Martin O'Malley: "Yes We Can Blame the GOP for Unemployment" More jobs were created in the private sector alone then in all 8 years under George W. Bush

[HeluCopter29]

more jobs were created in the private sector alone then in all 8 years under George Bush.

But the Bush years all went up also until 2007, 2008, they skip 2009 and start up in 2010...(thats comparing to the worst recession in 100 yearss) right?

we keep gaining people, but losing participants: back to 1985 levels...

If you bet a dollar each time you play golf with a friend and proceed to win once and lose twice, you can say you won a dollar. But you also have to say that you lost a dollar that day.

---------- Post added September-3rd-2012 at 09:48 PM ----------

W lost private sector jobs, over the span of his 8-year term of office.

Let me repeat that: There were 1.3M fewer private sector jobs, when W left office, than there were when he came in.

And, from the time W left office, till now, 1.1M private sector jobs have been gained.

Repeating: "private sector jobs created in all 8 years under W" is a negative number.

So this^^^^^

[NoVaO]

If we reduce federal employees by a big enough number to positively affect the deficit what will happen to the unemployment figures?

Lets just say if government employment grew like it did under Bush, we'd have around 7% unemployment, probably a tick higher. I think this is employment at all levels of government, not just federal though.

[Hersh]

Real conservatives wanted to downsize then, surely you remember the days when Dems moaned about the high unemployment,deficits and the daily body counts?

Are you a real conservative and do you like that it's happening now?

[twa]

Are you a real conservative and do you like that it's happening now?

Obviously not

[OnlySkins4ever]

It does not matter how many jobs are created. The country is still going to break up. The government needs to get their priorities straight .

1. Eliminate lobbyists with 100 percent certainty. Impose harsh punishments on any corporation who even thinks of helping a candidate.

2. Inflation - Whats the point of having a job if nothing can be afforded.

3. Jobs

Make the pool of political candidates much bigger. No one wants to admit it but the only people who are considered for the presidency or congress is people with loads of money.

Only the rich are being elected. If it were possible for any person to successfully take office then probability of finding great leaders will increase dramatically. Why should millions upon millions of dollars be necessary to run for president? Wall street would be shaking in their boots if their money was not needed by presidential hopefuls.

There has to be at least one middle class person out there who could run this country better than all the rich ones running it now.

If those priorities are not met than it does not matter who is in office, the country is toast. Obama is just the fertilizer to help bring the collapse here sooner.

[dchogs]

It does not matter how many jobs are created. The country is still going to break up. The government needs to get their priorities straight .

1. Eliminate lobbyists with 100 percent certainty. Impose harsh punishments on any corporation who even thinks of helping a candidate.

2. Inflation - Whats the point of having a job if nothing can be afforded.

3. Jobs

Make the pool of political candidates much bigger. No one wants to admit it but the only people who are considered for the presidency or congress is people with loads of money.

Only the rich are being elected. If it were possible for any person to successfully take office then probability of finding great leaders will increase dramatically. Why should millions upon millions of dollars be necessary to run for president? Wall street would be shaking in their boots if their money was not needed by presidential hopefuls.

There has to be at least one middle class person out there who could run this country better than all the rich ones running it now.

If those priorities are not met than it does not matter who is in office, the country is toast. Obama is just the fertilizer to help bring the collapse here sooner.

as crazy as all that sounds, i largely agree. to me, it comes down to the 99% vs. the 1%. i don't bemoan the 1% their money at all, what i do not like is their excessive influence in the rule of the land. this ain't class warfare... ****, i stand to earn more by sitting still and "earning" my inheritance than by working all that much harder. let the rich keep their money, to a large degree. i'm more worried about the influence the uber-rich have on the process as it stands today. the fact that economic giants and political leaders are in bed with each other is tough to stomach.... the "little guy" keeps getting screwed over regardless of who is in "actual" power.

though, all things being equal, i'd side with the dems, even though this directly effects me negatively in both the near and middle term future.

