Did Bush create 7,502,000 jobs as the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows??

[Harry Dresden]

Yeah, nice try... Bush was president for what, 9 years?

it was supposed to say 2008

but fy 2008 runs to oct 2009

Don't worry about it GT. There is no one on here that is really interested in what really happened. And there is certainly nothing in the way of information that would make Bush look bad that would be believed.

Better to type; Obama BAD, Bush GOOD. Or vice versa. Depending on your POV.

yep.....thats what it boils down too aint it?....if your job does great under one but shitty under the other.....who are you going to think is a better President?.....

 

[healthmyths]

The republican world is a strange land to inhabit. Up is down and right is wrong and George Bush was the greatest President EVER. Really he was. Heath Myths says so and that's the end of discussion. Hell repeat something often enough and everybody will believe it.

I know I do. King George. What a Pres. he was. Created 93 million new jobs and my retirement accounts never took a hit when George was President. Also I never lost thousands in equity on my properties either.

The fact that it LOOKED like I lost all that money was the result of the Lame Stream Media making shit up. Or was it all Obamas fault. I forget.

Right health myths?

NONE of your comments are correct.

I'm only repeating what the Bureau of Labor Statistics stated.
That is a problem you have with them... not me. I am just showing what they reported and I NEVER said Bush created! I asked the question based on what the BLS reported..
Again because your attention span is so short and everything goes WAY over your head... I'll repeat!
At the End of 2008 143,338,000 Employment Situation News Release
At the End of 2000 135,836,000 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/empsit_01052001.txt
And that after 8 years 7,502,000 More working end of 2008 then at end of 2000!

So if the BLS contends that at the end of Bush administration 7,502,000 more people were employed then at the beginning IN spite of:

1) THE RECESSION that started declining in 2000 and was officially started in 3/2001 Contributed to businesses letting people go...i.e. contributed to UNEMPLOYMENT!!!
2) There was a dot.com bubble bust in that cost $5 trillion in losses.. 300,000 jobs skilled technology workers were out of jobs
3) A minor event --- 9/11! 800,000 jobs lost directly in travel/transportation businesses due to closures which means UNEMPLOYMENT!!!
4) And of the 10 Costliest Catastrophes..
Kiplinger - Interstitial
10. Hurricane Rita 2005
8. Hurricane Ivan 2004
7. Hurricane Charley 2004
6. Hurricane Wilma 2005
5. Hurricane Ike 2008
3. 9/11 Terrorist Attacks 2001
1. Hurricane Katrina 2005...
GEEZ notice something similar??? All during 2001 to 2008!!! GEEZ think that had ANY affect on people losing their jobs???
400,000 jobs lost due to worst hurricane SEASONS 7 of the top 10 hurricanes occurred during 2001 to 2008!

So if in spite of nearly 3 million jobs lost due to Recession/dot.com/9/11 and worst hurricanes IF those events hadn't occurred that would have been a total of
nearly 10 million more people working at the end of 2008 then at the beginning!

Please PROVE that all of the above DIDN"T happen ok???

 

[zeke]

The republican world is a strange land to inhabit. Up is down and right is wrong and George Bush was the greatest President EVER. Really he was. Heath Myths says so and that's the end of discussion. Hell repeat something often enough and everybody will believe it.

I know I do. King George. What a Pres. he was. Created 93 million new jobs and my retirement accounts never took a hit when George was President. Also I never lost thousands in equity on my properties either.

The fact that it LOOKED like I lost all that money was the result of the Lame Stream Media making shit up. Or was it all Obamas fault. I forget.

Right health myths?

NONE of your comments are correct.

I'm only repeating what the Bureau of Labor Statistics stated.
That is a problem you have with them... not me. I am just showing what they reported and I NEVER said Bush created! I asked the question based on what the BLS reported..
Again because your attention span is so short and everything goes WAY over your head... I'll repeat!
At the End of 2008 143,338,000 Employment Situation News Release
At the End of 2000 135,836,000 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/empsit_01052001.txt
And that after 8 years 7,502,000 More working end of 2008 then at end of 2000!

So if the BLS contends that at the end of Bush administration 7,502,000 more people were employed then at the beginning IN spite of:

1) THE RECESSION that started declining in 2000 and was officially started in 3/2001 Contributed to businesses letting people go...i.e. contributed to UNEMPLOYMENT!!!
2) There was a dot.com bubble bust in that cost $5 trillion in losses.. 300,000 jobs skilled technology workers were out of jobs
3) A minor event --- 9/11! 800,000 jobs lost directly in travel/transportation businesses due to closures which means UNEMPLOYMENT!!!
4) And of the 10 Costliest Catastrophes..
Kiplinger - Interstitial
10. Hurricane Rita 2005
8. Hurricane Ivan 2004
7. Hurricane Charley 2004
6. Hurricane Wilma 2005
5. Hurricane Ike 2008
3. 9/11 Terrorist Attacks 2001
1. Hurricane Katrina 2005...
GEEZ notice something similar??? All during 2001 to 2008!!! GEEZ think that had ANY affect on people losing their jobs???
400,000 jobs lost due to worst hurricane SEASONS 7 of the top 10 hurricanes occurred during 2001 to 2008!

