It’s Official: More Private Sector Jobs Created In 2010 Than During Entire Bush Years

The September jobs report was just released and demonstrates that America is on a far slower path to recovery than anyone originally predicted. Despite this, the shedding of government jobs cloaks a glimmer of hope: more private sector jobs have been created this year than during the entire Bush administration. Read that again: 2010 has had more private job creation than during the entire 8 year tenure of George W. Bush.

This is the 9th straight month of private sector job growth in the midst of a devastating recession that has put a serious strain mostly on the poor and middle class. There has been a total of 863,000 private sector jobs created in 2010, exceeding the total created under the Bush/Cheney regime.

The numbers are not all good however. Companies added 64,000 jobs last month, but after the loss of 159,000 government jobs at all levels, there was a net shedding of ~95,000. The fading influence of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA or the economic stimulus) is causing much of the strain on the job market, as state and local governments still strained by poor revenue are cutting positions, particularly in education.

This is also the central agent that has caused the overall net job loss for the last four months, following a net gain for the first 5 months of the year. The net jobs gained during 2010 stands at 613,000, which is over half of the 1,080,000 jobs were created during the entire time George W. Bush was in office.

2010 Total Jobs Gained or Lost
January 14,000
February 39,000
March 208,000
April 313,000
May 432,000
June -175,000
July -66,000
August -57,000
September -95,000

After modest gains in January and February, March was the month with the greatest job gains in 3 years (since March 2007), and April 2010 was the biggest monthly job gain in 4 years (since March 2006). Beyond this, the increase in jobs from March to April is counter to the jobs trends of the last 10 years, where according to the average, March has gained 61,000 jobs and April only 32,000. The huge gain of 432,000 jobs in May 2010 is the largest net gain of jobs since March 2000 when Bill Clinton was president.

A commonly cited article by conservative pundits to soften the blow on this data is a Wall Street Journal piece titled, Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record, which inaccurately states that Bush created 3 million jobs. The actual figure is 1.08 million (all jobs added minus jobs lost), but the conservative leaning WSJ has yet to issue a retraction, correction, or clarification.

In the chart below found on the Bureau of Labor Statistics, find the monthly statistics of total jobs created or lost since January 2000.

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2000 249 121 472 286 225 -46 163 3 122 -11 231 138
2001 -16 61 -30 -281 -44 -128 -125 -160 -244 -325 -292 -178
2002 -132 -147 -24 -85 -7 45 -97 -16 -55 126 8 -156
2003 83 -158 -212 -49 -6 -2 25 -42 103 203 18 124
2004 150 43 338 250 310 81 47 121 160 351 64 132
2005 136 240 142 360 169 246 369 195 63 84 334 158
2006 262 326 304 174 31 69 232 141 100 43 201 177
2007 194 104 239 92 149 55 -20 -71 52 86 128 70
2008 -10 -50 -33 -149 -231 -193 -210 -334 -458 -554 -728 -673
2009 -779 -726 -753 -528 -387 -515 -346 -212 -225 -224 64 -109
2010 14 39 208 313 432 -175 -66 -57 -95

Focusing in on the latter part of the monthly chart of jobs created/lost above, we are confronted with the famous “Bikini Graph”, which demonstrates the sharp reversal of job losses that has taken place after Bush left office and Obama entered it (latest version available to April 2010).

Note the figures for May and beyond are not represented on this version of the Bikini Graph.

This pattern of job creation does not go without precedent. Democratic presidents have a consistent pattern of greater job creation than their Republican counterparts.

Note in the chart above, the incorrect values are still attributed to Bush. Replace the false 3.5 million value with real 1 million and the statistics are even more skewed. Another way to look at the situation is average jobs created per year in the chart below.

email
Share

90 Responses to It’s Official: More Private Sector Jobs Created In 2010 Than During Entire Bush Years

  1. Pingback:

    -2 Vote -1 Vote +1World Wide News Flash

  2. Pingback:

    -1 Vote -1 Vote +1=== popurls.com === popular today

  3. +25 Vote -1 Vote +1Grill Jesus
    October 9, 2010 at 8:00 am

    Wow talk about screwing with the numbers. Private sector jobs aren’t even close to the level that they were during the Bush years. They’re still below those levels and the current job “growth” is actually recovering jobs lost in the private sector and nothing to do with jobs exceeding Bush era levels. Then add in the fact you fail to scale the years to equal each other at a statistical level and this whole web post is nothing but pseudo-pyscho masterbation at how much you hate bush “blah blah blah” and how he did something to the economy. Otherwords this story is nothing more then waste of time to anyone with a sense of economics and the understanding of how jobs are created and lost.

    • Ole Ole Olson
      +4 Vote -1 Vote +1Ole Ole Olson
      October 9, 2010 at 6:06 pm

      This article has nothing to do with job “levels”, but merely focuses on actual private sector job creation, which has *finally* started to rebound following the Great Recession (a catastrophe created by fiscal conservatism by the way).

      Thank you for your highly constructive input however, that will certainly change some minds.

      • +7 Vote -1 Vote +1rmarshll100
        October 10, 2010 at 12:20 pm

        Too funny! When did we have fiscal conservatism in this country last? Certainly not during the Bush years. I don’t think I have seen fiscal conservatism in my lifetime. So, please do not even try that nonsense. We have had nothing but progressive policies in this country for 100 years now and our government has just grown and grown beyond the point of any hope of sustainability. This report is indeed just another bit of nonsense to try to change the argument.

        • Ole Ole Olson
          +4 Vote -1 Vote +1Ole Ole Olson
          October 10, 2010 at 9:30 pm

          Fiscal conservatism has been the dominant economic paradigm since Reagan became president. Even Bill Clinton followed it, although mixed it up with stronger Democratic themes like job creation.

          All you have to do is look at the financial numbers. Starting in 1981, deficits soared to afford tax cuts for the rich, a huge rise in military spending, expansion of the prison system, and to give the illusion of prosperity. Reagan tripled the national debt, and he did it deliberately under the policy of “Starve The Beast” (google it).

          This is also where decades of balancing between the rich and poor began to reverse, and the rich started stealing more of a share of the wealth created by labor, causing increasing inequality and wealth consolidation. American CEOs used to make 20-40x what an average worker did for instance, but today that is well over 400x, a pattern not shared anywhere else in the Western world.

          Fiscal conservatism is a train wreck, and needs to be abandoned before our country is literally owned by China.

