created by Democratic presidents?

Nope. There were 9 million jobs created under Carter, and 332,000 (so far) for Obama.

The worst job creation numbers were for our last president - Bush. 646,000 jobs were lost during the Bush 2 years.

Edit: that's LOST, not gained.

Yet you forget the #'s of people added to the possible work force, which is MORE than that number.. hence why we have more out of work

There is a net loss of jobs under Obamalama...

No, not a net loss, a net gain. A net gain of 332,000 private sector jobs, so far.

Here's the complete list:


Republicans

Richard Nixon: Increase of 7.1 million jobs
Gerald Ford: Increase of 1.3 million jobs
Ronald Reagan: Increase of 14.7 million jobs
George H.W. Bush: Increase of 1.5 million jobs
George W. Bush: Decline of 646,000 jobs

Total: Increase of 23.9 million jobs under Republican presidents

Democrats

John F. Kennedy: Increase of 2.7 million jobs
Lyndon B. Johnson: Increase of 9.5 million jobs
Jimmy Carter: Increase of 9.0 million jobs
Bill Clinton: Increase of 20.8 million jobs
Barack Obama: Increase of 332,000 jobs

Absolutely false
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=agJ
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=agI
 
Last edited:
In his speech last night, Bill Clinton said,

Since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24," Clinton said. "In those 52 years, our private economy has produced 66 million private-sector jobs. So what's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 (million)." In the packed convention hall, it was one of the night’s biggest applause lines.

42 million vs. 24 is a big difference. Why are so many more jobs created under Democrats?

Because under Republicans, government can't create jobs. Self fulfillment prophecy.
 
Why is GDP growth higher in the 4th year of a Republican President's term than a Democrat Presidents? These numbers need to really be looked at with more depth than just who's was President when it occurred. How bout some explanation in policy and economic cycles and population growth for reasons why growth occurred the way it did during certain periods?
 
Maybe Obama really isn't a Democrat, he's got a Socialist job creation track record
 
Because Democrats inherit good economies from Republicans.

Sort of like the good economy Obama inherited from Bush...

Isn't it strange that the bad economy under Obama has nothing to do with him yet you argue that the good economies under Democrats were solely of their own making. Strangely enough, that makes you the one that is trying to have it both ways, not me.

Wow. It takes balls to accuse me of doing what you just did.
 
The CBO says no. Unless you hate math I guess that means you agree that Clinton had nothing to do with it.

Um, what?

Clinton had nothing to do with balancing the budget, or else I hate math?

And the CBO says that?

Where?

Damn, not only do you hate math, you can't read.

I said that, according to the CBO, Clinton's policies had nothing to do with the projected surplus. The dot com bubble increased revenue higher than it has ever been before, that had nothing to do with anything that Clinton did. Here is the report, you can skip to page 7 to find the part I am talking about. Or you can keep believing that the world works by magic, your choice.

CBO | The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update

The report says the Clinton surpluses were primarily due to a strong and growing economy. I take it you think Clinton had nothing to do with that?
 
Yet you forget the #'s of people added to the possible work force, which is MORE than that number.. hence why we have more out of work

There is a net loss of jobs under Obamalama...

No, not a net loss, a net gain. A net gain of 332,000 private sector jobs, so far.

Here's the complete list:


Republicans

Richard Nixon: Increase of 7.1 million jobs
Gerald Ford: Increase of 1.3 million jobs
Ronald Reagan: Increase of 14.7 million jobs
George H.W. Bush: Increase of 1.5 million jobs
George W. Bush: Decline of 646,000 jobs

Total: Increase of 23.9 million jobs under Republican presidents

Democrats

John F. Kennedy: Increase of 2.7 million jobs
Lyndon B. Johnson: Increase of 9.5 million jobs
Jimmy Carter: Increase of 9.0 million jobs
Bill Clinton: Increase of 20.8 million jobs
Barack Obama: Increase of 332,000 jobs

Absolutely false
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=agJ
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=agI

Amazingly, your graphs show it's absolutely true.
 
Enron was a "private sector" company. It expanded during Clinton's fake dot-com economy. Up until Bill Clinton's time the most notorious corporate pirate in history was Marc Rich who was on the FBI's 10 most wanted list. Billy boy pardoned him for a couple of bucks donated to his sleazy library. What happened to former democrat gov. Jon Corzine when he "lost" billions in investor funds? Nothing. Barney Fwank told America that Fannie Mae was doing fine when it was on the verge of collapse. Trust democrats to create jobs? Yeah right.
 
No, not a net loss, a net gain. A net gain of 332,000 private sector jobs, so far.