So if in spite of nearly 3 million jobs lost due to Recession/dot.com/9/11 and worst hurricanes IF those events hadn't occurred that would have been a total of
nearly 10 million more people working at the end of 2008 then at the beginning!

Please PROVE that all of the above DIDN"T happen ok???

Obama BAD, Bush GOOD. What the **** is there to dispute? Or prove?

 

[zeke]

it was supposed to say 2008

but fy 2008 runs to oct 2009

Don't worry about it GT. There is no one on here that is really interested in what really happened. And there is certainly nothing in the way of information that would make Bush look bad that would be believed.

Better to type; Obama BAD, Bush GOOD. Or vice versa. Depending on your POV.

yep.....thats what it boils down too aint it?....if your job does great under one but shitty under the other.....who are you going to think is a better President?.....

Which POV are you going with? Bush GOOD, Obama BAD. Or the other way around?
Just curious.

 

[healthmyths]

I really get a great laugh out of people like Zeke... !
Can't refute ONE single point THAT I DIDN"T make up but that the government reports!
And so he goes into fantasy land just like his Messiah.."If you like your plan you can keep your plan"... "I know nothing..I see nothing"..

 

[edthecynic]

But none of you have disputed the FACT that
Bureau of Labor Statistics state:
End of 2000 135,836,000 people were employed.
End of 2008 143,338,000 people employed.
That mean there were 7,502,000 people MORE working at the end of 2008 then end of 2000!
Why is there any dispute with the Bureau of Labor Statistics???

The last month of Clinton's presidency, Jan 2001, there were 137,778,000 employed and 6,023,000 unemployed.
The last month of the Bush Regime, Jan 2009, there were 142,153,000 employed and 12,079,000 unemployed.
The Bush Regime had a net loss of 681,000 jobs.

 

[jasonnfree]

Step one to proving Bush created ANY jobs:

Unequivocally reject as bullshit what conservatives repeatedly claim:

...that the government doesn't create jobs.

Responsible for creating an environment whereas jobs are either created or lost is a much different question than who creates jobs. Presidents don't create jobs. Presidents enforce the law. Congress does not create jobs. They make laws. Individuals create jobs.

But if the government decides to hire 10,000 people this year then which individuals created the jobs? The answer has to be a politician, congress, or president.

 

[healthmyths]

I really get a great laugh out of people like Zeke... !
Can't refute ONE single point THAT I DIDN"T make up but that the government reports!
And so he goes into fantasy land just like his Messiah.."If you like your plan you can keep your plan"... "I know nothing..I see nothing"..

you didn't make a point.

you posted numbers and forgot about context, like all the job losses that happened in 2009 as a direct result of the great recession that happened on the tail end of the BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

both administrations suck, but sucking bushs cock doesn't make him suck less sucker

You are truly an idiot!
I am simply asking a question!
Did Bush create 7,502,000 jobs based on this simple arithmetic exercise!
At the End of 2008 143,338,000 Employment Situation News Release
At the End of 2000 135,836,000 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/empsit_01052001.txt
And that after 8 years 7,502,000 More working end of 2008 then at end of 2000!

Why is it so hard to answer that question? Is 143,338,000 employed at the end of 008 a larger number then 135,836,000 at the end of 2000?
Obviously this is so complicated it goes WAY OVER YOUR HEAD!
NO context required. NO massaging the data. Just simple number... is that to hard to comprehend???

 

[jasonnfree]

They can only count the number of jobs created on someone's watch. Government doesn't create jobs, but it has a strong effect on how the private sector can create jobs or not. Government can certainly pass legislation that is conducive to job creation or it can pass job-killing legislation, like Obamacare. The private sector will react to policies by expanding and hiring or just laying people off.

How do you know Obamacare's a job killer? It hasn't really gotten started yet. Something this massive will take awhile to assess although to some, everything Obama does is a disaster even though under him the economy is doing pretty well compared to when he took over.

 

[edthecynic]

NONE of your comments are correct.

I'm only repeating what the Bureau of Labor Statistics stated.
That is a problem you have with them... not me. I am just showing what they reported and I NEVER said Bush created! I asked the question based on what the BLS reported..
Again because your attention span is so short and everything goes WAY over your head... I'll repeat!
At the End of 2008 143,338,000 Employment Situation News Release
At the End of 2000 135,836,000 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/empsit_01052001.txt
And that after 8 years 7,502,000 More working end of 2008 then at end of 2000!