---------- Post added September-4th-2012 at 12:12 AM ----------

as crazy as all that sounds, i largely agree. to me, it comes down to the 99% vs. the 1%. i don't bemoan the 1% their money at all, what i do not like is their excessive influence in the rule of the land. this ain't class warfare... ****, i stand to earn more by sitting still and "earning" my inheritance than by working all that much harder. let the rich keep their money, to a large degree. i'm more worried about the influence the uber-rich have on the process as it stands today. the fact that economic giants and political leaders are in bed with each other is tough to stomach.... the "little guy" keeps getting screwed over regardless of who is in "actual" power.

though, all things being equal, i'd side with the dems, even though this directly effects me negatively in both the near and middle term future.

actually, re-reading the post i quoted... i think it accurately portrays the state of the "occupy movement" that has been ****ized by political machines. THE GOVERNMENT IS RUN BY THE ULTRA-RICH/UBER-CORPORATIONS, IN FACT AND IN DEED. the political bedfellows that exist today are too troubling to accurately determine if anything would reasonably change with a change in party. the only reason i lean left are social reasons, as i believe the the economics (IN ACTUAL PRACTICE) do not differ greatly. both favor the wealthy over the middle class. both pander to big business. both allow the wolves to run the henhouses.

i can't wait for a government run for the people by the people. i'm not asking for bull**** handouts or government assistance... i'd just like people that have to actually maintain a personal budget run the ****ing government. i'm running a family on lower income, why can't the government.

[chipwhich]

as crazy as all that sounds, i largely agree. to me, it comes down to the 99% vs. the 1%. i don't bemoan the 1% their money at all, what i do not like is their excessive influence in the rule of the land. this ain't class warfare... ****, i stand to earn more by sitting still and "earning" my inheritance than by working all that much harder. let the rich keep their money, to a large degree. i'm more worried about the influence the uber-rich have on the process as it stands today. the fact that economic giants and political leaders are in bed with each other is tough to stomach.... the "little guy" keeps getting screwed over regardless of who is in "actual" power.

though, all things being equal, i'd side with the dems, even though this directly effects me negatively in both the near and middle term future.

---------- Post added September-4th-2012 at 12:12 AM ----------

actually, re-reading the post i quoted... i think it accurately portrays the state of the "occupy movement" that has been ****ized by political machines. THE GOVERNMENT IS RUN BY THE ULTRA-RICH/UBER-CORPORATIONS, IN FACT AND IN DEED. the political bedfellows that exist today are too troubling to accurately determine if anything would reasonably change with a change in party. the only reason i lean left are social reasons, as i believe the the economics (IN ACTUAL PRACTICE)

Nice sentiment by you and onlyskins.

But facts are facts.

Americans vote based on name recognition.

No money, no name recognition.

Bills are written by lawyers for lawyers.

We don't need a bigger pool of candidates, they are out there, Americans just don't vote for them because they don't know who they are. No money

[dchogs]

Nice sentiment by you and onlyskins.

But facts are facts.

Americans vote based on name recognition.

No money, no name recognition.

Bills are written by lawyers for lawyers.

We don't need a bigger pool of candidates, they are out there, Americans just don't vote for them because they don't know who they are. No money

to a degree, i think some of the "luster" of obama and ron paul is in the grass roots nature of the movement. i'm fully aware of their ability to manufacture that "grassroots" feel, but it tastes a ****-ton better than the bile most political figures expect us to stomach.

i honestly believe we're on the verge of a shift in how candidates are vetted... maybe even elected. the populace seems to be gathering in defiance to the machine.... again, to me, THAT is what the 99% **** was all about. not class warfare, or political parties. overall, the common man, woman, and family is NOT being well served by their elected officials-- that are controlled by big money, huge influence, and massive kickbacks.

[chipwhich]

to a degree, i think some of the "luster" of obama and ron paul is in the grass roots nature of the movement. i'm fully aware of their ability to manufacture that "grassroots" feel, but it tastes a ****-ton better than the bile most political figures expect us to stomach.

The closest we have been in MY lifetime to being out of the 2 party system was Ross Perot years. We know how that turned out.

If you are still drinking the Obama bile, you are still part of the problem in my opinion.

[dchogs]

The closest we have been in MY lifetime to being out of the 2 party system was Ross Perot years. We know how that turned out.

If you are still drinking the Obama bile, you are still part of the problem in my opinion.

