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

[D'Pablo]

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're right that we should be talking about public sector jobs, except there is very little the President can do to increase public hiring. With the private sector, he can push an agenda that encourages investment like reducing the interest rate and pushing for greater international trade. However, regarding the federal government, Congress (specifically the House) controls the purse. The House, in turn, is run by folks that believe in spending attrition, so no new hiring. This applies to basically all the austerity backing state legislatures currently in power across the country.

[Popeman38]

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.)

Larry, no matter how you spin the apple, it's still an apple. Do I need to pull the series report from the Department of Labor and Statistics that shows over 8 years, W lost 563K private sector jobs? Or that in just over 3.5 years, Obama has lost 934K private sector jobs? (Series ID CES0000000001 & Series ID CES0500000001) And that is counting every job lost in Jan 2009 as Bush's. His website provided the numbers, so don't tell me I am using the wrong numbers. He touts that over the last 29 months, he has created 4.5M private sector jobs, completely glossing over the 5.4M he lost in the first 13 months. Of course, the response will be that the first 12 months belong to Bush. Yet that doesn't apply FOR Bush, who had to deal with the dot-com bubble upon assuming office. You either own it, or you don't. THOSE are the real numbers.

[Larry]

Larry, no matter how you spin the apple, it's still an apple. Do I need to pull the series report from the Department of Labor and Statistics that shows over 8 years, W lost 563K private sector jobs? Or that in just over 3.5 years, Obama has lost 934K private sector jobs? (Series ID CES0000000001 & Series ID CES0500000001) And that is counting every job lost in Jan 2009 as Bush's. His website provided the numbers, so don't tell me I am using the wrong numbers. He touts that over the last 29 months, he has created 4.5M private sector jobs, completely glossing over the 5.4M he lost in the first 13 months. Of course, the response will be that the first 12 months belong to Bush. Yet that doesn't apply FOR Bush, who had to deal with the dot-com bubble upon assuming office. You either own it, or you don't. THOSE are the real numbers.

Yes. You do.

I've showed you where I'm getting my numbers. Multiple times. (And they're from the BLS.)

You've ignored what I've posted, accused me of things you made up, and insulted me.

I backed up what I posted. On page 1.

Your turn.

Start with this one:

Or that in just over 3.5 years, Obama has lost 934K private sector jobs? (Series ID CES0000000001 & Series ID CES0500000001) And that is counting every job lost in Jan 2009 as Bush's.

I've already provided you, twice, with step-by-step instructions on how to get at the private sector employment data.

(Here's the third time.)

In Feb of 09, there were 110,260,000 private sector jobs.

In the most recent data (May of 12), there were 111,072,000.

This is not a loss. Of 934K, or any other number.. This is a gain. Of 812,000 jobs A gain of 20,820 jobs per month. (Average, per month. No doubt some months were worse than that, some better.)

You want to accuse me of "spinning the apple"? How about actually responding to what I'm posting, instead of making things up?

[Popeman38]

Yes. You do.

I've showed you where I'm getting my numbers. Multiple times. (And they're from the BLS.)

You've ignored what I've posted, accused me of things you made up, and insulted me.

I backed up what I posted. On page 1.

Your turn.

Start with this one:

I've already provided you, twice, with step-by-step instructions on how to get at the private sector employment data.

(Here's the third time.)

In Feb of 09, there were 110,260,000 private sector jobs.

In the most recent data (May of 12), there were 111,072,000.

This is not a loss. Of 934K, or any other number.. This is a gain. Of 812,000 jobs A gain of 20,820 jobs per month. (Average, per month. No doubt some months were worse than that, some better.)

You want to accuse me of "spinning the apple"? How about actually responding to what I'm posting, instead of making things up?

Larry, I am just a simpleton. What I did was go to http://www.barackobama.com/jobsrecord, and totaled the columns listed for each month. One would think that the President of the United States would have THE latest numbers reflected in his graphs on his re-election sight. When you total the negative months of PRIVATE SECTOR jobs, you get 5.4M lost. When you total the positive months for PRIVATE SECTOR jobs, you get 4.5M. If you lost 5.1M, and you gained 4.5M, that leaves a deficit of 700K (obviously, I rounded the numbers in this post). Do you want me to do more legwork than the President does in order to disprove WHAT HE POSTS ON HIS OWN RE-ELECTION WEBSITE? No, I will go with the Presidents website.