None of your calculations are correct!

You cheat by taking Clinton's last month of job creation and give it to Bush, and then drop Bush's last month of job losses for a real total of 5,375,000 jobs. Then you ignore Bush's doubling the number of unemployed for a loss of 6,023,000 jobs! So Bush's net was a loss of 681,000 jobs over his 8 years.

 

[healthmyths]

But none of you have disputed the FACT that
Bureau of Labor Statistics state:
End of 2000 135,836,000 people were employed.
End of 2008 143,338,000 people employed.
That mean there were 7,502,000 people MORE working at the end of 2008 then end of 2000!
Why is there any dispute with the Bureau of Labor Statistics???

The last month of Clinton's presidency, Jan 2001, there were 137,778,000 employed and 6,023,000 unemployed.
The last month of the Bush Regime, Jan 2009, there were 142,153,000 employed and 12,079,000 unemployed.
The Bush Regime had a net loss of 681,000 jobs.

And I sincerely doubt your sources since you didn't cite them!
HERE once again...
At the End of 2008 143,338,000 Employment Situation News Release
At the End of 2000 135,836,000 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/empsit_01052001.txt
And that after 8 years 7,502,000 More working end of 2008 then at end of 2000!
WHAT is the problem with making that statement!
I've provided LINKS to prove MY simple statement and YOU CAN"T DISPROVE THOSE simple statements! THERE IS NO way.
PROVE THAT the end of 2008 there weren't 143,338,000 employed as the BLS states and prove that the end of 2000 there weren't 135,836,000 employed and finally then the really difficult
point PROVE that when you subtract from 143,338,000 a total of 135,836,000 that shows 7,502,000 more people employed!
YOU can't so why are you attempting to massage, to obfuscate the plain simple facts?
YOU just can't stand that simple truth and kills you to admit it! WHY? It is simple arithmetic!

 

[edthecynic]

I really get a great laugh out of people like Zeke... !
Can't refute ONE single point THAT I DIDN"T make up but that the government reports!
And so he goes into fantasy land just like his Messiah.."If you like your plan you can keep your plan"... "I know nothing..I see nothing"..

you didn't make a point.

you posted numbers and forgot about context, like all the job losses that happened in 2009 as a direct result of the great recession that happened on the tail end of the BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

both administrations suck, but sucking bushs cock doesn't make him suck less sucker

You are truly an idiot!
I am simply asking a question!
Did Bush create 7,502,000 jobs based on this simple arithmetic exercise!
At the End of 2008 143,338,000 Employment Situation News Release
At the End of 2000 135,836,000 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/empsit_01052001.txt
And that after 8 years 7,502,000 More working end of 2008 then at end of 2000!

Why is it so hard to answer that question? Is 143,338,000 employed at the end of 008 a larger number then 135,836,000 at the end of 2000?
Obviously this is so complicated it goes WAY OVER YOUR HEAD!
NO context required. NO massaging the data. Just simple number... is that to hard to comprehend???

You are truly a liar.
You massage the data by dropping Bush's last month of severe job losses and replacing it with Clinton's last month of job creation.

You fool no one.

 

[healthmyths]

NONE of your comments are correct.

I'm only repeating what the Bureau of Labor Statistics stated.
That is a problem you have with them... not me. I am just showing what they reported and I NEVER said Bush created! I asked the question based on what the BLS reported..
Again because your attention span is so short and everything goes WAY over your head... I'll repeat!
At the End of 2008 143,338,000 Employment Situation News Release
At the End of 2000 135,836,000 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/empsit_01052001.txt
And that after 8 years 7,502,000 More working end of 2008 then at end of 2000!

None of your calculations are correct!

You cheat by taking Clinton's last month of job creation and give it to Bush, and then drop Bush's last month of job losses for a real total of 5,375,000 jobs. Then you ignore Bush's doubling the number of unemployed for a loss of 6,023,000 jobs! So Bush's net was a loss of 681,000 jobs over his 8 years.

A) I don't believe you at all because YOU DON"T CITE any sources! HOW f...king Dumb!!!!

B) HOW can you dispute that the END of 2000 there were 135,836,000? THAT is the END of 2000!
Then at the END of 2008 There were 143,338,000 again how can you dispute that??

Subtract 135,836,000 from 143,338,000 and the FACT of simple math is 7,502,000 more employed at the end of 2008 then end of 2000!

WHY is that so hard to admit???

 

[edthecynic]

But none of you have disputed the FACT that
Bureau of Labor Statistics state:
End of 2000 135,836,000 people were employed.
End of 2008 143,338,000 people employed.
That mean there were 7,502,000 people MORE working at the end of 2008 then end of 2000!
Why is there any dispute with the Bureau of Labor Statistics???

