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

[edthecynic]

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 are still wrong. As I have already posted, Bush's total was 5,375,000 not your 7,502,000 or your 6,100,000. You are using monthly PRELIMINARY data and I am using the FINAL data. So you were off by 2,127,000.

Also you are not taking into account the 6 million workers Bush added to the ranks of the unemployed in his 8 years. So while new jobs were created, they were not enough to keep up with the growth in population resulting in more people becoming unemployed than new jobs created for a net loss of 681,000 jobs over his 8 years.

Again here is the link to the accurate BLS historical data giving the FINAL numbers after all the monthly corrections.

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

Just check off the boxes for employed and unemployed seasonally adjusted numbers under the "total" heading and scroll to the bottom and click on "retrieve data." That will give you the last 10 years data, simply change 2003 to 2000 in the "change output options" section at the top and click on "go" to get the older data.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Bush was doing fine on employment until Pelosi and Reid took over Congress and destroyed the economy. Intentionally or unintentionally.?...my vote is intentionally

 

[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 are still wrong. As I have already posted, Bush's total was 5,375,000 not your 7,502,000 or your 6,100,000. You are using monthly PRELIMINARY data and I am using the FINAL data. So you were off by 2,127,000.

Also you are not taking into account the 6 million workers Bush added to the ranks of the unemployed in his 8 years. So while new jobs were created, they were not enough to keep up with the growth in population resulting in more people becoming unemployed than new jobs created for a net loss of 681,000 jobs over his 8 years.

Again here is the link to the accurate BLS historical data giving the FINAL numbers after all the monthly corrections.

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

Just check off the boxes for employed and unemployed seasonally adjusted numbers under the "total" heading and scroll to the bottom and click on "retrieve data." That will give you the last 10 years data, simply change 2003 to 2000 in the "change output options" section at the top and click on "go" to get the older data.

So the BLS LIED about these numbers?


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

Everything you have written has been to obfuscate the above reality.. The BLS states clearly in Jan 2001 when
Bush became President officially there were 135,999,000 employed.
When Bush left office at the end of 2009 there were according to the above 142,099,000.
When simple math of subtracting 135,999,000 from 142,099,000 there are 6,100,000 difference or MORE jobs!
Sorry but all I can say is if you go to all the trouble to work out YOUR BIASED numbers then what do you do with
these events that no one except obviously idiots like YOU AGREE happened and in spite of these enormous events that NO other president ever had occur Bush's job record show 6,100,000 more employed!

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 2008 then at the beginning!

 

[edthecynic]

Bush was doing fine on employment until Pelosi and Reid took over Congress and destroyed the economy. Intentionally or unintentionally.?...my vote is intentionally

So tell us what law did they pass over a Bush veto and GOP filibuster that destroyed the failed Bush economy???

 

[G.T.]

You keep posting PREMIMINARY numbers, dunce.

Yet ed is obfuscating? Lol the nerve.

 

[edthecynic]

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 are still wrong. As I have already posted, Bush's total was 5,375,000 not your 7,502,000 or your 6,100,000. You are using monthly PRELIMINARY data and I am using the FINAL data. So you were off by 2,127,000.

Also you are not taking into account the 6 million workers Bush added to the ranks of the unemployed in his 8 years. So while new jobs were created, they were not enough to keep up with the growth in population resulting in more people becoming unemployed than new jobs created for a net loss of 681,000 jobs over his 8 years.

Again here is the link to the accurate BLS historical data giving the FINAL numbers after all the monthly corrections.

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

Just check off the boxes for employed and unemployed seasonally adjusted numbers under the "total" heading and scroll to the bottom and click on "retrieve data." That will give you the last 10 years data, simply change 2003 to 2000 in the "change output options" section at the top and click on "go" to get the older data.

So the BLS LIED about these numbers?

No, YOU are lying about those numbers by using what has already been pointed out to you are PRELIMINARY numbers.