Jan-09 -839

Feb-09 -725

Mar-09 -787

Apr-09 -802

May-09 -312

Jun-09 -426

Jul-09 -296

Aug-09 -219

Sep-09 -184

Oct-09 -232

Nov-09 -42

Dec-09 -120

Jan-10 -40

Feb-10 -27

Mar-10 141

Apr-10 193

May-10 84

Jun-10 92

Jul-10 92

Aug-10 128

Sep-10 115

Oct-10 196

Nov-10 134

Dec-10 140

Jan-11 119

Feb-11 257

Mar-11 261

Apr-11 264

May-11 108

Jun-11 102

Jul-11 175

Aug-11 52

Sep-11 216

Oct-11 139

Nov-11 178

Dec-11 234

Jan-12 277

Feb-12 254

Mar-12 147

Apr-12 85

May-12 116

Total: (752)

Knock off the Jan-09 numbers and you are left with 87.

If you look at the dataset you keep referring to, you will notice that there is not a single month in the negative. Why is that you ask? Because you are only accounting for jobs created, and not jobs lost.

EDIT: My first rudimentary count was off, and the numbers are a bit better for Obama. But my point stands. What Obama owns is Feb 2009 forward.

[mcsluggo]

but that is a specific point... many are moaning and complaining that the public sector has been expanded under Obama (which it has not) and that this expansion has occurred at teh expense of the private sector (which it has not).

The NUMBERS generally aren't partisan, it is the interpretation of the numbers. Obama took office in the midst of a global economic free fall. YOu can choose whether or not to blame that on Bush (just as you can choose whether or not to blame the much smaller slowdown at the end of the dot-com boom in 2001 on Clinton) but it seems a bit silly to blame it on Obama... ESPECIALLY the down right ridiculous postings from TWA that want to start counting Obama's jub numbers from january 2008.

The developed world is hurting right now... period. assign blame or not, thems the facts. the us is looking relatively better than most of its peers (europe and Japan, although Aussie and Canada are doing ok....largely because they are mostly natural resourse extraction based economies). The malaise the US is experiencing is due to a finacial crisis caused by the popping of an asset price bubble---- all emprical evidence points to the fact that recovery from THESE types of crises generally takes 8-10 years --- and those numbers are based on historical observations when ONE (or a coule of relatively small) econom(ies) has a crisis, but has global demand to eventually pull it back up. in this case there have been housing crises in MOST of the advanced economies at the same time.

So ... we are in a slump---- period. The US is doing relatively better than its peers, but TRUE recovery might still be a couple of years away as banks purge their balance sheets of sickly assets. (how the banking execs mange to STILL reel in their obscene bonuses through this sickening time period is a discussion for a different thread). What blame or credit do you give Obama? what Blame or credit do you give Bush?

[Larry]

Larry, I am just a simpleton. What I did was go to http://www.barackobama.com/jobsrecord, and totaled the columns listed for each month.

Whereas I went to the BLS page, and looked at the total number of jobs. (In two categories: "Total Private", and "total nonfarm".)

Do you want me to do more legwork than the President does in order to disprove WHAT HE POSTS ON HIS OWN RE-ELECTION WEBSITE? No, I will go with the Presidents website.

No, I want you, if you're going to accuse me of lying, to actually read what I wrote, and respond to it. Not whatever you want to claim about Obama's web site.

You accused me of things. Back up the accusations.

You claimed to be using BLS data. Provide the link.

If you look at the dataset you keep referring to, you will notice that there is not a single month in the negative.

Liar.

[Popeman38]

Whereas I went to the BLS page, and looked at the total number of jobs. (In two categories: "Total Private", and "total nonfarm".)

And I used the Presidents website, that sourced BLS, and is put together by people that are paid to make the website both accurate and positive.

No, I want you, if you're going to accuse me of lying, to actually read what I wrote, and respond to it. Not whatever you want to claim about Obama's web site.