          • -10 Vote -1 Vote +1Bilgeman
            October 11, 2010 at 5:59 am

            “Fiscal conservatism has been the dominant economic paradigm since Reagan became president. Even Bill Clinton followed it, although mixed it up with stronger Democratic themes like job creation.”

            Not quite, O-cubed. not quite. I don;t know if you’re old enough to remember the period, whereas I was old enough to vote for Reagan in 1984.

            While Reagan was a fiscal conservative, and that’s all well and good as far as it goes, he was President, and fiscal policy is set in the Congress, the House specifically, and during Reagan’s Administrations, the House was DemocRat and the Speaker was Tip O’Neil.

            Reagan cut taxes in the recession that took place in his first term, but the Congress balked at reducing spending.

            Thus the deficit spending really got wheels as the US (properly), built up its military and naval forces while (improperly), wasn’t willing to cut social spending…which is the lion’s share of the Federal budget.

            “Reagan tripled the national debt, and he did it deliberately under the policy of “Starve The Beast””

            You’re being, in your usual blockheaded way, incredibly ignorant and profoundly partisan
            (the two ARE related, y’know).

            Starve the Beast didn’t work because while everyone wants a tax cut for themselves, they are also adamantly opposed to any spending cuts that affects them.

            That’s just the way it is, given that people like you think that it is the Feds’ valid concern to keep the New Deal/Great Society socialist model going.

            Starve the Beast doesn’t work when the Beast has a credit card.
            Until the spending limit is reached, that is.
            Under the Pelosi/Reid/ Obama regime, we may have reached that limit, and even a moonbat like you seems to realize it.

            • +5 Vote -1 Vote +1SOB
              October 11, 2010 at 9:46 am

              Define social spending and provide real numbers to back up this assertion. Most of the nation’s spending percentage wise seems to go to defense, infrastructure etc. Are you counting police fireman education as “social spending”. I guess Social Security is social spending, do the fiscal conservatives want to do away with that? Just say it then.

              • +15 Vote -1 Vote +1Bilgeman
                October 11, 2010 at 1:00 pm

                “Most of the nation’s spending percentage wise seems to go to defense, infrastructure etc.”

                …seems so?

                Not so.

                Enjoy:

                http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

              • +1 Vote -1 Vote +1Kyle
                October 11, 2010 at 3:52 pm

                yes. i do want to get rid of social security. not in a sense of take eveyone’s benefits away, but do it in a responsible, controlled, tapered manner. When the program started there was a ratio of 159.4 workers paying for the benefits of one retiree. Today the number has shrunk to about 3:1 (http://www.ssa.gov/history/ratios.html). The system is flawed, and was never meant to be a permanent solution, but rather a way to help pull us out of the Great Depression. In today’s world IRA’s make more sense. I would rather be responsible for my own retirement than rely on government and an increasing percentage of other workers’ salaries.

              • +3 Vote -1 Vote +1Mark E. Gillar
                October 12, 2010 at 1:23 am

                Kind of makes you wonder why Barack Obama wants a Civilian Peace-Keeping Force as large and well-funded as the U.S. Military?

            • +6 Vote -1 Vote +1MikeM
              October 11, 2010 at 3:50 pm

              Well Bilgeman, I was able to vote, oh yeah and serve in the Army, long before 1984. And the uncomfortable fact is Regan proposed larger expenditures every year and the Democratic controlled congress actually reduced spending from Regan’s proposal. Damn, there goes those awful, biased, facts.

              • +5 Vote -1 Vote +1Mook
                October 15, 2010 at 6:29 am

                That’s a verifiably false statement as Congress outspent Reagan’s proposals almost every year of his Presidency.

            • +9 Vote -1 Vote +1MikeM
              October 11, 2010 at 3:56 pm

              Well Bilgeman, to quote your hero, “There you go again!” The facts just do not support your statements. The facts are clear, Bush II ran up huge deficits – hid the Iraq and Afghanistan war costs off-budget, and even passed the huge, unfunded, Medicare Part D. He started the bank bailouts, the AIG bailout, Fannie & Freddie bailouts, GM and Chrysler bailouts, and on-and-on.

              • +19 Vote -1 Vote +1Mark E. Gillar
                October 12, 2010 at 1:05 am

                I would suppose that’s why so many Tea Party Signs state that “Bush Sucked Too”

    • Vote -1 Vote +1Nicolai Alatzas
      October 9, 2010 at 6:41 pm

      What we need is new industry not more of the same. Americans don’t want to be telemarketers, people want careers with a positive impact on society. Personally I would rather work as a mail clerk in a Company like Google than be a CEO of an Oil Company.

      • +8 Vote -1 Vote +1Bilgeman
        October 9, 2010 at 6:59 pm

        “Personally I would rather work as a mail clerk in a Company like Google than be a CEO of an Oil Company.”

        Uh-huh…but the Google clerk isn’t compensated like the CEO of an oil company.

        “Americans don’t want to be telemarketers, people want careers with a positive impact on society.”

        Are you suggesting that oil companies don’t have positive impacts on society?

        Try living without petrochemicals.
        Go ahead…try it.

        I work for a company that works for oil companies.

        And while they are in business to make money, they sell an honest and useful product.

        Or d’you think that you can chop and split enough firewood to keep your house warm and yourself in hot water for bathing, laundering and sanitizing your cookware through the winter?

        • +6 Vote -1 Vote +1MickeyRourkesWang
          October 9, 2010 at 8:30 pm

          Wow – if your argument starts off with totally missing that guy’s point (that he’d GIVE UP the compensation in exchange for societal reward), you’s not doin’ so good, son.

          Also, I think what he’s saying is that while OF COURSE petrochemicals are important, the oil industry’s PRACTICES in America are profoundly negative.

          They fund groups that do nothing except prevent the public awareness that we need to get off oil (as an energy source) ASAP. They discredit real scientists by paying for garbage science and using their vast wealth to try and use that to trick people into thinking that there are no consequences to burning the massive amount of oil products that we do.

          I agree with a famous scientist (I forget which said it, sorry): “Oil is far too valuable to burn”. We’re so reliant on petrochemicals for their non-energy purposes that we should REALLY be more worried about switching to a more environmentally friendly and long-term sustainable energy source… But that’d undercut a few people’s profits, so screw that, let’s mess everybody’s future up so I can make a few million RIGHT NOW?

