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

[TooTall]

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

Nope, he did not. But he did empower the economic situation for it to crash and lose millions of jobs. Fact.

Bush didn't empower the ecomic situation causing a crash, he merely allowed, or was unable to stop the housing boom started under Clinton that went bust.

 

[edthecynic]

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!

Why would I use your WRONG data?????
I know you don't care about using the data from the correct months because your lie falls apart!!!

 

[Harry Dresden]

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.

i think Obama and Bush are 2 of the worst Presidents we have ever had....im sure some did well under Bush and are doing worse under Obama and vice-versa....my biggest thing with both of them is, they both are 2 piss poor leaders......

 

[healthmyths]

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!

Why would I use your WRONG data?????
I know you don't care about using the data from the correct months because your lie falls apart!!!

Then you are totally unbelievable since you won't cite your sources while I gave you the exact dates and more importantly the LINKS!
YOU provide nothing but your convoluted irrational and definitely indefensible stupid statements!
I am asking a simple question. At the end of 2008 there were 7,502,000 people employed then at the end of 2000!
Total fact. Totally irrefutable!

 

[G.T.]

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!

Why would I use your WRONG data?????
I know you don't care about using the data from the correct months because your lie falls apart!!!

Then you are totally unbelievable since you won't cite your sources while I gave you the exact dates and more importantly the LINKS!
YOU provide nothing but your convoluted irrational and definitely indefensible stupid statements!
I am asking a simple question. At the end of 2008 there were 7,502,000 people employed then at the end of 2000!
Total fact. Totally irrefutable!

Bush ended in Jan 2009, not December 2008 dunce.

Clinton ended in Jan, 2001, not December 2000 dunce.

Ed's point stands, your numbers are lies by using the incorrect date of the Presidency.

 

[chikenwing]

Ed's point stands, your numbers are lies by using the incorrect date of the Presidency.

So being incorrect correlates to lies??!! got it!!

If you like your policy you can keep your policy.

 

[G.T.]

Ed's point stands, your numbers are lies by using the incorrect date of the Presidency.

So being incorrect correlates to lies??!! got it!!

If you like your policy you can keep your policy.

Yes, especially if knowingly.

And if he didn't know that the Presidency doesn't end until Jan20th, and he's a partisan hack messageboarder? He should off himself, Figuratively speaking.

 

[zeke]

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.

i think Obama and Bush are 2 of the worst Presidents we have ever had....im sure some did well under Bush and are doing worse under Obama and vice-versa....my biggest thing with both of them is, they both are 2 piss poor leaders......

Now we are getting somewhere. Bush BAD, Obama BAD. Lets go drink beer and end all this petty bickering.

 

[healthmyths]

Why would I use your WRONG data?????
I know you don't care about using the data from the correct months because your lie falls apart!!!

Then you are totally unbelievable since you won't cite your sources while I gave you the exact dates and more importantly the LINKS!
YOU provide nothing but your convoluted irrational and definitely indefensible stupid statements!
I am asking a simple question. At the end of 2008 there were 7,502,000 people employed then at the end of 2000!
Total fact. Totally irrefutable!

Bush ended in Jan 2009, not December 2008 dunce.

Clinton ended in Jan, 2001, not December 2000 dunce.

Ed's point stands, your numbers are lies by using the incorrect date of the Presidency.

I WAS WRONG!!!! I WAS WRONG!!! I was off by 1,402,000!!!


Jan 2009 142,099,000 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.pdf
Jan. 2001 135,999,000 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/empsit_02022001.txt
Total 6,100,000 more people working in 2009 then were working in 2001!

 

[G.T.]

Then you are totally unbelievable since you won't cite your sources while I gave you the exact dates and more importantly the LINKS!
YOU provide nothing but your convoluted irrational and definitely indefensible stupid statements!
I am asking a simple question. At the end of 2008 there were 7,502,000 people employed then at the end of 2000!
Total fact. Totally irrefutable!

Bush ended in Jan 2009, not December 2008 dunce.

Clinton ended in Jan, 2001, not December 2000 dunce.

Ed's point stands, your numbers are lies by using the incorrect date of the Presidency.

I WAS WRONG!!!! I WAS WRONG!!! I was off by 1,402,000!!!


Jan 2009 142,099,000 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.pdf
Jan. 2001 135,999,000 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/empsit_02022001.txt
Total 6,100,000 more people working in 2009 then were working in 2001!

Unemployment also doubled.

 

[healthmyths]

OK? Do we all agree then that at the end of Jan 2001 there were 135,999,000 people working?
So that's when Bush officially took office!
Then When he left office in Jan 2009 there were at the END of Jan 2009 142,099,000 that means hmmm... 6,100,000 more people working!

Plus did anyone refute these events occurred???
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 9 million more people working at the end of 2009 then at the beginning!

If all the presidents in my life time had the above same events occurred I wonder if their job creation numbers would have also been as affected???

 

[G.T.]

Then you are totally unbelievable since you won't cite your sources while I gave you the exact dates and more importantly the LINKS!
YOU provide nothing but your convoluted irrational and definitely indefensible stupid statements!
I am asking a simple question. At the end of 2008 there were 7,502,000 people employed then at the end of 2000!
Total fact. Totally irrefutable!

Bush ended in Jan 2009, not December 2008 dunce.

Clinton ended in Jan, 2001, not December 2000 dunce.

Ed's point stands, your numbers are lies by using the incorrect date of the Presidency.

I WAS WRONG!!!! I WAS WRONG!!! I was off by 1,402,000!!!