I am not claiming a damn thing about the website. I posted numbers provided by the President for his re-election website. Trust me, I could go to a partisan website and find numbers that paint the President's jobs record as much worse. But I chose to use his. Let his numbers do the talking.

You accused me of things. Back up the accusations.

There is only one person in this conversation that has accused the other of lying:

Liar.

Yeah, that was you.

You claimed to be using BLS data. Provide the link.

Larry, READ:

http://www.barackobama.com/jobsrecord

Now look in the lower right hand corner:

Jobs data source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

What else do you want, Larry? The Presidents re-election website provided BLS numbers. You ran a query on a website. I think I will go with Obama's re-election site. Sorry.

Liar.

Your words, Larry:

Here's a simple exercise.

(I'll have to provide directions for how to get to the data, since I don't think the page can be bookmarked.)

Go to the BLS page for employment data.

Click on "Employment, Hours, and Earnings - National", "Multi-Screen Data Search"

"Seasonally Adjusted", "Next Form"

"Total Private", "Next Form"

All Employees, Thousands", "Next Form"

"Total Private", "Next Form"

"Retrieve Data"

That results in a table with ONLY positive numbers:

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

2000 110210 110304 110641 110860 110739 110952 111137 111168 111395 111375 111585 111677

2001 111631 111623 111556 111227 111146 110910 110737 110549 110282 109918 109572 109365

2002 109214 109055 108990 108894 108814 108826 108731 108675 108663 108771 108757 108587

2003 108644 108487 108288 108254 108273 108234 108232 108264 108425 108568 108605 108713

2004 108883 108915 109214 109437 109747 109841 109882 109984 110136 110463 110490 110623

2005 110718 110949 111094 111440 111583 111844 112124 112311 112395 112491 112795 112935

2006 113250 113535 113793 113958 113965 114045 114203 114348 114434 114439 114628 114794

2007 115023 115080 115252 115298 115419 115480 115476 115403 115423 115484 115559 115606

2008 115647 115511 115399 115184 114968 114737 114478 114184 113759 113279 112482 111824

2009 110985 110260 109473 108671 108359 107933 107637 107418 107234 107002 106960 106840

2010 106800 106773 106914 107107 107191 107283 107375 107503 107618 107814 107948 108088

2011 108207 108464 108725 108989 109097 109199 109374 109426 109642 109781 109959 110193

2012 110470 110724 110871 110956 111072 111145(P) 111317(P)

P : preliminary

[Larry]

Jobs data source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

What else do you want, Larry? The Presidents re-election website provided BLS numbers. You ran a query on a website. I think I will go with Obama's re-election site. Sorry.Your words, Larry:

That results in a table with ONLY positive numbers:

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

2000 110210 110304 110641 110860 110739 110952 111137 111168 111395 111375 111585 111677

2001 111631 111623 111556 111227 111146 110910 110737 110549 110282 109918 109572 109365

2002 109214 109055 108990 108894 108814 108826 108731 108675 108663 108771 108757 108587

2003 108644 108487 108288 108254 108273 108234 108232 108264 108425 108568 108605 108713

2004 108883 108915 109214 109437 109747 109841 109882 109984 110136 110463 110490 110623

2005 110718 110949 111094 111440 111583 111844 112124 112311 112395 112491 112795 112935

2006 113250 113535 113793 113958 113965 114045 114203 114348 114434 114439 114628 114794

2007 115023 115080 115252 115298 115419 115480 115476 115403 115423 115484 115559 115606

2008 115647 115511 115399 115184 114968 114737 114478 114184 113759 113279 112482 111824

2009 110985 110260 109473 108671 108359 107933 107637 107418 107234 107002 106960 106840

2010 106800 106773 106914 107107 107191 107283 107375 107503 107618 107814 107948 108088

2011 108207 108464 108725 108989 109097 109199 109374 109426 109642 109781 109959 110193

2012 110470 110724 110871 110956 111072 111145(P) 111317(P)

P : preliminary

Really? That site shows only positive numbers?

According to that site, how many private sector jobs were there, in Jan of 2010? (I'll give you a hint: It's 106,800,000).

According to that site, how many jobs were there, next month, in Feb of 2010? (I'll give you a hint: It's 106,773,000).