 

[DiamondDave]

Well.. Obamalama and his minions claim to be able to create of save millions with things that hurt the purse strings of small business... so I guess Bush could have created a job or 2

 

[Lumpy 1]

Bush was doing fine on employment until Pelosi and Reid took over Congress and destroyed the economy. Intentionally or unintentionally.?...my vote is intentionally

So tell us what law did they pass over a Bush veto and GOP filibuster that destroyed the failed Bush economy???

Why should I bother, don't waste my time dedicated Obamasuckholian.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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

 

[edthecynic]

Bush was doing fine on employment until Pelosi and Reid took over Congress and destroyed the economy. Intentionally or unintentionally.?...my vote is intentionally

So tell us what law did they pass over a Bush veto and GOP filibuster that destroyed the failed Bush economy???

Why should I bother, don't waste my time dedicated Obamasuckholian.

IOW, you can't backup your bullshit!

 

[healthmyths]

So tell us what law did they pass over a Bush veto and GOP filibuster that destroyed the failed Bush economy???

Why should I bother, don't waste my time dedicated Obamasuckholian.

IOW, you can't backup your bullshit!

GWB's administration was LAUGHED AT BY Democrats Frank and Dodd after 17 times trying to get Fannie/Freddie fixed!
"Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.
President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.
Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
Setting the Record Straight: The Three Most Egregious Claims In The New York Times Article On The Housing Crisis

Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized
the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .The more people exaggerate these problems,
the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."..
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)

* Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)

Barney Frank's Fannie and Freddie Muddle - Sam Dealey (usnews.com)

So over the years these subprime loans came to a head on 9/18/2008 again NOT mentioned widely by the biased MSM and I'm sure YOU've NEVER heard about this!

And of course NONE of you Bush BASHERS lying sacks of used genetic coding EVER obviously knew what happened on 9/18/08!

 

[healthmyths]

See UNLIKE Obama Bush followed the Constitution that says Congress makes the laws and the Executive branch executes!

Unless the Democratic Congress acted to restrain Fannie/Freddie the collapse of the world economy was imminent!
But of course idiots have no idea what this meant.
" We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks: in the six quarters surrounding the CRA exams lending is elevated on average by about 5 percent every quarter and loans in these quarters default by about 15 percent more often.
These patterns are accentuated in CRA-eligible census tracts and are concentrated among large banks."

New study concludes that the Community Reinvestment Act ?clearly? did lead to risky lending | AEIdeas

 

[G.T.]

^ still hasn't been honest about using PRELIMINARY data from the bls, not their FINAL, corrected data.

for shame.

 

[zeke]

See UNLIKE Obama Bush followed the Constitution that says Congress makes the laws and the Executive branch executes!

Unless the Democratic Congress acted to restrain Fannie/Freddie the collapse of the world economy was imminent!
But of course idiots have no idea what this meant.
" We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks: in the six quarters surrounding the CRA exams lending is elevated on average by about 5 percent every quarter and loans in these quarters default by about 15 percent more often.
These patterns are accentuated in CRA-eligible census tracts and are concentrated among large banks."

New study concludes that the Community Reinvestment Act ?clearly? did lead to risky lending | AEIdeas

You sure could save yourself a lot of typing by just saying; BUSH GREAT.. OBAMA BAD, DEMOCRATS BAD. VERY VERY BAD.

Type it big loud and proud and save your fingers. Cause no one is really reading or believing your bull shit. And your right winger friends don't care what you say AS LONG AS YOU TYPE; OBAMA VERY BAD. BUSH VERY VERY GOOD.

That about covers it I think.

 

[edthecynic]

Why should I bother, don't waste my time dedicated Obamasuckholian.

IOW, you can't backup your bullshit!

GWB's administration was LAUGHED AT BY Democrats Frank and Dodd after 17 times trying to get Fannie/Freddie fixed!
"Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.
President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.
Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
Setting the Record Straight: The Three Most Egregious Claims In The New York Times Article On The Housing Crisis

Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized
the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .The more people exaggerate these problems,
the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."..
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)

* Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)

Barney Frank's Fannie and Freddie Muddle - Sam Dealey (usnews.com)

So over the years these subprime loans came to a head on 9/18/2008 again NOT mentioned widely by the biased MSM and I'm sure YOU've NEVER heard about this!

