Jobs Created During Each Presidency Term (Obama is pathetic)

statisticbrain.com/jobs-created-during-each-presidency-term/ ^

[RoosterRedux]

Link to Table

[RoosterRedux]

I thought you guys might find this interesting

[RoosterRedux]

Keep in mind that jobs created under Obama were actually in spite of Obama. Can you imagine what this table would look like if the U.S. economy weren’t experiencing an oil boom.

[dead]

Obama has created 100 gazillion jillion jobs! Nobody can find them, but he created them. If you want proof, ask Obama!

[Bryanw92]

The number of “jobs” is meaningless. Replace a full-time job with benefits with three 10 hour a week part time jobs and the number of “jobs” has tripled. The Progressive Era (Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama) has seen the real individual income of paycheck-earning Americans plummet. The unholy alliance of Communists and Corporatists is making this happen and they also define the economic indicators to make it all appear to just be tinfoil hat stuff.

[Bullish]

But.... But Obama just said the other day that by every measurable metric Americans are better off now than when he took office.

He doesn’t ever even read what they put in front of him before it comes on his teleprompter is my guess.

[lakeman]

But But on 9-5-14 Adam Hartung in Forbes said Obama was way better then Reagan. I’m confused do I believe the BLS or Forbes???

[re_nortex]

The impressive numbers shown in the chart during the KKKommie KKKlitoon years were not of his doing. The reality is that Newt Gingrich and his Conservative allies were, for all practical purposes, running things in the 1990s. It was the application of time-proven Conservative economic principles of the free market that allowed for American prosperity to occur along with jobs. KKKlintoon was just a bystander, occupied with other things such as Monica Lewinsky and setting the wheels in motion for the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

American Patriot	Draft-dodging kkkommie

[RoosterRedux]

Absolutely right!

[cincinnati65]

Carter created 10 million jobs? LOL!

[DoughtyOne]

Take a look at Bush’s numbers again. In his first time there was a net loss of jobs. His second term they were as anemic as Obama’s.

Take a look at Clinton’s numbers for reference. 11 million his second term, to Bush’s net loss in his first term.

The average figure of jobs created per term for the prior 40 years was over 9%. Under Bush it went negative for the first time in forty years.

Clinton’s numbers look a whole lot better than they would have otherwise, because Congress went to Newt in January 1995.

[DoughtyOne]

That’s what you call coasting...

It sure wasn’t due to anything he did to better the situation.

[Opinionated Blowhard]

Put aside who is at fault — this chart shows the incredible disaster the last 15 years have been. Bush’s and Obama’s was horrible.

[nitzy]

The startling thing is that since 2001 we have added around 2 million jobs but we have added around 30 million people.

That is scary.

There are legions of people in the U.S. who think it is normal not to work. At the same time there are legions of people who think it is normal to work 60 hours a week or work 2 jobs. Neither are normal or healthy in the long term for a society.

[12th_Monkey]

Didn’t realize job growth under Bush was so piss poor....

[re_nortex]

Clinton’s numbers look a whole lot better than they would have otherwise, because Congress went to Newt in January 1995.

Adding to my point a few posts back is that Newt Gingrich and the "Contract with America" not only led to true prosperity and genuine job growth but plummeting gasoline prices. I look back to Gingrich era of the 1990s as a time when I was making good money, getting substantial return on my investments and paying all of 78 cents a gallon for gas! Is it any wonder that I was all in for President Newt Gingrich in 2012? His track record of success is unquestionable.

[DoughtyOne]

I know where you are coming from with Newt. He does have some brilliant past moves in his resume.

My main problem with him is at least in my opinion, reflected by people like Bill Krystal, Bill Bennet, and other people who can rattle off some good sound-bytes, but then they’re right back to enabling leftist moves.

I have never heard a better speech on Founding Principles. I have heard Newt crank out amazing presentations. Then he turns right around and betrays his obvious knowledge by uncorking some of the worst sound-bytes at the worst possible times.