          Man, that’s messed up. So, to sum up: petrochemicals good, oil company practices bad.

          • -8 Vote -1 Vote +1Bilgeman
            October 10, 2010 at 8:53 am

            “Wow – if your argument starts off with totally missing that guy’s point (that he’d GIVE UP the compensation in exchange for societal reward), you’s not doin’ so good, son”

            How could I miss his point? It was right there on top of his head!

            “Also, I think what he’s saying is that while OF COURSE petrochemicals are important, the oil industry’s PRACTICES in America are profoundly negative.”

            Examples, please? I’d remind you that it was the oil drilling and support industries that plugged Macondo.
            And before that there were over 3000 deepwater wells driled in the GoM without a single spill.

            So…can we have some ‘zamples of bad oil company PRACTICES?

            “They fund groups that do nothing except prevent the public awareness that we need to get off oil (as an energy source) ASAP.”

            We do? WHY? Who told you that we have to?
            Is this some kind of Moonbat “Revealed Truth” that you take on faith?

            We have plenty of oil, but some people and pressure groups, (well-funded by Aramco, Statoil, PeMex and Chavez, no doubt), just won’t let us go and get it.

            It’s that simple.

            • +5 Vote -1 Vote +1MikeM
              October 11, 2010 at 4:02 pm

              So Bilgeman, do you really know anything? As a Louisiana native, I know that most offshore oil wells experience numerous spills – ranging from a few gallons to thousands of gallons – they just get to ignore them. Take a look at the Gulf of Mexico right after Katrina and Rita – “http://blog.skytruth.org/2007/12/hurricane-katrina-gulf-of-mexico-oil.html” and see all the “no spills.” Ah, it is so sweet to shrill for your big business betters isn’t it?

            • -5 Vote -1 Vote +1tathagata
              October 12, 2010 at 7:40 pm

              To insure that oil is harvested properly, we need to Nationalize oil. If we run it with technicians under oversight by a democratic process it will prevent overpaid bureaucrats from running for the bottom line so they can skim off their excessive bonuses.

          • +2 Vote -1 Vote +1Eric
            October 10, 2010 at 5:37 pm

            Luckily most non-energy uses of oil can be replaced by plant based alternatives that also happen to be very environmentally friendly.

            • +7 Vote -1 Vote +1Charlene
              October 11, 2010 at 6:59 pm

              Dear O3.
              Thanks for this info, but one correction. You said;
              >>This is also where decades of balancing between the rich and poor began to reverse, and the rich started stealing more of a share of the wealth created by labor, causing increasing inequality and wealth consolidation. American CEOs used to make 20-40x what an average worker did for instance, but today that is well over 400x, a pattern not shared anywhere else in the Western world.<<
              THE FIGURE IS NOW 700 TIMES NOT 400 TIMES. Germany is the closest behind the US @ 75 times…..If that is not wealth disparity what is?

  4. -3 Vote -1 Vote +1BBQ Jesus
    October 9, 2010 at 8:43 am

    Lol Grill Jesus must have grilled his brain. Clinton boosted the job level considerably, followed by Bush decimating it with warmongering policies and somehow this is supposed to mean he wasn’t a terrible president with terrible economic policies. You’re brilliant, really…at least in some alternate universe where your ‘economics’ isn’t complete hogwash.

  5. +15 Vote -1 Vote +1jim
    October 9, 2010 at 9:35 am

    omg, this arlicle really screwed with the math. what it shows is that since obama took office 7,000,000 jobs disappeared, yet somehow blames those loses on bush . now i’m no fan fan of bush but i do like the truth, and continuing to blame bush will only usher the republicans back into power. every company is working with skeleton crews, so there aren’t many jobs left to lose. the companies won’t re-hire because they have no idea what oblabla will do, and companies don’t like un-certainty. even the american people aren’t stupid enough to believe this garbage, and, oh yeah, they are no longer mesmreized by the flowery voice of the president.

    • Ole Ole Olson
      Vote -1 Vote +1Ole Ole Olson
      October 9, 2010 at 6:13 pm

      The article is not about total job creation, but private sector job creation in 2010 vs the total in the Bush years. And for the record, America will stop blaming Bush, Cheney, and the Republicans as soon as their mother of all recessions goes away. To blame “oblabla” for it is simply ludicrous.

      • Vote -1 Vote +1Bilgeman
        October 9, 2010 at 7:18 pm

        “To blame “oblabla” for it is simply ludicrous.”

        To an extent, I agree with you.

        But is it ludicrous to blame the DemocRat Congress, which has been in Pelosi and GReid’s clutches for the past 4 years?

        The Alleged Hawaiian didn’t precipitate the recession, but he certainly isn’t helping matters, mainly by his “Voting Present” tactic of sitting back and playing golf while letting the “safe district” Moonbat leadership run the show.

        And therein is where his utter LACK of leadership and executive experience is dangerous.

        Do you not understand that a “Depression” is “mishandled recession”?

        JFK knew how to respond to recession: tax cuts.
        Reagan did the same in 1981, as did the Eeeevil Boosh you so LOVE to hate in 2002.

        The playbook is well-known, and has proved itself bipartisanly, but here is this incompetent fool babbling about letting Bush’s tax cuts expire because it will also mean extending the tax cuts for the EXACT class of people who create jobs and who have the wherewithal to purchase things that other people make.

        Madness!

        “The article is not about total job creation, but private sector job creation in 2010 vs the total in the Bush years.”

        Which means in the context of what is going on in this country economically right now, that your enture article is utterly irrelevant.

        There’s speeding truck hurtling right at us, and you are commenting on how nicely chromed the bumper is.

        What ‘s the term you bandy about so facilely?

        Ah, yes…”cognitive dissonance”….thy nick-name is O-cubed.

      • +9 Vote -1 Vote +1Mark E. Gillar
        October 12, 2010 at 1:00 am

        You seem to forget that Democrats have controlled the house and the senate for almost four years. One could just as easily place the blame on them.

        Democrats also hope that all will forget that the meltdown of Freddie and Fannie is in no small way responsible for this mess. The Bush administration tried several times to call for tighter regulation of Freddie and Fannie, but Frank, Waters, Dodd, and Schumer all said Freddie and Fannie were fine.
        Even Bill Clinton said he couldn’t get democrats in Congress to listen to his warnings on the subject.