The last month of Clinton's presidency, Jan 2001, there were 137,778,000 employed and 6,023,000 unemployed.
The last month of the Bush Regime, Jan 2009, there were 142,153,000 employed and 12,079,000 unemployed.
The Bush Regime had a net loss of 681,000 jobs.

And I sincerely doubt your sources since you didn't cite them!
HERE once again...
At the End of 2008 143,338,000 Employment Situation News Release
At the End of 2000 135,836,000 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/empsit_01052001.txt
And that after 8 years 7,502,000 More working end of 2008 then at end of 2000!
WHAT is the problem with making that statement!
I've provided LINKS to prove MY simple statement and YOU CAN"T DISPROVE THOSE simple statements! THERE IS NO way.
PROVE THAT the end of 2008 there weren't 143,338,000 employed as the BLS states and prove that the end of 2000 there weren't 135,836,000 employed and finally then the really difficult
point PROVE that when you subtract from 143,338,000 a total of 135,836,000 that shows 7,502,000 more people employed!
YOU can't so why are you attempting to massage, to obfuscate the plain simple facts?
YOU just can't stand that simple truth and kills you to admit it! WHY? It is simple arithmetic!

My source is the BLS whom you have already established as reliable.

The problem, as you well know, is you used dishonest start and stop dates for the Bush Regime and ignored the 6 million+ increase in unemployed during the Bush Regime.

I simply used the correct dates and ALL the data.

Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age

 

[healthmyths]

The last month of Clinton's presidency, Jan 2001, there were 137,778,000 employed and 6,023,000 unemployed.
The last month of the Bush Regime, Jan 2009, there were 142,153,000 employed and 12,079,000 unemployed.
The Bush Regime had a net loss of 681,000 jobs.

And I sincerely doubt your sources since you didn't cite them!
HERE once again...
At the End of 2008 143,338,000 Employment Situation News Release
At the End of 2000 135,836,000 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/empsit_01052001.txt
And that after 8 years 7,502,000 More working end of 2008 then at end of 2000!
WHAT is the problem with making that statement!
I've provided LINKS to prove MY simple statement and YOU CAN"T DISPROVE THOSE simple statements! THERE IS NO way.
PROVE THAT the end of 2008 there weren't 143,338,000 employed as the BLS states and prove that the end of 2000 there weren't 135,836,000 employed and finally then the really difficult
point PROVE that when you subtract from 143,338,000 a total of 135,836,000 that shows 7,502,000 more people employed!
YOU can't so why are you attempting to massage, to obfuscate the plain simple facts?
YOU just can't stand that simple truth and kills you to admit it! WHY? It is simple arithmetic!

My source is the BLS whom you have already established as reliable.

The problem, as you well know, is you used dishonest start and stop dates for the Bush Regime and ignored the 6 million+ increase in unemployed during the Bush Regime.

I simply used the correct dates and ALL the data.

Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age

NO you are NOT USING THESE TWO sources!!!

At the End of 2008 143,338,000 Employment Situation News Release
At the End of 2000 135,836,000 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/empsit_01052001.txt
And that after 8 years 7,502,000 More working end of 2008 then at end of 2000!

I am asking you to USE the sources I cited which are clearly above!
I don't care about your sources.. Check the sources I cite!

 

[edthecynic]

NONE of your comments are correct.

I'm only repeating what the Bureau of Labor Statistics stated.
That is a problem you have with them... not me. I am just showing what they reported and I NEVER said Bush created! I asked the question based on what the BLS reported..
Again because your attention span is so short and everything goes WAY over your head... I'll repeat!
At the End of 2008 143,338,000 Employment Situation News Release
At the End of 2000 135,836,000 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/empsit_01052001.txt
And that after 8 years 7,502,000 More working end of 2008 then at end of 2000!

None of your calculations are correct!

You cheat by taking Clinton's last month of job creation and give it to Bush, and then drop Bush's last month of job losses for a real total of 5,375,000 jobs. Then you ignore Bush's doubling the number of unemployed for a loss of 6,023,000 jobs! So Bush's net was a loss of 681,000 jobs over his 8 years.

A) I don't believe you at all because YOU DON"T CITE any sources! HOW f...king Dumb!!!!

B) HOW can you dispute that the END of 2000 there were 135,836,000? THAT is the END of 2000!
Then at the END of 2008 There were 143,338,000 again how can you dispute that??

Subtract 135,836,000 from 143,338,000 and the FACT of simple math is 7,502,000 more employed at the end of 2008 then end of 2000!

WHY is that so hard to admit???

I'm not disputing the end of 2000 and 2008, I am disputing those as the start and stop dates of the Bush Regime. Clinton was still president Jan 2001 and Bush was still president Jan 2009, so you need to subtract Jan 2001 from Jan 2009 not Dec 2000 from Dec 2008. You also have to account for the change in unemployed over the same period.