According to that site, did the number of jobs go up? Or down? And by how much? (I'll give you a hint: It went down. By 27,000.)

Now, does "the dataset I keep referring to", contain only months of growth? Or does it have growth, and reduction, data?

----------

Here's the next part:

How many private sector jobs were there, in Feb of '09? (I'll give you a hint: It's 110,260,000.)

How many private sector jobs were there, in the most recent non-estimated month? (I'll give you a hint: It's 111,072,000)

Does going from 110,260,000, to 111,072,000 represent a loss of 934K jobs, like you claimed, here:

Larry, no matter how you spin the apple, it's still an apple. Do I need to pull the series report from the Department of Labor and Statistics that shows over 8 years, W lost 563K private sector jobs? Or that in just over 3.5 years, Obama has lost 934K private sector jobs? (Series ID CES0000000001 & Series ID CES0500000001) And that is counting every job lost in Jan 2009 as Bush's. His website provided the numbers, so don't tell me I am using the wrong numbers. He touts that over the last 29 months, he has created 4.5M private sector jobs, completely glossing over the 5.4M he lost in the first 13 months. Of course, the response will be that the first 12 months belong to Bush. Yet that doesn't apply FOR Bush, who had to deal with the dot-com bubble upon assuming office. You either own it, or you don't. THOSE are the real numbers.

Or does going from 110,260,000, to 111,072,000, represent a gain of 812,000 jobs, as I claimed back on page 1, and you've been accusing me of making it up, now, for two pages?

[HBnotBlades]

That results in a table with ONLY positive numbers:

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

2000 110210 110304 110641 110860 110739 110952 111137 111168 111395 111375 111585 111677

2001 111631 111623 111556 111227 111146 110910 110737 110549 110282 109918 109572 109365

2002 109214 109055 108990 108894 108814 108826 108731 108675 108663 108771 108757 108587

2003 108644 108487 108288 108254 108273 108234 108232 108264 108425 108568 108605 108713

2004 108883 108915 109214 109437 109747 109841 109882 109984 110136 110463 110490 110623

2005 110718 110949 111094 111440 111583 111844 112124 112311 112395 112491 112795 112935

2006 113250 113535 113793 113958 113965 114045 114203 114348 114434 114439 114628 114794

2007 115023 115080 115252 115298 115419 115480 115476 115403 115423 115484 115559 115606

2008 115647 115511 115399 115184 114968 114737 114478 114184 113759 113279 112482 111824

2009 110985 110260 109473 108671 108359 107933 107637 107418 107234 107002 106960 106840

2010 106800 106773 106914 107107 107191 107283 107375 107503 107618 107814 107948 108088

2011 108207 108464 108725 108989 109097 109199 109374 109426 109642 109781 109959 110193

2012 110470 110724 110871 110956 111072 111145(P) 111317(P)

P : preliminary

That's a listing of the total number of jobs. If there was a negative number in there something went gone horribly wrong. Popeman, I'm not sure why your numbers are different, but it's pretty easy to verify that larry's numbers are correct.

[Popeman38]

That's a listing of the total number of jobs. If there was a negative number in there something went gone horribly wrong. Popeman, I'm not sure why your numbers are different, but it's pretty easy to verify that larry's numbers are correct.

Obviously I was reading the table wrong. My bad. I was reading it in jobs created per month in thousands, not total jobs.

It is very easy to verify that Larry's numbers are correct? Or is it easy to verify that Larry's numbers match what he posted? I used the numbers the Obama admin keep using. If Larry's numbers were correct, do you not think the admin would be using them?

[AsburySkinsFan]

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

Oh no you've already established that the credit or the blame falls upon the sitting President...you made your bed now lay in it.

[AsburySkinsFan]

]

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.

yeah.....right.....bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran.......and that lovely diddy was sung by a MODERATE Republican!

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.

You are absolutely right, and if you would bother to thake a moment to look at the steep decline of unemployment that began BEFORE Obama took office you'd realize that the jobs market was blown up under Bush's watch and Bush got a repreive because his 2nd term was over BERORE the economy bottomed out. The job losses are his regardless how often Hannity, twa and the other GOP shills say otherwise.