THAT is my biggest struggle with the election today. ALL of the parties' platforms come from the same place... even the libs (libertarians). the only folks that "can win" are the people with big money behind them. to me, that diminsihes them from the jump. to me, obama>romney in at least giving lip service to my tax bracket and situation. romney talks and speaks to my parents. that said, my parents send me non-sensical bull**** spam forwards from the internet. why should i believe them! (kidding, kind of)

[chipwhich]

THAT is my biggest struggle with the election today. ALL of the parties' platforms come from the same place... even the libs (libertarians). the only folks that "can win" are the people with big money behind them. to me, that diminsihes them from the jump. to me, obama>romney in at least giving lip service to my tax bracket and situation. romney talks and speaks to my parents. that said, they send me non-sensical bull**** spam forwards from the internet. why should i believe them! (kidding, kind of)

Neither one of them care about you They care about their lobbyists

[dchogs]

Neither one of them care about you They care about their lobbyists

i completely agree, chip. trust me, i'm not drinking the koolaid with gusto. while our choices may suck, short of moving to alaska in a RV (honestly tempting), you have to pick the lesser of two evils. both obama and romney are governed by the BIG money (that the common man can't even comprehend); we just have to hope that something can stand in government's way. i'd rather take my chances with my ability to hunt, gather, and stay out of the way of grizzley bears.

[chipwhich]

i completely agree, chip. trust me, i'm not drinking the koolaid with gusto. while our choices may suck, short of moving to alaska in a RV (honestly tempting), you have to pick the lesser of two evils. both obama and romney are governed by the BIG money (that the common man can't even comprehend); we just have to hope that something can stand in government's way. i'd rather take my chances with my ability to hunt, gather, and stay out of the way of grizzley bears.

LOL I understand completely

THose Grizzley Bears are dangerous

[AsburySkinsFan]

that is Obamas plan isn't it?....of course he will blame someone else for that as well.

Whether you want to admit it or not, somethings are somebody else's fault. I would remind you that the GOP hasn't presented plans to bring troops home any earlier and in fact have advocated armed conflict with Iran. Oh and no Obama has not advocated for a massive reduction in the size of our Department of Military (sorry I had to rename it, just doesn't seem honest to call it the Department of Defense).

[mcsluggo]

bl a bla blaaa bla blaaa....

jeez you are a disingenuous shill.

you could power Texas just from the oil that drips from your posts!

[Thiebear]

W lost private sector jobs, over the span of his 8-year term of office.

Let me repeat that: There were 1.3M fewer private sector jobs, when W left office, than there were when he came in.

**** Thiebear - Of course look at years 2007/2008 ***

And, from the time W left office, till now, 1.1M private sector jobs have been gained.

*** Thiebear - Of course, you are comparing to the worst recession in 100 years.

Repeating: "private sector jobs created in all 8 years under W" is a negative number.

I'm not disagreeing with you on the jobs, i'm just saying your using a pathetic premise.

Bush started with a recession and gained jobs till the 2008 worst Recession.

You skip 2009 and then say see President Obama's is better.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I'm not disagreeing with you on the jobs, i'm just saying your using a pathetic premise.

Bush started with a recession and gained jobs till the 2008 worst Recession.

You skip 2009 and then say see President Obama's is better.

http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/job-creation-by-president-political-party.jpg

Fine Thiebear....Bush created all kinds of new jobs....and then promptly went and lost them all and then some, there credit given where credit is due.

It is interesting to see that there are more years of job loss that are red in that chart than there are blue....hmmm....interesting indeed.

[twa]

Fine Thiebear....Bush created all kinds of new jobs....and then promptly went and lost them all and then some, there credit given where credit is due.

It was the Dem Congress's fault ...and Brunnel

[Gibbsisgod2006]

Housing isn't coming back for a LONG time. Expect another bubble when interest rates rise.

Interest rates will not be going up for a while. I was listening to a Harvard professor speak about the national debt and he said that the US will keep interest rates low until they pay off a certain amount of their foreign creditors

---------- Post added September-4th-2012 at 02:40 PM ----------

Whether you want to admit it or not, somethings are somebody else's fault. I would remind you that the GOP hasn't presented plans to bring troops home any earlier and in fact have advocated armed conflict with Iran. Oh and no Obama has not advocated for a massive reduction in the size of our Department of Military (sorry I had to rename it, just doesn't seem honest to call it the Department of Defense).