And of course NONE of you Bush BASHERS lying sacks of used genetic coding EVER obviously knew what happened on 9/18/08!

The GOP, as always, TALKED reform but blocked all reform bills, just like they talk small government and deficit reduction as they grow the government and the debt.

Barney Frank was a POWERLESS minority Party congressman and the reform bill H1461 was PASSED in the House over his objections. The bill was scuttled by the GOP MAJORITY Senate leader Ted Stevens R AK who would not bring it up for a vote and sent it to committee to die.

On 31 July 2007, after the Democrats obtained control of the Congress in the November 2006 election, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi introduced HR 3221, a "bill to provide needed housing reform and for other purposes." Among other things, the bill granted the newly formed Federal Housing Finance Agency "supervisory and regulatory authority over Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the federal home loan banks (enterprises)"
Pelosi's bill became Public Law on 30 July 2008.

 

[edthecynic]

^ still hasn't been honest about using PRELIMINARY data from the bls, not their FINAL, corrected data.

for shame.

Yeah, notice how quickly he jumped on the opportunity to divert from his earlier bullshit to some new bullshit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

One of these days, I will do healthmyths' mental state a solid and I will collect all of the OP's he has ever created and report him to a mod for spamming the boards with the same thread over and over and over instead of being a grown up non attention whore and keeping it in the same thread just the one time. So disturbed.

MY purpose is to get some simple FACTS straight!

Why is it so hard to admit this is REALITY?

At the End of 2008 the last month of Bush Administration there were 143,338,000 employed people! Employment Situation News Release
At the End of 2000 the last month of Clinton's Administration there were 135,836,000 employed people! http://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/empsit_01052001.txt
After 8 years 7,502,000 More working end of 2008 then at end of 2000!
It is just simple math!
It is the reality. There is no contexting.. no twisting, no explanations needed. It is a FACT!
Simple math!

And until you idiots can come to the simple conclusion that the Bureau of Labor Statistics did i.e. there were more people employed at the end of 2008 then end of 2000
I will NOT have to repeat so many times for simpletons to do simple MATH!

FACE REALITY folks!

You're saying that GW Bush can claim to have created every job for eight years starting with any job created on the day he was inaugurated?

You're mentally retarded.

 

[zeke]

Healthymyths. You better get your ass in here and refute what ed the cynic had to say. He is posting up information that makes you look bad. Make shit up if you have to. But don't let em get away with this.

Or just go; Bush GOOD. Obama BAD.

Cause I assure you, this CRA bullshit has been talked to death and the outcome never changes.

Bush GOOD, Obama BAD. End of story. Or is it vice versa?

 

[Faun]

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

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

No.

 

[Faun]

One of these days, I will do healthmyths' mental state a solid and I will collect all of the OP's he has ever created and report him to a mod for spamming the boards with the same thread over and over and over instead of being a grown up non attention whore and keeping it in the same thread just the one time. So disturbed.

MY purpose is to get some simple FACTS straight!

Why is it so hard to admit this is REALITY?

At the End of 2008 the last month of Bush Administration there were 143,338,000 employed people! Employment Situation News Release
At the End of 2000 the last month of Clinton's Administration there were 135,836,000 employed people! http://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/empsit_01052001.txt
After 8 years 7,502,000 More working end of 2008 then at end of 2000!
It is just simple math!
It is the reality. There is no contexting.. no twisting, no explanations needed. It is a FACT!
Simple math!

And until you idiots can come to the simple conclusion that the Bureau of Labor Statistics did i.e. there were more people employed at the end of 2008 then end of 2000
I will NOT have to repeat so many times for simpletons to do simple MATH!

FACE REALITY folks!

I never did get an answer to this .... how can it be a "FACT" that 7.5 million jobs were created under Bush after you spent more than a few threads insisting it was a "FACT" that 5 million jobs were created under Bush?

Where did the extra 2.5 million jobs come from?