        Let’s also not forget Acorn thugs busting into board of directors’ meetings at local banks and showing up
        at bankers homes in order to intimidate the banking community to give more sub-prime loans to people who had no idea how they would pay them back.
        I guess we can blame Bush for that also???

        The democrats are so in bed with Fannie and Freddie that recent financial reform didn’t even touch either one of mortgage giants. Barack Obama had been a senator only four years when he was elected President, but already he was the biggest ricipient of Freddie and Fannie money of all time.

        Don’t get me wrong, Republicans deserve at least half of the credit though. Google Phil Gramm for more details.

        The point is that it is so overly simplistic to look at the timing of a recession and say this party or that party controlled the whitehouse, so they’re responsible.

        Clinton got a huge boost from the dot com explosion that he was is no way responsible for even if his VP did falsely claim to invent the internet.

        9-11 was a blow to the U.S. economy as well. While both parties like to point fingers at each other on this one, I prefer placing the blame on the terrorists who attacked the U.S..

        I’m still amazed at Republicans who don’t seem to remember Phil Gramm and Democrats who claim not to know who Franklin Raines is. Then again, depending on where they get their new, they may not be pretending.

    • +7 Vote -1 Vote +1Harleyj
      October 10, 2010 at 4:30 pm

      Jim, The unemployment line was straight up the day Obama took office…as was the debt-line!!! Are you saying that even before he became president, Obama was the cause of the massive spike in unemployment (and debt) as a result of a Great Recession which began, officially, one year and one month before Obama was inaugurated? I suppose Obama was supposed to put the brakes on those negative indicators the moment he became president. Your rationale is clearly convoluted or maybe just an exercise in abject ignorance. I suggest that you take a look at the first Reagan term…his massive tax cut, the debt growth, the US record 10.8% unemployment 24 months into his first term, the shrinkage of the middle class…and then the subsequent 4 Reagan tax increases…one of which was the largest tax increase in US history in real dollars based on inflation…even larger than the 1993 Clinton tax increase…Unemployment is a lagging indicator in any recessionary period….Oh, and remember that Reagan tripled the national debt after promising–in his campaign–to balance the budget in three years…And before you start with Reagan excuses, Reagan got immense cooperation from the Democratic Congress and only 9 of his 70 plus vetoes were overridden…Obama has had no cooperation or help from the Republicans in congress…Remember the Rule of 41…

  6. -1 Vote -1 Vote +1Bilgeman
    October 9, 2010 at 9:54 am

    O-cubed…Hilarious!

    Dude, you’re a gem, you know that?

    The official unemployment rate is 9.4 % and you’re babbling this inanity with a straight face?

    Just for purposes of comparison, the unemployment begore Pelosi et al took office was 4.5%.

    4 years of DemocRats screwing up the economy DOUBLED the official unemployment rate
    …and your moonbat marching orders are to yammer about the Eeeeeevil Booosh?

    Side-splittingly funny!

    • +5 Vote -1 Vote +1Duderonomy
      October 9, 2010 at 9:53 pm

      @Bilgeman:
      PWN!

      haha

      Booooosh is the reason for Global Warming, and caused the Potato Blight in Ireland, BOOOOOSH flew the planes into the towers.Booosh is holding Obammer down. Forget the Obammer promise of spending 800BILLION of TAXPAYERS dollars under the pretense of stifling the unemployment rate before it goes over 8% !! Wait, the unemployment rate is nearly 10%? Damn, lets Tax the middle class while I make guest appearances on the View… tune in next month when Obammer will play the new character “Remus” on Days of Our Lives, a well-educated “Hawaiian” with a sonorous voice, and a secret past…. OOH I CANT WAIT.

      • +2 Vote -1 Vote +1Mattamo
        October 11, 2010 at 9:00 am

        “lets tax the middle class”?? Seriously? Obama has promoted a middle class tax cut since he was elected. Republicans in the Senate have been dragging their feet, however, and putting the bill on hold for purely political reasons. They support the bill, but they do not want Democrats to get credited for passing it. http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/

      • -5 Vote -1 Vote +1tathagata
        October 12, 2010 at 7:45 pm

        Booooosh is the reason for Global Warming, and caused the Potato Blight in Ireland, BOOOOOSH flew the planes into the towers.Booosh is holding Obammer down.

        I agree thanks for the info on Bush, I knew he was evil and devious you gave me more information to back it up.

  7. +21 Vote -1 Vote +1Mark
    October 9, 2010 at 10:08 am

    This is an interesting article, but I have some questions and issues about the data presented here.

    -the first graph presents data only from 2007 to now, I would have liked to see this graph extend back to 2000. Clipping the data and advertising it as “under the Entire Bush years” is misleading.

    -During a stable economy (as it was under most of Bush’s term) should the government be creating alot of jobs? we can all agree that in order to climb out of a recession we want this to be the case.

    -Why are all the jobs created in the *private sector* being attributed to the government? Doesn’t the fact that jobs are being created in the private sector simply mean the economy is recovering and that the market is improving?

    -looking carefully at the bureau of labor statistics graph and data, it looks like there is a big spike in employment followed by a steep drop this year – my guess is this is all from folks employed by the census. If you add up the total area under the red line (which indicates the total net job loss or gain), it seems to be close to zero under Bush (indicating close to zero or slightly negative net change in # of jobs) and negative under Obama. I would have liked to see this addressed more thoroughly in this article.

    -does this article discuss the *net* change in jobs, or are the numbers presented simply adding up all the job increases (and not subtracting the job losses)?

    • Ole Ole Olson
      +3 Vote -1 Vote +1Ole Ole Olson
      October 9, 2010 at 6:30 pm

      Mark, thank you for your questions. I’ll respond point by point below:

      the first graphic was not my creation, and it only represents the net private sector job creation/loss provided.

      Government job creation should not be the ultimate foundation of an economy in my opinion, but as a social capitalist, I personally believe it has role in any national economy. Teachers for instance.

      I have done my best to differentiate between government jobs and private sector jobs in the article, but it is difficult to focus solely on one. In my view, there are still some MAJOR fundamental problems with our economic system, as reflected by the increase in temp jobs, service sector jobs, and a general decrease in benefits/working conditions. The private sector job growth is a positive indicator, but considering the terminology schemes fiscal conservatives have used over the last 30 years that hide the extent of the damage, there is a boat load of work that needs to be done.