No the GOP supports a joint operation with Israel to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. President Obama is took credit for bringing troops home from Iraq when it was GWB who initiated the plan to bring the troops home.

---------- Post added September-4th-2012 at 02:43 PM ----------

We sit here and say that President Obama has created or save as many jobs as he wants but the fact is that the unemployment rate is still higher then when he was elected President.

[Larry]

I'm not disagreeing with you on the jobs, i'm just saying your using a pathetic premise.

Bush started with a recession and gained jobs till the 2008 worst Recession.

You skip 2009 and then say see President Obama's is better.

Uh, no. You're claiming that I'm using a pathetic premise.

Gee. W started with a recession? Good thing Obama can't use that excuse, huh?

----------

And I'm not skipping a single thing.

I'm looking at total, private sector, jobs. Collected from the BLS web site.

I'm looking at exactly three dates, in that data.

1. Feb, 2001. (The day W took office.)
   
2. Feb, 2009. (The day W left office, and O took over.)
   
3. May, 2012. (The most recent month for which we have actual numbers, as opposed to estimates.)

Between a) and , we lost over a million jobs.

Between and c), we gained over a million jobs.

I even go so far as to point out that this method makes the ludicrous assertion that, the day a President takes office, that he instantly becomes responsible for private sector employment. That, in fact, it actually pretends that, the day he takes office, he becomes

retroactively

responsible, back to the first of the month.

That, if you take what I assert is a more reasonable view, and pick a number (I picked six months), and say that, for the first six months in office, his predecessor "owns" the employment numbers, and that, at six months and one day, the new President "owns" the number, then the above numbers become:

W lost

three

million jobs.

O gained

three

million jobs.

Here's a link to the post, where I explained where I'm getting the numbers, and the implications.

[Gibbsisgod2006]

Uh, no. You're claiming that I'm using a pathetic premise.

Gee. W started with a recession? Good thing Obama can't use that excuse, huh?

----------

And I'm not skipping a single thing.

I'm looking at total, private sector, jobs. Collected from the BLS web site.

I'm looking at exactly three dates, in that data.

1. Feb, 2001. (The day W took office.)
   
2. Feb, 2009. (The day W left office, and O took over.)
   
3. May, 2012. (The most recent month for which we have actual numbers, as opposed to estimates.)

Between a) and , we lost over a million jobs.

Between and c), we gained over a million jobs.

I even go so far as to point out that this method makes the ludicrous assertion that, the day a President takes office, that he instantly becomes responsible for private sector employment. That, in fact, it actually pretends that, the day he takes office, he becomes

retroactively

responsible, back to the first of the month.

That, if you take what I assert is a more reasonable view, and pick a number (I picked six months), and say that, for the first six months in office, his predecessor "owns" the employment numbers, and that, at six months and one day, the new President "owns" the number, then the above numbers become:

W lost

three

million jobs.

O gained

three

million jobs.

Here's a link to the post, where I explained where I'm getting the numbers, and the implications.

I do not want to sound like a dummy but why aren't these jobs that President Obama created or saved reflected in the unemployment rate? As of right now the unemployment rate still stands at like 8.3% and has not been down below 8.1 since he took office.

[Popeman38]

I do not want to sound like a dummy but why aren't these jobs that President Obama created or saved reflected in the unemployment rate? As of right now the unemployment rate still stands at like 8.3% and has not been down below 8.1 since he took office.

It is a numbers game. Notice how certain people keep saying "private sector jobs"? To the unemployment rate, there is no difference b/w private sector and public sector. A job is a job. Does it matter if a jobless person lost a private job or a public job?

The bottom line is this: Over 8 years, GWB was President when 1.1M jobs were created (8 years, 137K/year). Obama has been in office 3 years and 375K jobs were created (3 years, 125K/year). These figures came from Obama's website, so if you don't like my numbers or think they are partisan, I don't know what to say.