Here's the complete list:


Republicans

Richard Nixon: Increase of 7.1 million jobs
Gerald Ford: Increase of 1.3 million jobs
Ronald Reagan: Increase of 14.7 million jobs
George H.W. Bush: Increase of 1.5 million jobs
George W. Bush: Decline of 646,000 jobs

Total: Increase of 23.9 million jobs under Republican presidents

Democrats

John F. Kennedy: Increase of 2.7 million jobs
Lyndon B. Johnson: Increase of 9.5 million jobs
Jimmy Carter: Increase of 9.0 million jobs
Bill Clinton: Increase of 20.8 million jobs
Barack Obama: Increase of 332,000 jobs

Absolutely false
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=agJ
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=agI

Amazingly, your graphs show it's absolutely true.

Amazingly.. it does not.... put in the timeframes yourself... FEB 2009 to current... your 300K+ claim is absolutely false... your claim about Bush II, absolutely false...

But don't let that get in the way of your sloganeering

Winger idiot
 
Um, what?

Clinton had nothing to do with balancing the budget, or else I hate math?

And the CBO says that?

Where?

Damn, not only do you hate math, you can't read.

I said that, according to the CBO, Clinton's policies had nothing to do with the projected surplus. The dot com bubble increased revenue higher than it has ever been before, that had nothing to do with anything that Clinton did. Here is the report, you can skip to page 7 to find the part I am talking about. Or you can keep believing that the world works by magic, your choice.

CBO | The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update

The report says the Clinton surpluses were primarily due to a strong and growing economy. I take it you think Clinton had nothing to do with that?

And another myth ones like you constantly try and push

Uhhh sorry.. no surplus since 1957
 

Amazingly.. it does not.... put in the timeframes yourself... FEB 2009 to current... your 300K+ claim is absolutely false... your claim about Bush II, absolutely false...

But don't let that get in the way of your sloganeering

Winger idiot

Ok, so here's the actual numbers. Private sector jobs, all employees (USPRIV).

2009-02-01 110260
2009-03-01 109473
2009-04-01 108671
2009-05-01 108359
2009-06-01 107933
2009-07-01 107637
2009-08-01 107418
2009-09-01 107234
2009-10-01 107002
2009-11-01 106960
2009-12-01 106840
2010-01-01 106800
2010-02-01 106773
2010-03-01 106914
2010-04-01 107107
2010-05-01 107191
2010-06-01 107283
2010-07-01 107375
2010-08-01 107503
2010-09-01 107618
2010-10-01 107814
2010-11-01 107948
2010-12-01 108088
2011-01-01 108207
2011-02-01 108464
2011-03-01 108725
2011-04-01 108989
2011-05-01 109097
2011-06-01 109199
2011-07-01 109374
2011-08-01 109426
2011-09-01 109642
2011-10-01 109781
2011-11-01 109959
2011-12-01 110193
2012-01-01 110470
2012-02-01 110724
2012-03-01 110871
2012-04-01 110956
2012-05-01 111072
2012-06-01 111145
2012-07-01 111317

111317-110260 = 1057.

Those are in the millions, so that's just over a million private sector jobs. That's more than what Politifact says. I'm not sure what the discrepency is. Maybe they were counting from Jan. 1, 2009. That would get you to exactly 332,000. (But it would be unfair, because it would be attributing the job losses of Dec. 2008 to Obama. Bush was still president then.)

Either way, there are more private sector jobs now than when Obama took office. And that's what your chart shows. Take a look at it again.
 
Here are the numbers from when Bush was president.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/USPRIV.txt

2001-02-01 111623
2001-03-01 111556
2001-04-01 111227
2001-05-01 111146
2001-06-01 110910
2001-07-01 110737
2001-08-01 110549
2001-09-01 110282
2001-10-01 109918
2001-11-01 109572
2001-12-01 109365
2002-01-01 109214
2002-02-01 109055
2002-03-01 108990
2002-04-01 108894
2002-05-01 108814
2002-06-01 108826
2002-07-01 108731
2002-08-01 108675
2002-09-01 108663
2002-10-01 108771
2002-11-01 108757
2002-12-01 108587
2003-01-01 108644
2003-02-01 108487
2003-03-01 108288
2003-04-01 108254
2003-05-01 108273
2003-06-01 108234
2003-07-01 108232
2003-08-01 108264
2003-09-01 108425
2003-10-01 108568
2003-11-01 108605
2003-12-01 108713
2004-01-01 108883
2004-02-01 108915
2004-03-01 109214
2004-04-01 109437
2004-05-01 109747
2004-06-01 109841
2004-07-01 109882
2004-08-01 109984
2004-09-01 110136
2004-10-01 110463
2004-11-01 110490
2004-12-01 110623
2005-01-01 110718
2005-02-01 110949
2005-03-01 111094
2005-04-01 111440
2005-05-01 111583
2005-06-01 111844
2005-07-01 112124
2005-08-01 112311
2005-09-01 112395
2005-10-01 112491
2005-11-01 112795
2005-12-01 112935
2006-01-01 113250
2006-02-01 113535
2006-03-01 113793
2006-04-01 113958
2006-05-01 113965
2006-06-01 114045
2006-07-01 114203
2006-08-01 114348
2006-09-01 114434
2006-10-01 114439
2006-11-01 114628
2006-12-01 114794
2007-01-01 115023
2007-02-01 115080
2007-03-01 115252
2007-04-01 115298
2007-05-01 115419
2007-06-01 115480
2007-07-01 115476
2007-08-01 115403
2007-09-01 115423
2007-10-01 115484
2007-11-01 115559
2007-12-01 115606
2008-01-01 115647
2008-02-01 115511
2008-03-01 115399
2008-04-01 115184
2008-05-01 114968
2008-06-01 114737
2008-07-01 114478
2008-08-01 114184
2008-09-01 113759
2008-10-01 113279
2008-11-01 112482
2008-12-01 111824
2009-01-01 110985
2009-02-01 110260

