When did the rate fall off the cliff? When was nobama anointed? There ya go.
Here's the chart with better gradations:
From Business Insider.
Posted on 09/18/2012 6:22:35 AM PDT by listenhillary
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Mitt Romney is accusing President Obama of overseeing the worst jobs recovery since the Great Depression.
And months of disappointing jobs growth means the president could face Election Day with fewer workers than on the day he took office.
But Romney's accusation is wrong -- President Obama's job gap isn't the worst. In fact, it isn't nearly as big as the one President George Bush faced eight years ago.
Here are the numbers:
There are 261,000 fewer employees on payrolls today than when Obama took office. But at the same point of the Bush administration, the jobs deficit stood at 856,000 jobs, according to current estimates of the same period.
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...
Chris Isidore. U of Chicago. ‘78-’92, according to LinkedIn.
The U of Chicago continues to sink into academic irrelevance.
Bush’s jobs were real, and were a net benefit to the country.
BHO’s jobs are government jobs that don’t benefit the country. In fact, he hampers beneficial gov’t jobs in favor of gov’t jobs that hamper economic growth.
Your post about those racist facts inspired me...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2932766/posts
Good stuff.
You know liberalism is a mental disorder because they create their own reality.
Nice chart!
But, I don’t think that it tells the whole story.
I don’t believe that since 1949 that if you stopped looking for employment, you came off the unemployment rolls, as is done today.
I also don’t think that there were 8 million unemployed on permanent disability, and therefore not counted as unemployed, as there is today.
I know that too. Its really more than 12% and closer to 20% if you count the really underemployed
By comparison, the unemployment rate today is only slightly higher than the 7.8% rate on the day Obama was sworn in, and slightly better than the 8.3% reading a few weeks later.
Completely leaving out the dramatic drop in the labor force participation rate - with those people included the unemployment rate has steadily climbed under Obama's tenure from 7.8% to 11.2%. That is not a good record.
The author of this piece actually wants us to believe that more and more people getting so discouraged they have simply given up looking for work bringing down the unemployment rate is a sign of economic recovery. The labor force participation rate is at a 30 year low - devastating.
When did the rate fall off the cliff? When was nobama anointed? There ya go.
Here's the chart with better gradations:
From Business Insider.
The charts in replies 32 and 47 completely denigrate this article’s false headline. Those charts are devastating for nobama and need to be widely disseminated. nobama has NO defense for the truth spoken by those charts.
That fall off the cliff starting in 2009 is truly breathtaking.
The key words???
“According to CURRENT ESTIMATES of the same period”.
How come there aren’t actual figures recorded somewhere?
We are only comparing figures that are about 4 years apart—not 104 years apart.
The rest of the story.
“The data that was reported eight years ago was somewhat different, compared with current figures looking at that period, since revisions have taken place in the months and years that followed. But on Election Day 2004, the readings at the time showed the economy with 585,000 fewer jobs than when Bush took office.”
The “Household Survey” (as opposed to the “Payroll Survey”) shows a 2 million GAIN in jobs in Bush’s first term, versus a LOSS for Obama. From Bureau of Labor Statistics - Bloomberg ticker USEMADJP - US Employment Smoothed for Population Controls and Adjusted to a Payroll Concept, seasonally adjusted.
Bush Term 1 to August 2004 GAIN of 1,953,000 jobs
1/2001 - 130,098,000
8/2004 - 132,051,000
Obamination Term 1 (and only!) to August 2012 LOSS of 407,000 jobs
1/2009 - 135,620,000
8/2012 - 135,213,000
www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ces_cps_trends.pdf
no need to create jobs when unemployment stays below 5%which is equivalent to full employment. It is properly said that there are always 5% unable or unwilling to work.
Exactly. It's their way of lying without lying (in their minds). They are not saying Bush had worse unemployment or fewer people working (or the Obama has better employment or more people working). Which is the way they know most people will interpret it.
They are saying that Bush hasn't personally created more jobs under his administration than Obama. It's how they are saying MA had worse job "creation" under Romney even though unemployment was less when he left than when he came into office.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.