His 1994 moves were textbook. People should got to school on them. He actions were simply brilliant. And then by 2000 he was coming apart at the seams. He had to go.

Honestly, I couldn’t explain it. Then we got Hastert and Boehner. Both were much worse than Newt. None the less, when Newt left, I wasn’t really sad to see him go.

His goofy actions concerning his wives left me scratching my head. There’s just something about the guy that I can’t support any longer.

I know there are people out there who still find him to be the right guy. I’m not going to dump on them. I can understand why.

I’m a guy who watches the sound bytes. People have to be careful what they say. Exhibit a sound understanding of our Founding Principles in a speech, and I’m going to be very harsh in my judgement concerning issues that reflect negatively on those principles.

Right now, off the top of my head, I don’t remember some of the lines he has uncorked that prevent me from supporting him any longer. I know something was said at some point a number of times that caused me to write him off.

Others will have to come to their own moment with him.

Take care. Thanks for your comments. We both share some admiration over some of Newt’s past actions.

[logi_cal869]

Ummmmmm...I used to think good things of Gingrich, too. Then I woke up.

The most recent thing I’ve found is his participation in planning the formation of the Dept. of Homeland Security pre-9/11.

Check out the reports at the link

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/nssg/Reports/reports.htm

[logi_cal869]

Neither did I. The way I see it: The expertise at manipulating government numbers for consumption was just coming into maturity during Clinton (the ‘surplus’). They got really good under GW and, obviously, perfected it under the current monarchy.

The way I read the data I knew things were bad under GW; that table proves I was right.

Can you imagine the truth under the Puppet with real numbers...

[Salvation]

U.S. president	Party	Term years	Start jobs	End jobs	Created	Ave annual increase
Barack Obama	D	2009–2013	133,631,000	134,839,000	1,208,000	0.23%
George W. Bush	R	2005–2009	132,502,000	133,631,000	1,129,000	0.21%
George W. Bush	R	2001–2005	132,466,000	132,453,000	-13,000	-0.00%
Bill Clinton	D	1997–2001	121,231,000	132,466,000	11,233,000	2.24%
Bill Clinton	D	1993–1997	109,725,000	121,233,000	11,507,000	2.52%
George H. W. Bush	R	1989–1993	107,133,000	109,726,000	2,593,000	0.60%
Ronald Reagan	R	1985–1989	96,353,000	107,133,000	10,780,000	2.69%
Ronald Reagan	R	1981–1985	91,031,000	96,353,000	5,322,000	1.43%
Jimmy Carter	D	1977–1981	80,692,000	91,031,000	10,339,000	3.06%
Nixon/Ford	R	1973–1977	75,620,000	80,692,000	5,072,000	1.64%
Richard Nixon	R	1969–1973	69,438,000	75,620,000	6,182,000	2.16%
Lyndon Johnson	D	1965–1969	59,583,000	69,438,000	9,855,000	3.90%
Kennedy / Johnson	D	1961–1965	53,683,000	59,583,000	5,900,000	2.64%
Dwight Eisenhower	R	1957–1961	52,888,000	53,683,000	795,000	0.37%
Dwight Eisenhower	R	1953–1957	50,145,000	52,888,000	2,743,000	1.34%
Harry Truman	D	1949–1953	44,675,000	50,145,000	5,470,000	2.93%
Roosevelt / Truman	D	1945–1949	41,903,000	44,675,000	2,772,000	1.61%
Franklin Roosevelt	D	1941–1945	34,480,000	41,903,000	7,423,000	5.00%
Franklin Roosevelt	D	1937–1941	31,200,000	34,480,000	3,280,000	2.53% **
Franklin Roosevelt	D	1933–1937	25,700,000	31,200,000	5,500,000	4.97% **
Herbert Hoover	R	1929–1933	32,100,000	25,700,000	-6,400,000	-5.41% **
Calvin Coolidge	R	1925–1929	29,500,000	32,100,000	2,600,000	2.13% **
Harding / Coolidge	R	1921–1925	25,000,000	29,500,000	4,500,000	4.23% **
**Approximate