[Larry]

Oh no you've already established that the credit or the blame falls upon the sitting President...you made your bed now lay in it.

Oh, no he hasn't.

He's clearly established that, in his world, all credit goes to the nearest available Republican, and all blame goes to the nearest available Democrat.

He's already tried to tell us that, when we look at W's numbers, that we must pretend that W's administration stopped when the number of jobs hit the high-water mark. (June of 07), and that everything after that is Obama's. (Post #4).

And that well, all the good parts were because of "Texas and GOP Governors". (Same post.)

And tried to claim that we should pretend that W didn't take office till Aug of 03. (Post 11)

Then he tried to tell us that well, we should go through W's record, and pick out the best month. And we should go through Obama's record, throw out some months, and then look at the best month that's left. (Post 18).

And tried to tell us that well, low wage jobs don;t really count. (When we're talking about Obama. When Rick Parry is taking credit for them, then they count.) (Same post.)

And that was just on the first page of the thread.

[HBnotBlades]

Obviously I was reading the table wrong. My bad. I was reading it in jobs created per month in thousands, not total jobs.

It is very easy to verify that Larry's numbers are correct? Or is it easy to verify that Larry's numbers match what he posted? I used the numbers the Obama admin keep using. If Larry's numbers were correct, do you not think the admin would be using them?

His numbers are correct. They are literally coming directly from the BLS website.

As to the differences between the your numbers and his, it doesn't look like the Obama website's figure is for private sector jobs, but instead for total jobs. That's likely why your numbers are different from Larry's.

[Popeman38]

His numbers are correct. They are literally coming directly from the BLS website.

As to the differences between the your numbers and his, it doesn't look like the Obama website's figure is for private sector jobs, but instead for total jobs. That's likely why your numbers are different from Larry's.

Click on the link I provided. It takes you to a chart on Obama's website titled, "Pivate Sector Job Creation".

[Larry]

Click on the link I provided. It takes you to a chart on Obama's website titled, "Pivate Sector Job Creation".

And it agrees with the data I provided.

IF, to get the number for "jobs gained in Feb of 12", you take the BLS data from 2/12, and compare it with 1/12. (Or, at least, the four months I picked, agreed.)

What it doesn't do, is support the claims you've been making. Like Obama losing 934K jobs.

To get to the claim of losing 752K jobs, what you have to do is go from Dec of 08, to May of 12.

But Obama wasn't President in Dec of 08. He wasn't President for most of Jan of 09. He was President for Feb of 09. (Although I think you'd have to be outrageously partisan to claim that what happened in Feb of 09, was because of him.)

I picked Feb of 09 (and Feb of 01, for Bush) as the starting point for their "ownership", because I was intentionally picking the numbers that would make W look as best as possible, and make O look as bad as possible, without using twa's retroactive responsibility ray.

My point is that, if you intentionally pick the most outrageous, the most partisan, the most anti-Obama "start date" you can, (short of twa-level dishonesty), Obama still comes off as massively better than W. (Despite having much less time to work with, and inheriting a much worse situation.)

(And, if you pick much more rational "start dates", to assign responsibility, then the difference becomes vastly more massive.)

[twa]

Oh, no he hasn't.

He's clearly established that, in his world, all credit goes to the nearest available Republican, and all blame goes to the nearest available Democrat.

.

Truth hurts

btw our per capita income keeps rising,amazing how that works with those low paying jobs,it must be the low cost of living that makes folks here think they should work for paupers wages:pfft:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=TXPCPI

but thats OK, we will let O use our job numbers...after all he is sending us all kinds of business and potential employees.

[Popeman38]

And it agrees with the data I provided.

IF, to get the number for "jobs gained in Feb of 12", you take the BLS data from 2/12, and compare it with 1/12. (Or, at least, the four months I picked, agreed.)

What it doesn't do, is support the claims you've been making. Like Obama losing 934K jobs.

To get to the claim of losing 752K jobs, what you have to do is go from Dec of 08, to May of 12.

But Obama wasn't President in Dec of 08. He wasn't President for most of Jan of 09. He was President for Feb of 09. (Although I think you'd have to be outrageously partisan to claim that what happened in Feb of 09, was because of him.)