      I have not factored in the census workers as an outside element here, but think that those hired have now been let go, so it should all balance out. If you crunch some numbers and find differently, please let me know.

      That depends on which part of the article you are looking at. The first section deals only with private sector jobs, then the rest deals with total net jobs. You can find all of this data at: http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=CES0000000001&output_view=net_1mth

      • +2 Vote -1 Vote +1Duderonomy
        October 9, 2010 at 9:56 pm

        you did just that. crunched numbers.
        then randomly arranged them.
        Nice.

        • Ole Ole Olson
          +1 Vote -1 Vote +1Ole Ole Olson
          October 10, 2010 at 9:34 pm

          Try reading it again. The numbers are all facts, and they all add up.

  8. +4 Vote -1 Vote +1Mark
    October 9, 2010 at 11:07 am

    You state in your article:

    “Wall Street Journal piece titled, Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record, which inaccurately states that Bush created 3 million jobs. The actual figure is 1.08 million (all jobs added minus jobs lost), but the conservative leaning WSJ has yet to issue a retraction, correction, or clarification.”

    -Please provide the source from which you got the 1.08M number you cite.

    -also, if you read the WSJ article carefully, the 3 million jobs they quote is a *net* change in jobs over the president’s term, calculated in the following way: “The counts are based on total payrolls between the start of the month the president took office (using the final payroll count for the end of the prior December) and his final December in office” which is exactly “jobs added minus jobs lost.” Where is this 1.08M number coming from?

  9. +7 Vote -1 Vote +1Nick
    October 9, 2010 at 11:34 am

    First of all, 2010 is not over yet, and we could still shed more jobs over the next three months so saying that 2010 has produced more jobs in the private sector than during the Bush years is REMARKABLY premature.

    Second, Americans are sick and tired of watching liberals compare Obama to Bush. We get it, Bush was horrible, he was terrible…so why do you set the bar for Obama’s performance at the low level of Bush’s performance? It’s like saying, “yes, I know my child scored a 40% on his test and even though he failed, he did better than your kid that scored a 30%”. All you are doing is trying to show that Obama is not as bad as someone that was horrible, that is UNBELIEVABLY STUPID and the American people are SICK of hearing about it. We don’t care if Obama is doing a btter job than Bush, we care if he is meeting OUR standards, and the American people obviously do not believe he is.

    • Ole Ole Olson
      +5 Vote -1 Vote +1Ole Ole Olson
      October 9, 2010 at 6:35 pm

      The reason why Americans are comparing the two is because most of the policies proposed by the Republicans during this election cycle are either identical to those pushed by the Bush Republicans, or well beyond that.

      I’ll grant you that Obama has not reformed the economy to the extent that it needs, but there is a certainly a shift in direction towards a more common sense policy, and there is a huge contrast between a new path and the failed days of the fiscal conservatives.

      • +1 Vote -1 Vote +1Duderonomy
        October 9, 2010 at 10:03 pm

        “a shift in direction towards a more common sense policy”

        Buzz-Words! Oh Ya!
        Keep the shifty Common Sense …FIND ME AN ECONOMIST.

      • -7 Vote -1 Vote +1bahahaha
        October 10, 2010 at 6:33 am

        LMAO!

        Tell ya what – when Forumula 44 actually gets this to a recovery point, then we can start to count Jobs.

        Best bet for that to happen is with a GOP majority in the House & Senate – i.e. circa Clinton years.

        As for your so-called analysis. There are lies, more lies and statistics.

        • Ole Ole Olson
          +4 Vote -1 Vote +1Ole Ole Olson
          October 10, 2010 at 9:36 pm

          I think we need to change direction in our economic policy, not reinforce the very thing that caused it to spiral downwards in the first place. We need to bring back Glass Steagal, and put strong regulations back into play, not gamble on more ‘rich getting richer and the scraps will trickle down’ nonsense.

      • Vote -1 Vote +1Mark E. Gillar
        October 12, 2010 at 1:03 am

        Common Sense Policy??? Oh sure, Ohamacare and Cap and Trade are going to be great for the economy.
        I can’t wait.

  10. -3 Vote -1 Vote +1Nick
    October 9, 2010 at 11:39 am

    863,000…that is a lot of dishwashing, landscaping, and foodservice jobs all right. What kind of jobs do you think are being created under Obama?

  11. -6 Vote -1 Vote +1Nick
    October 9, 2010 at 11:41 am

    …and I wonder how many of those 863,000 are union jobs that could be done by 100,000 hard-working non-union employees.

    • -4 Vote -1 Vote +1cliftymike
      October 11, 2010 at 3:20 am

      ……..is there a point to this post?

  12. +5 Vote -1 Vote +1Chase
    October 9, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    Cherry pick your data much?
    Total employment data since 2001. Pretty hard to argue with the big picture, ain’t it? Though I’m sure you’ll keep trying.

    http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/graphics/LNU02000000_152620_1286654204949.gif

    I wouldn’t blame the job losses on Obama at all nor would I give Bush credit for his job creation. One thing is for sure though, your numbers stink to high heaven.

    • -1 Vote -1 Vote +1Bilgeman
      October 9, 2010 at 3:58 pm

      O-cubed is the guy who will argue that the Restore Honor Rally only had 87,000 attendees.

      A number that the source, CBS News, pushed out there with a stick so as to keep it at beyond arm’s length.
      Three days later, CBS felt the need to publish an article “explaining” the estimate.

      Cherry-picking and name-calling is apparently all that he’s got.

      But he is a very funny guy, in his own unintended way.

      • Ole Ole Olson
        +1 Vote -1 Vote +1Ole Ole Olson
        October 9, 2010 at 6:39 pm

        Those are the best figures available that are free from right wing exaggeration, which has been on the level of pure propaganda at every Tea Party event. At the latest Beck sermon, some conservative media outlets tried to claim there 1.6 million there, on par with the Obama inauguration. Similarly last year for Becks 912 fest, the conservative media tried to claim 2 million, despite the best numbers falling in the 70,000 range.

    • +5 Vote -1 Vote +1Mark
      October 9, 2010 at 5:07 pm

      “Cherry picking” is a great way for describing the data presented here. Especially the graph entitled “America is on a path to economic recovery” which only represents data up to April and does not present the drop in numbers after the temporary census jobs were lost.

      Also, making claims that numbers presented in graphs are incorrect without presenting reasons or citations make for a very weak argument.