[Larry]

It is a numbers game. Notice how certain people keep saying "private sector jobs"? To the unemployment rate, there is no difference b/w private sector and public sector. A job is a job. Does it matter if a jobless person lost a private job or a public job?

The bottom line is this: Over 8 years, GWB was President when 1.1M jobs were created (8 years, 137K/year). Obama has been in office 3 years and 375K jobs were created (3 years, 125K/year). These figures came from Obama's website, so if you don't like my numbers or think they are partisan, I don't know what to say.

1) Can't speak for anybody else, but the reason I'm using private sector jobs, is because that's the subject of the thread.

(Now, I assume that the reason why the OP was focusing on private sector jobs, is in support of the talking point that gee, the economy would be in great shape, if only all these governments would quit firing government workers.)

(Although, in their defense, the numbers do, in fact, support that theory.)

2) However, that is part of the reason why the "one million new private sector jobs" doesn't show up in the unemployment numbers. Private sector jobs have been going up, but government jobs have been going down.

There are some other reasons that "a million new private sector jobs" doesn't show up, much.

One million jobs really isn't much. It's less than one percent of the total number of jobs.

Population goes up. It takes more jobs, just to keep unemployment the same. (This is also one of the reasons why the total number of jobs going down, over 8 years of W, is a really stunning fact. I haven't checked, but I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't the first time in our nation's history where a president has served one full term (let alone two), and left office with fewer jobs than when he took office.)

(And no, that's not a subtle way of saying "Bush Sucks!". That's a way of saying "Dang, this recession was a really big one. Unprecedented.")

----------

BTW,

The BLS page doesn't seem to have data for "all jobs", but they do have "Total nonfarm"

If I pick that data, and use the same calculations I've been using (look at the dates the Presidents took office, and the most recent date.), then the "score becomes:

W: Gain of 308K jobs. (He lost a million private sector jobs, but government employment made up for it, and then some.)

O: Gain of 181K jobs. (He gained private sector jobs, but lost government jobs.)

In short, if you look at total nonfarm jobs, then W, in eight years, averaged a gain of 1,885 jobs/month.

And O averaged a gain of 4,641 jobs/month.

And, if you use the "six month grace period" method, then it becomes:

W: Lost 1,834,000 jobs in 96 months. (Loss of 19,104/month)

O: Gained 3,085,000 jobs in 33 months. (Gain of 93,484/month)

[Popeman38]

1) Can't speak for anybody else, but the reason I'm using private sector jobs, is because that's the subject of the thread.

(Now, I assume that the reason why the OP was focusing on private sector jobs, is in support of the talking point that gee, the economy would be in great shape, if only all these governments would quit firing government workers.)

(Although, in their defense, the numbers do, in fact, support that theory.)

2) However, that is part of the reason why the "one million new private sector jobs" doesn't show up in the unemployment numbers. Private sector jobs have been going up, but government jobs have been going down.

There are some other reasons that "a million new private sector jobs" doesn't show up, much.

One million jobs really isn't much. It's less than one percent of the total number of jobs.

Population goes up. It takes more jobs, just to keep unemployment the same. (This is also one of the reasons why the total number of jobs going down, over 8 years of W, is a really stunning fact. I haven't checked, but I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't the first time in our nation's history where a president has served one full term (let alone two), and left office with fewer jobs than when he took office.)

(And no, that's not a subtle way of saying "Bush Sucks!". That's a way of saying "Dang, this recession was a really big one. Unprecedented.")

And why is it that the Dems are only touting private sector jobs? It plays good saying we have created more jobs than W did in 8 years! In reality, Obama will have to double jobs gains from his first 3 years to come close to equaling the jobs gains from W. And only talking about PRIVATE SECTOR jobs is disingenuous at best.

[Larry]

And why is it that the Dems are only touting private sector jobs? It plays good saying we have created more jobs than W did in 8 years! In reality, Obama will have to double jobs gains from his first 3 years to come close to equaling the jobs gains from W. And only talking about PRIVATE SECTOR jobs is disingenuous at best.

You keep trying to come up with some imaginary reason to try to ignore reality.

O, averaged over his entire time in office, has gained 2.4 times as many jobs, per month, as W gained, averaged over his entire time in office.

(You might want to re-read my post. I've added numbers, after you quoted me.)