I picked Feb of 09 (and Feb of 01, for Bush) as the starting point for their "ownership", because I was intentionally picking the numbers that would make W look as best as possible, and make O look as bad as possible, without using twa's retroactive responsibility ray.

My point is that, if you intentionally pick the most outrageous, the most partisan, the most anti-Obama "start date" you can, (short of twa-level dishonesty), Obama still comes off as massively better than W. (Despite having much less time to work with, and inheriting a much worse situation.)

(And, if you pick much more rational "start dates", to assign responsibility, then the difference becomes vastly more massive.)

Larry, I edited my original numbers. I was wrong in my math (think work may have got in the way of play ). And I am not trying to make Obama look bad. As I have stated on multiple occasions, I will vey likely vote for him. But campaigning is campaigning. If you think either side is being completely transparent, I hav some oceanfront property in WV to sell you. I used Obama's numbers because those are the numbers the President has asserted are accurate.

[Larry]

Larry, I edited my original numbers. I was wrong in my math (think work may have got in the way of play ). And I am not trying to make Obama look bad. As I have stated on multiple occasions, I will vey likely vote for him. But campaigning is campaigning. If you think either side is being completely transparent, I hav some oceanfront property in WV to sell you. I used Obama's numbers because those are the numbers the President has asserted are accurate.

And the numbers you picked, start in December of 08.

(Me, I didn't go to a political campaign web site. I went to the recognized standard, documented the choices I made (and why I made them), and showed the results).

(I even varied the data, to suit other people's claims).

[Popeman38]

And the numbers you picked, start in December of 08.

(Me, I didn't go to a political campaign web site. I went to the recognized standard, documented the choices I made (and why I made them), and showed the results).

(I even varied the data, to suit other people's claims).

So let me get this straight. I am gettin ragged on for using the PRESIDENTS re-election website that sources the BSL numbers? I mean, if the President was able to take credit for the numbers you keep posting don't you think he would be?

[Larry]

Actually, I have to say, from going back through the thread.

Part of my reaction to you, was that I had just spent about two pages with Thiebear falsely claiming that I was ignoring Obama's bad years (despite the fact that I've documented every number I've provided, and was doing no such thing.), and then you come along, and your first post is to accuse anybody who looks at private sector jobs of cherry picking data, and making some claims about employment numbers which you still haven't supported, and which disagree grossly with the documented numbers that I have provided.

And, I'll confess, I didn't notice that the person attacking me had changed.

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.

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)

My mistake (thinking that you were Thiebear, continuing to repeat the same false accusation that he was making) was compounded, when you accused me of the same thing:

Larry, no matter how you spin the apple, it's still an apple. Do I need to pull the series report from the Department of Labor and Statistics that shows over 8 years, W lost 563K private sector jobs? Or that in just over 3.5 years, Obama has lost 934K private sector jobs? (Series ID CES0000000001 & Series ID CES0500000001) And that is counting every job lost in Jan 2009 as Bush's. His website provided the numbers, so don't tell me I am using the wrong numbers. He touts that over the last 29 months, he has created 4.5M private sector jobs, completely glossing over the 5.4M he lost in the first 13 months. Of course, the response will be that the first 12 months belong to Bush. Yet that doesn't apply FOR Bush, who had to deal with the dot-com bubble upon assuming office. You either own it, or you don't. THOSE are the real numbers.

No. Not once in this entire thread have I in any way ignored or minimized the job losses that occurred after Obama took office.

I have refused to go along with the numerous people,

including you

, who have tried to blame him for losses that occurred

before

he took office. Obama was not President in December of 08. He was President for only a tiny part of January of 09.

I assert that it's grossly unfair to blame him for things that happened in Feb of 09. But it is a fact that he was, at least, President, then. And, since the question of "well, was he responsible in March? In July?" is nothing more than a debate of opinions, I'm willing to bend as far as handing him responsibility for the economy, once he's in office. But not before.

In short, I'm willing, to try to avoid an endless argument, to look at the BLS data, draw a line at Feb of 09, and say "Obama owns it from here on out". (I think it's grossly unfair, but I'm willing to bend that far.) I'm not willing to draw the line at December of 08.