  13. +9 Vote -1 Vote +1Unbiased Observer
    October 9, 2010 at 4:37 pm

    I do not recognize as a democrat or republican. I’m a truly an unbiased observer – and here’s what I take from all this:

    The Bush-years didn’t work for American jobs. We all know that. Job loss was at an all time high and our economy was struggling.

    As for Obama – I do not agree with his plan of action for economic growth. He made a lot of promises and they amounted to very little. In addition, these numbers seem to be a bit skewed in the data.

    HOWEVER, the take-away from this: some of the actions taken in the government are working. By my own calculations, we are not at a point of job-creation yet. BUT, job loss has SIGNIFICANTLY slowed. The statistics presented might not be 100% accurate, but they show the main picture: our economy is getting better.

    Can you blame this on Bush? I argue no – the unforeseeable events on 9/11 took place and we entered two wars – wartime is always bad for the economy.

    Can you blame this on Obama? I also argue no. He entered his administration trying to salvage our waning economy back from the brink and has helped to slow this deficit.

    So where is the argument? I don’t understand why Democrats arguing with Republicans and visa-versa.

    We are all in this together. Good or bad. Who is wrong? Neither side. We both just want America to be a prosperous superpower once again.

    • Vote -1 Vote +1Harleyj
      October 10, 2010 at 5:03 pm

      My problem with Bush is that his administration, beginning with Enron and the extortion of California, looked away from situations which were exacerbating economic circumstances. He could have enforced regulations and helped the rate-payers of California…His laissez faire mentality regarding Wall Street, energy companies–well, I could go on…paved the way for the events which let the fuse for the worldwide recession to explode…I recommend an objective viewing by anyone interested in what happened of MSNBC’s HOUSE OF CARDS…MSNBC’s treatment of the Enron matter…

  14. +2 Vote -1 Vote +1James
    October 9, 2010 at 4:52 pm

    LoL @ this drek.

    http://blog.marcusmillichap.com/2010/08/10/tepid-private-sector-job-growth-falls-short-of-government-employment-cuts/

    Try that graph, because, you know, Bush wasn’t just president in 2007 and 2008.. oh yeah, all this MASSIVE job growth? Too bad half of it is temporary census jobs. What a load of crap.

    • Ole Ole Olson
      +1 Vote -1 Vote +1Ole Ole Olson
      October 9, 2010 at 6:45 pm

      James, I appreciate the graph that represents the private sector job growth for a larger timespan, but to claim that temporary census jobs are private sector, that is simply not true.

      There is a net loss of private sector jobs under Obama, thanks to the great recession, something that similarly dragged down the total numbers for the Bush regime. I never tried to argue that it was any different, only that the total net private sector job creation during the year 2010 so far surpasses the net total under Bush, which is factually correct.

    • -3 Vote -1 Vote +1Duderonomy
      October 9, 2010 at 9:57 pm

      FACT.

  15. -4 Vote -1 Vote +1Rixar13
    October 10, 2010 at 8:34 am

    There has been a total of 863,000 private sector jobs created in 2010, exceeding the total created under the Bush/Cheney regime.

  16. Vote -1 Vote +1Roger Carmichael
    October 10, 2010 at 10:36 am

    Tailend of Bush administration ran head on into the “Trigger Point” (TP)
    start of the world’s 2nd Great Depression- (Happens every 3 generations,
    like CLOCKWORK- last was 1930s, before that 1860s in Modern History

    Solar Scientists PREDICTED economic crises “TP” would be 2007.5
    Google “Solar Mortality Theory” to read decade early predictions of this,
    but who believes “Mad Scientists”? nevermind they were SPOT ON-

    When Bear Stearns had 2 major real estate funds COLLAPSE summer 2007, it was only a few months before they were gone, to be absorbed
    by J.P.Morgan along with their untenable short positions on silver coin.
    Last month JPM compleated ridding themselves of silver short positon
    Guess what happens next? RUNAWAY INFLATION of our PAPER $$

    When a silver $1 coin is worth $100 why would you carry any $20 bills?
    The answer- convert your worthless paper to real money while you can

  17. -1 Vote -1 Vote +1shamrock
    October 10, 2010 at 11:38 am

    These are not PRIVATE sector jobs, but rather PRIVATE+PUBLIC job totals. The 2010 Census hiring accounts for around 500k of these. Total BS article.

    • +4 Vote -1 Vote +1Misty Jean Moore
      October 10, 2010 at 2:39 pm

      Census jobs are not included in the Private job totals.

      • +3 Vote -1 Vote +1Harmon T.
        October 10, 2010 at 4:50 pm

        Shamrock is right, if you actually look at the headings on the graphs directly from the BLS website, you’ll see that they clearly say “All Employers”. That means that the 500,000 census jobs that were created are in that claimed 800,000. If those jobs weren’t added as the poster of this article claims, the unemployment rate would have significantly dropped despite the laying off of the census workers. Funny how data can be made to say whatever you want it to.

        Secondly, if this were the case, don’t you think Obama and the Dems would be all over this in lieu of what’s going to happen in three weeks. C’mon son!!

    • Ole Ole Olson
      Vote -1 Vote +1Ole Ole Olson
      October 10, 2010 at 9:42 pm

      Census workers are considered government created and are not part of the 863,000 private sector jobs created so far in 2010. Also, nearly every census worker has also been let go as their work is done, so the additions in the govt sector figures have been balanced to reflect this (they were added when they were hired, and these jobs were subtracted when they were let go).

  18. +3 Vote -1 Vote +1trinity
    October 10, 2010 at 12:02 pm

    Tell the 17% (real unemployment number) of Americans who can’t find work how many jobs Obama has created.

    • Ole Ole Olson
      +4 Vote -1 Vote +1Ole Ole Olson
      October 10, 2010 at 9:47 pm

      I agree that the actual unemployment figure should be used instead of the adjusted one, but isn’t it funny how many conservatives supported using the adjusted figures until 2 years ago when Obama became president? Reminds me of how they didn’t care about huge deficits until recently too.

  19. +4 Vote -1 Vote +1JonKen
    October 10, 2010 at 12:59 pm

    This only demonstrates the vast hole the GOP has gotten us into and the long slog to get out. By any measure, Obama has succeeded in turning this country around in pretty short order. If he was a Republican and white and had created as many jobs as he has during any other period of time, he would be championed as a pro-business, job creator and given a good old fashioned ticker tape parade.

