Bush's Job Growth WORST in 50 Years (Roll out the red carpet for this “staunch Bush supporter.”)

Bush’s giant Right Wing Noise Machine (RWNM) loves to preach about the Bush economic miracle. In fact, the RWNM’s current thinking is Bush doesn’t spend enough time talking about his economic triumphs. If only he did, then everyone would fall in line and believe in the great Bush economic miracle. There is one problem with this argument: it’s a lie. Any way you look at the Bush economy, it comes up short. Today, I want to compare Bush’s job creation record with other economic recoveries. As usual, Bush comes up way short.

The national Bureau of Economic Research has identified 8 recessions since May 1954. For comparison purposed, I only used 5 of these periods because they are longer than the current expansion. Next, I used the total nonfarm employment numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). I measured the jobs created from the trough (lowest point) to the next identified highest economic point. (The NBER states a “peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession.”) I compared the total number jobs created for the entire expansion as well as the total number of jobs created 49 months into the expansion (According to the NBER, the lowest point of the last trough was in November 2001, making December 2005 the 49th month of this expansion). Here’s how the numbers (in millions) compare.

The expansion of 2/61 – 12/69 created 17,684 total jobs and 6,244 at 49 months.

The expansion of 3/75 – 7/80 created 13,183 total jobs and 12,831 at 49 months.

The expansion of 11/82 – 7/90 created 21,003 total jobs and 11,510 at 49 months.

The expansion of 3/91 – 3/01 created 23,969 total jobs and 8,266 at 49 months.

The current expansion which started in November 2001 has created a total of 3,410 jobs.

In other words, at 49 months into an expansion, Bush’s job creation record is last. While we don’t know when this expansion will end, the Bush economy would have to triple the total number of jobs created in order to get to 4th place on this list.

What’s going on here? The basic problem is some areas of the economy are creating jobs. The BLS tracks 13 different job sectors. 7 (a little over half) have created jobs since November 2001 – natural resources/mining (37,000), construction (539,000), financial (550,000), professional services (238,000), education/health (2.1 million), leisure/hospitality (803,000) and governmental employees (1 million). Of all the jobs created three areas – government, education/health account for 57% of job growth. Of the jobs created outside of education, health and governmental employees (2,167,000), construction, professional services and financial services account for about 60% of the jobs created. Real estate is obviously related to all of these areas. Construction is obviously related to real estate, as are financial services (mortgage lending etc…) and professional services (real estate agents, appraisers etc…) So, real estate, governmental employees and health/education jobs are doing just fine.

6 areas – a little under half of the sectors the BLS tracks – have had a net loss in number of jobs: manufacturing (-2,800,000), information (-565,000), trade/transport/utilities (-353), whole sales trade (-107), retail (-157), and transportation/warehousing (67,000). Manufacturing and information are obviously the two biggest areas of job losses. Some of the information service jobs are the result of natural attrition from Y2K. However, I somehow doubt that is the only reason for the losses. While there is no information regarding outsourcing losses (because the government does not keep any statistics on the subject), I fell safe in assuming outsourcing is a big factor involved in the losses.

In summation, sum people are doing well. They can find jobs and are probably financially somewhat secure. However, others have seen their jobs literally disappear overnight and are hurting to find new jobs that pay commensurate levels. These people are hurting from the current “expansion”. Of course, Bush and the RWNM has forgotten about them.

You swine. You vulgar little maggot. Don't you know that you are pathetic? You worthless bag of filth...
P.S.: You are hypocritical, greedy, violent, malevolent, vengeful, cowardly, deadly, mendacious, meretricious, loathsome, despicable, belligerent, opportunistic, barratrous, contemptible, criminal, fascistic, bigoted, racist, sexist, avaricious, tasteless, idiotic, brain-damaged, imbecilic, insane, arrogant, deceitful, demented, lame, self-righteous, byzantine, conspiratorial, satanic, fraudulent, libelous, bilious, splenetic, spastic, ignorant, clueless, illegitimate, harmful, destructive, dumb, evasive, double-talking, devious, revisionist, narrow, manipulative, paternalistic, fundamentalist, dogmatic, idolatrous, unethical, cultic, diseased, suppressive, controlling, restrictive, malignant, deceptive, dim, crazy, weird, dystopic, stifling, uncaring, plantigrade, grim, unsympathetic, jargon-spouting, censorious, secretive, aggressive, mind-numbing, arassive, poisonous, flagrant, self-destructive, abusive, socially-retarded, puerile, clueless, and generally Not Good.

I Hope This Helps...

Chef, is that you?

That is possible, but as I recall, the bottom, or trough, of that cycle lasted for a minimum of 8 months, possibly longer, and I recall the glee with which the Dems were anticipating the 48 months of Bush II's presidency.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

CA....

Ok since the Mods are allowing you to pretend to be intellectually open and serious, I will nuke your assumption.

You are making a comparison between apples and oranges. You are treating a recession as a 1 size fits all event. Therefore you assume that since the Bush Recovery did NOT create as many jobs it is a "Worse" performance. That is intellectually vacuous. The Bush Recovery created fewer jobs because it had FEWER unemployed to create jobs for. Bush preempted the recession by passing his 2001 series of tax cuts. Thus the recession was milder, and the recovery quicker, since the economy had less distance to recover then previous recessions. Your attempt to compare this recession with previous ones is a knowing attempt to commit intellectual fraud.

Hangin' out with David Brock, huh? What else have you been doing with David Brock?

Since the writer is obviously also a catcher like Brock, they have to be haning out with different pitchers. My Guess is he has been haning out with Hillary. As John McCain said after his lost weekend with Hillary, "She" is a REAL man.

Confirming sucessful detonation of 30 Megaton XW-96 warhead. Still some heavy neutron activity so we cannot get a bomb damage assessment yet. But we will soon. Circular bmbing error was only 5 feet so there is no way the troll could have survived the blast.

See my posts #'s 216 and # 223.

There are 11 other posts that I referenced for 'intruder alert' that responded factually and honored his request for a "direct response".

Since 'IA' hasn't responded, and considering the obvious DU talking points and blatant errors his post contains, I think it's obvious ( to most of us) that the troll is a troll.

That's it! Ride your stupidity for all it is worth! Revel in your moronness! Some people rise to greatness but not you! No YOU have chosen a more difficult path, you have chosen to sink to the lowest possible level of idiocy it is possible to reach and STILL be able to operate a computer! Way to flaunt your single digit IQ!!!!! BRAVO! Encore!!!!!

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.