And, again: At least looking at the BLS data for "Total nonfarm" jobs, . . .

Obama, for his entire Presidency, so far (good and bad), has averaged creating 4,641 jobs a month.

And W, for his entire Presidency (good and bad), averaged creating 1,885 jobs a month.

Although, at least when you look at "total nonfarm" data, Obama (in 39 months) has not created as many jobs as W did (in 96 months.) He has a higher "jobs/month" statistic, but not a higher "total jobs" statistic.

----------

Now, I'm looking at the BLS's "total nonfarm" data, because I don;t see any data on there, for "total jobs". Maybe you've got some data that I haven't seen, that supports your claims?

Maybe I could take the BLS data for "total private" jobs, and the data for "government" jobs, and add them together?

But frankly, my willingness to jump through hoops, generating more and more data, for an audience which has demonstrated their total willingness to falsely accuse me of lying, without even bothering to read what I post, is getting pretty thin.

[Mister Happy]

Here's where the confusion is:

In February 2009, there was a loss of 724,000 jobs.

Popeman added up all the monthly gains and losses, so his total includes the February loss.

Larry calculated the total change from February 2009 to the present. However, the number he used for February is the total number of jobs at the END of February, so he isn't including the February loss.

To find the total change during Obama's tenure,the starting point should be the January number, which is the number of jobs at the end of January, when Obama started.

That should sync up both sets of numbers.

I should also point out that roughly 86 percent of public sector jobs are in the state and local governments, which have been hit hard by the economy. I believe the Federal government has gained jobs.

However, the Federal government employs about 2.8 million people, which is roughly 1 percent of the 243 million civilian noninstitutional population.

Also, the stimulus bill was signed on February 17, 2009.

Interpret those facts however you want.

[aREDSKIN]

A CNN fact check- FWIW & FYI. Any way you look at it the jobs picture it SUCKS & anyone touting it should have their head(s) examined. IMO

"The number Castro cites is an accurate description of the growth of private-sector jobs since January 2010, when the long, steep slide in employment finally hit bottom. But while a total of 4.5 million jobs sounds great, it's not the whole picture.

Watch full speech of Julian Castro

Photos: Best of the DNC Photos: Best of the DNC

Nonfarm private payrolls hit a post-recession low of 106.8 million that month, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The figure currently stands at 111.3 million as of July.

While that is indeed a gain of 4.5 million, it's only a net gain of 300,000 over the course of the Obama administration to date. The private jobs figure stood at 111 million in January 2009, the month Obama took office."

.....The figure of 4.5 million jobs is accurate if you look at the most favorable period and category for the administration. But overall, there are still fewer people working now than when Obama took office at the height of the recession."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/05/politics/fact-check-obama-jobs/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

[Larry]

A CNN fact check- FWIW & FYI. Any way you look at it the jobs picture it SUCKS & anyone touting it should have their head(s) examined. IMO

Oh, agreed.

I think you'd have to be a loon to be praising Obama for some miraculous economic growth.

Which is why the only time I even mention the statistics on job and so forth, is when some Republican spinmeister tries to blame Obama for causing the depression.

Whether he should/could have done better, IMO, is a matter of opinion. Whether he caused it, however, can be easily proven.

[SnyderShrugged]

Here's where the confusion is:

In February 2009, there was a loss of 724,000 jobs.

Popeman added up all the monthly gains and losses, so his total includes the February loss.

Larry calculated the total change from February 2009 to the present. However, the number he used for February is the total number of jobs at the END of February, so he isn't including the February loss.

To find the total change during Obama's tenure,the starting point should be the January number, which is the number of jobs at the end of January, when Obama started.

That should sync up both sets of numbers.

I should also point out that roughly 86 percent of public sector jobs are in the state and local governments, which have been hit hard by the economy. I believe the Federal government has gained jobs.

However, the Federal government employs about 2.8 million people, which is roughly 1 percent of the 243 million civilian noninstitutional population.

Also, the stimulus bill was signed on February 17, 2009.

Interpret those facts however you want.

This seems to be the most cogent analysis yet. Thank you