    But even with 1.7 million jobs under his belt (a near record for any president in the first half of their first term), we still have not made a dent in the 8-9 million we lost because Republicans were more concerned with a little country in Asia rather than the crooked bankers they were taking kickbacks from.

    • Vote -1 Vote +1Mook
      October 14, 2010 at 7:53 pm

      By “any measure”? Obama’s spending binge created extremist deficits http://orrinjohnson.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/FiscalSuicideByDemocrat2.jpg

      Obama lies his ass off smearing the Chamber of Commerce for taking “foreign” money. A complete lie, and an unsubstantiated lie even more disinginous given his own willingness to coax foreign donations to his campaign fund by willfully turning off address/location verification on his campaign contributions. Obama is the most dishonest President in my lifetime.. probably the most dishonest in history.

  20. -7 Vote -1 Vote +1Jo Mason
    October 10, 2010 at 3:40 pm

    LOL, Good Riddance to Dictator Bush and the Bush Regime!

    http://www.privacy-web.it.tc

  21. -1 Vote -1 Vote +1Harleyj
    October 10, 2010 at 5:08 pm

    James…You are right that Bush wasn’t president just in 2007 and 2008..He was president in the years prior to the Recession and in the whole first year and month of the Great Recession. What he did/didn’t do prior to that had a massive impact on the failure of the economy. Remember this…Obama did not become president in 2007 or 2008…He became presiddent in January, 2009…Google up MSNBC’s HOUSE OF CARDS…and you will have a better perspective..

  22. +1 Vote -1 Vote +1sub_subjective
    October 10, 2010 at 8:45 pm

    Sure everyone wants good jobs, better jobs, more jobs…. but all of this polemic fails to recognize the role of international factors such as outsourcing, as well as technological dispalcement of manpower — 2 trends that have continued steadily throughout the ups and downs of the market. We cannot expect any magician to bring back the industrial glory days of high paid labor. Nor should we encourage the gutting of the environment to beg the giants for a few more years of deluded self-gratification. The fact is many of these corporate economies are international entities that have more loyalty to their own bottom line than our freedom or well-being as Americans. The longer we keep electing the latest industry puppet to do our bidding, the worse it gets… and this includes the so-called “teaParty” outsiders who would be complete unknowns if it weren’t for massive corporate funding and well-planned media coverage.

    People need the courage to look past their own biases and agendas — we need to examine the evidence together — as of all of us and all our kids and grandkids will be part of one America. One nation, folks — why do you keep tearing ot down for short term politcal and economic agendas. The party of NO and the party of NO Guts are equally to blame…. and equally needed to get back together for a common future.

    • Ole Ole Olson
      -1 Vote -1 Vote +1Ole Ole Olson
      October 10, 2010 at 9:52 pm

      Excellent points and I agree 100%. Cheap-labor conservatives are trying to force Americans to accept virtual indentured servitude and environmental catastrophes to have more years of greedy profits for the rich. This is not something I am willing to grant them.

  23. -2 Vote -1 Vote +1jdalabama
    October 10, 2010 at 9:03 pm

    What a big bag of BS. There is not one iota of truth in this article. Bush had 52 months consecutive months of job growth. Obama has lost millions.

    After Nov, we can start to undo the damage of the liberals

  24. +9 Vote -1 Vote +1Doug Forbes
    October 11, 2010 at 10:50 am

    Unemployment was 4.6% in Dec 2006 which was the last time Republicans controlled congress.

    • Ole Ole Olson
      Vote -1 Vote +1Ole Ole Olson
      October 12, 2010 at 4:37 pm

      Predatory lending, a practice pushed through by conservative congressman are the reason the Great Recession struck. To blame the party trying to clean it up is disingenuous.

  25. +3 Vote -1 Vote +1brian tourville
    October 11, 2010 at 12:29 pm

    ..!?

    Former Pres.B.Clinton & Republicans got rid of Glass-Steagal Act then passed Corrupt Legislation enabling an Unregulated NAFTA .. using Taxpayer Money to Entice Corps. & Business to move their American Manufacturing Out of America to 32cent per Hour Slave Wage Overseas Labor.

    These Slave Wage Products are then sent to the USA – to soak up residual Consumer Disposable Income .. while they’re losing their Jobs.

    Then the Financial Sector creates The Housing Bubble so Americans are Advertised to so as to get a Second or Third Mortgage .. and Spend It on the Slave Wage Products being Imported.

    The Corporate Profits from Overseas Manufacturing Sales then go to OFF SHORE BANKING and never see American Shores.. and the Politicians .. wrote Law to Enable this Atrocity to Taxpayers.

    One in Seven Americans is now in POVERTY thanks to his CORRUPT LEGISLATION.

    America now has Tent Cities – former Middle Class Americans queing up for Food Banks.

    No American Labor was utilized during the ongoing Asian Market Economic Boom – and U.S.Corporate Profits were UP 46% last Quarter.

    Yet the American Press rehabilitate this New American Benedict Arnold & make him the Poster Boy for The Democratic Party Speakers.

    ‘The Wealth of a Nation is it’s Manufacturing for Export’ .

    Clinton saw to it the Export of our Means to Manufacture
    .. ensuring the longest duration of ‘Recession_­Depression’
    America has known since The Great Depression.

    And Our American Media Rehabilitates his Career and Celebrates Him!

    Our American Media are Playing STUPID as to the Cause & Culprits of
    Our Middle Class Collapse & Collapse of American Consumerism.

    What kind of FAX are Those?

  26. +3 Vote -1 Vote +1Jim
    October 11, 2010 at 12:30 pm

    The creation of jobs is not a zero sum game. Bush inherited a fairly healthy economy that was in a recession. Unemployment was around 5% I beleieve. After 9/11 they passed the tax cuts and more jobs were created and the recession ended. President O’bama came into office when unemployment was at around 8% and spent 3/4 of a trillion dollars on such wonderful projects as a turtle tunnel in Florida or 111 million dollars to create 55 temporary jobs in California and unemployment went up. Would you really suggest that if a 400 pound man lost 50 pounds on a diet and a man who weighed 170 pounds lost 40 pounds that the fat farto lost more weight and was healthier……please

  27. -3 Vote -1 Vote +1Bob Wyman
    October 11, 2010 at 6:43 pm

    “52 months consecutive months of job growth”? But, he was in office for 96 months… Let’s look at the numbers…
    For Bush’s first year in office (2000) jobs were growing. But, you can’t blame that on Bush since he hadn’t been on the job long enough to have much impact yet. Then, starting in January 2001, job growth was negative for most of the next 32 months at which point we had 46 (not 52) continuous months of job growth. But that period of recovery was followed by the disaster of 2008 and 2009 — 24 months of crushing losses. (Note: Just as we can’t give Bush credit for left over job-growth after Clinton, we can’t blame Obama for the left overs of Bush in 2009.)
    There is nothing in the numbers that indicates that Bush had anything to be proud of concerning job growth. When Bush entered office jobs were growing and the federal budget was in surplus but when he left office we had a massive deficit and jobs were bleeding away fast. In the last year, the first year that Obama can really begin to claim as “his,” we’ve seen more jobs added than the sum of jobs added under Bush… The numbers seem fairly clear.