That's 111,623 -110,260 = 1,363. Those are in thousands, so it's 1,363,000 lost jobs.

Again, more than what Politifact says. Presumably because they're counting the Dec. 2008 job losses against Obama, instead of Bush. There were 725,000 jobs lost that month.

Anyway, either way, Bush finished out his 8 years with fewer private sector jobs than what there were when he started.
 
Um, what?

Clinton had nothing to do with balancing the budget, or else I hate math?

And the CBO says that?

Where?

Damn, not only do you hate math, you can't read.

I said that, according to the CBO, Clinton's policies had nothing to do with the projected surplus. The dot com bubble increased revenue higher than it has ever been before, that had nothing to do with anything that Clinton did. Here is the report, you can skip to page 7 to find the part I am talking about. Or you can keep believing that the world works by magic, your choice.

CBO | The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update

The report says the Clinton surpluses were primarily due to a strong and growing economy. I take it you think Clinton had nothing to do with that?

Yes, I think that, so did the CBO.
 
Damn, not only do you hate math, you can't read.

I said that, according to the CBO, Clinton's policies had nothing to do with the projected surplus. The dot com bubble increased revenue higher than it has ever been before, that had nothing to do with anything that Clinton did. Here is the report, you can skip to page 7 to find the part I am talking about. Or you can keep believing that the world works by magic, your choice.

CBO | The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update

The report says the Clinton surpluses were primarily due to a strong and growing economy. I take it you think Clinton had nothing to do with that?

Yes, I think that, so did the CBO.

Not that I'm looking to beat a dead horse here, but again, that's not what it said. It said the growth in the economy created the surpluses. It said nothing about whether Clinton had something to do with that growth. Maybe he didn't. That's obviously what you think. But it's not what the CBO said.
 
Yup, just a coincidence, like every cronyism and corruption bubble and bust happens under Pubs since 1872, AND Great Depressions.

BTW,Carter produced 4 million jobs. I blame Teddy for the lack of austerity Carter wanted. And of course the usual mindless Pub obstruction. Tho, of course, nothing THIS bad...

I know, let's cut taxes on the bloated rich, destroy Medicare and health reform, raise taxes and fees on the nonrich, let corporate cheats run wild, cut aid to states and localities, raise military spending to more than the rest of the world combined, and worry about the debt in 2035. Absolute idiocy, dupes
 
Whoa whoa whoa! Just last night I asked if he wandered into fantasyland said said anything about how the government creates private jobs. I was told no. Now we have a whole thread on it.
 
Pure luck. Presidents tend to get too much credit when the economy is doing good and too much of the blame during bad economic times. The biggest private sector growth came under Clintona nd he had two massive bubbles building, plus the one that has yet to pop. It was pure luck on Clintons part and has little or nothing to do with his policies.

Pure luck over 52 years? Look at the shit storm that Obama and Clinton were dealt. Obama still has been able to create more private sector jobs in less than 4 years, that Bush W.

If you understood economics..maybe. What mess did Clinton inherit upon taking office?

The S&L fiasco, which was costing hundreds of billions, in 1993 dollars. High unemployment. Nothing as bad as what Obama inherited, i.e. the worst quarter since 1930.
 
In his speech last night, Bill Clinton said,

Since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24," Clinton said. "In those 52 years, our private economy has produced 66 million private-sector jobs. So what's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 (million)." In the packed convention hall, it was one of the night’s biggest applause lines.

42 million vs. 24 is a big difference. Why are so many more jobs created under Democrats?

Things like raising minimum wage, supporting collective bargaining, helping people pay for education grows the economy from the middle out. That works. Trickle down doesn't. A dollar given to a poor person is going to create more jobs than a dollar given to the wealthy.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top