Jan 2009 142,099,000 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.pdf
Jan. 2001 135,999,000 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/empsit_02022001.txt
Total 6,100,000 more people working in 2009 then were working in 2001!

You've been wrong many times, yet two weeks later make a new thread with the same wrong numbers.

Always "angry" that people aren't acknowledging your "FACTS!!!" and "MATH!!!" (SIC) when they're usually wrong and you continue to regurgitate them when they're wrong. You're the most dishonorable poster here, save a few extreme unhinged wingnuts.

 

[healthmyths]

Bush ended in Jan 2009, not December 2008 dunce.

Clinton ended in Jan, 2001, not December 2000 dunce.

Ed's point stands, your numbers are lies by using the incorrect date of the Presidency.

I WAS WRONG!!!! I WAS WRONG!!! I was off by 1,402,000!!!


Jan 2009 142,099,000 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.pdf
Jan. 2001 135,999,000 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/empsit_02022001.txt
Total 6,100,000 more people working in 2009 then were working in 2001!

Unemployment also doubled.

Don't believe you! Give me proof like I've given you I can't believe a word you make up!

 

[G.T.]

I WAS WRONG!!!! I WAS WRONG!!! I was off by 1,402,000!!!


Jan 2009 142,099,000 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.pdf
Jan. 2001 135,999,000 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/empsit_02022001.txt
Total 6,100,000 more people working in 2009 then were working in 2001!

Unemployment also doubled.

Don't believe you! Give me proof like I've given you I can't believe a word you make up!

I don't care if you believe me or not, it's not me who parades around faulty data thread after thread after thread ad nauseum and then speaks dishonestly about said facts.

 

[healthmyths]

Bush ended in Jan 2009, not December 2008 dunce.

Clinton ended in Jan, 2001, not December 2000 dunce.

Ed's point stands, your numbers are lies by using the incorrect date of the Presidency.

I WAS WRONG!!!! I WAS WRONG!!! I was off by 1,402,000!!!


Jan 2009 142,099,000 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.pdf
Jan. 2001 135,999,000 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/empsit_02022001.txt
Total 6,100,000 more people working in 2009 then were working in 2001!

You've been wrong many times, yet two weeks later make a new thread with the same wrong numbers.

Always "angry" that people aren't acknowledging your "FACTS!!!" and "MATH!!!" (SIC) when they're usually wrong and you continue to regurgitate them when they're wrong. You're the most dishonorable poster here, save a few extreme unhinged wingnuts.

I am a lot better then you though! At least I say I'm wrong but YOU can't even be honest to say that!
Yea... I was off by less then 19%! But that is still a lot better then idiots like you that spout off with NO citations..no links...
again.. how many of you idiots will at least be honest like I am!

 

[G.T.]

I WAS WRONG!!!! I WAS WRONG!!! I was off by 1,402,000!!!


Jan 2009 142,099,000 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.pdf
Jan. 2001 135,999,000 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/empsit_02022001.txt
Total 6,100,000 more people working in 2009 then were working in 2001!

You've been wrong many times, yet two weeks later make a new thread with the same wrong numbers.

Always "angry" that people aren't acknowledging your "FACTS!!!" and "MATH!!!" (SIC) when they're usually wrong and you continue to regurgitate them when they're wrong. You're the most dishonorable poster here, save a few extreme unhinged wingnuts.

I am a lot better then you though! At least I say I'm wrong but YOU can't even be honest to say that!
Yea... I was off by less then 19%! But that is still a lot better then idiots like you that spout off with NO citations..no links...
again.. how many of you idiots will at least be honest like I am!

You are not honest, hence your OP.

"did bush create?"


Well, then. Thread starts with a sophomoric understanding of Economics right in the three first fucking words, then continues by getting the months of the start and end of his Presidency wrong, and FINALLY, fails to discuss the impact the recession had in all of 2009 to wrap it up into an honest perspective.

You're the worst type of liar, you're just a sidelines fanboy. Fall back, fan.

 

[edthecynic]

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!

Why would I use your WRONG data?????
I know you don't care about using the data from the correct months because your lie falls apart!!!

Then you are totally unbelievable since you won't cite your sources while I gave you the exact dates and more importantly the LINKS!
YOU provide nothing but your convoluted irrational and definitely indefensible stupid statements!
I am asking a simple question. At the end of 2008 there were 7,502,000 people employed then at the end of 2000!
Total fact. Totally irrefutable!

I gave you my source, which happens to be the SAME as yours the BLS, AND I gave you the LINK, which is to the historical data which is more accurate than the monthly summaries you linked to because those summaries are updated for the next 2 months, whereas the historical data I gave you the link to is fully updated final numbers.

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

 

[Harry Dresden]

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

i think Obama and Bush are 2 of the worst Presidents we have ever had....im sure some did well under Bush and are doing worse under Obama and vice-versa....my biggest thing with both of them is, they both are 2 piss poor leaders......

Now we are getting somewhere. Bush BAD, Obama BAD. Lets go drink beer and end all this petty bickering.

sounds good.....i hear GT is buying......

 

[Lumpy 1]

Seems to be some question about that so here are the FACTS from the Federal Government's Bureau of Labor Statistics!

Employment Situation News Release

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/empsit_01052001.txt

View attachment 28829

Presidents don't create jobs

...but they can certainly make it difficult on the ones that do, example Obama.

 

[G.T.]

I tip $2 per drink, or $6 per round. Double what i see everyone else's dusty ass tipping.