    • -3 Vote -1 Vote +1Bob Wyman
      October 11, 2010 at 6:47 pm

      Sorry, pressed submit before I was ready… I fumbled the first year stuff for Bush. Sorry about that. There doesn’t appear any way to delete a comment mistakenly published…

    • +3 Vote -1 Vote +1Greg
      October 11, 2010 at 7:56 pm

      Did you forget 9/11?

      The function of government is to create an environment for job growth. Obama said said he could turn it around but yet he has spent 2 trillion dollars and the unemployment rate has risen.

      Then sector, and yes then rich, need not be taxed so much to stymie job growth. We have proven that the government can’t create the utopia we were so led to believe.

      • +4 Vote -1 Vote +1Greg
        October 11, 2010 at 7:59 pm

        Sorry Bob… Still getting used to the iPad.

        Taxes need to stay low for everyone for job growth. Even the rich.

        Thanks.

  28. +5 Vote -1 Vote +1Greg
    October 11, 2010 at 7:38 pm

    You failed to report the average unemployment rate ( the true rate) of each of the last 5 presidents.

    I think you will find that during Bush years, the average unemployment rate was 5.7 percent. Clinton, 5.8. Obama, tracking at plus or minus 9 percent. The democrats have controlled congress for 4 years now…so the question is…just how long does it take for the democrats to produce jobs?

    Playing with the numbers just creates a false picture. What we forget is that Bush still commanded a decent economy with 9/11 and two wars. Your president said he could fix the economy but has yet to really do much of anything except raise our debt levels to heights never seen. Our media says almost nothing about this but they too are realizing that we have eroded our edge in the world and we have an uphill climb.

    Bush was a decent president but moreover, you AT LEAST knew where the man stood on things.

    • Ole Ole Olson
      -2 Vote -1 Vote +1Ole Ole Olson
      October 12, 2010 at 4:34 pm

      Greg,
      Having a congressional majority means very little to a big tent party. The Republicans are very strict about doing what they are told, thus how they were able to filibuster literally almost anything and everything they wanted to over the last 2 years. From 2006-08, the Dem majorities were so weak that they could not get any serious reforms passed, and some of the weaker measures were vetoed by Bush.

      Until we actually give progressive reforms a chance, it is premature to judge them.

      • +2 Vote -1 Vote +1Greg
        October 12, 2010 at 6:43 pm

        This happens with both parties.

        Bottom line is which party creates an environment for job growth. I truly believe that the democrats really believe that if they “give” more, then they are doing humanity a favor. The problem is that they are giving borrowed money and teaching those less educated that there is a free ride out there. The ones that are more educated and successful, feel guilty of their success.

        I do wish, without reservation, that both parties would work together. There is the huge disconnect.

        The majority rules no matter what and when they won the white house, what happened, spending soared with little to no result.

        It is a free market system…it must not be manipulated. For example, the cash for clunkers program cost closer to 24K per car instead of 4K. The reason, most of those cars would have been purchased anyway. It really only accounted for about a sixth of the number of vehicles purchased.

        The current administration is pulling every lever except the most powerful one…the American worker. We have not decided on the Bush tax cuts, we spent trillions, we shoved healthcare down the throats of Americans, no one has read it fully, we did not see coverage of the debates, he did not wait 5 days to sign it…need i go on?

        I just think we have a bad group and that group is power hungry. Has anyone noticed that no one really talks about the approval rating of congress and when they speak about Obama, it is not how many don’t approve, they print then percentage of those that do approve. During the Bush admin, it was always xx disapprove, housing is going in the toilet, our deficits were 490 billion,etc.

        I believe we talked our way into a recession to get the current administration to win. No conspiracy, but it sure was slanted to the liberal side.

        Let’s work on working together.

  29. +6 Vote -1 Vote +1Kathy
    October 12, 2010 at 1:33 pm

    From Jan 2001 – Dec 2008 — the period of the Bush Administration — your BLS data show a net gain of 1.843M jobs.

    From Jan 2009 – Sep 2010 — the period of the Obama Administration – your BLS data show a net loss of 4.127M jobs.

    Here are the data in a google spreadsheet:
    https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0AnXSzfUpz7nXdEhiMFBlMFRHaWhRVXlQLS1vUDZZYWc&hl=en&output=html

    A “reversal” in jobs lost is NOT the same thing as “jobs created” — as you accurately point out when criticizing the WSJ for not using a net figure. However, your calculation for the net is wrong; one assumes you are including 2000 data, since that is in your chart. Clinton was president in 2000.

    • Ole Ole Olson
      Vote -1 Vote +1Ole Ole Olson
      October 12, 2010 at 4:28 pm

      Kathy,
      Thank you for your response. Since Presidential inaugurations take place late in January, I include that month into the total for the departing president instead of the incoming one. That is where the job totals come from, and I think that is more fair way to do it than the other way around.

      Of course, if there was a way to tabulate it by day, we could demonstrate with a higher degree of accuracy, but as it stands, the numbers are likely within 1 or 2% of that figure anyways.

      • Vote -1 Vote +1Mook
        October 14, 2010 at 5:44 pm

        Presidential inauguration was in January 2001, not 2000. Clinton was the President the entire calendar year of 2000.

        As Kathy correctly points out, you incorrectly conflated a reversal in jobs lost to ‘jobs created’ a mistake which causes your entire thesis to fall apart. Bush and Obama both have poor private sector job creation records, but Obama’s record so far is MUCH worse . Furthermore, the increase in unemployment under Obama took place despite record federal govt spending well beyond spending under Bush. This spending binge artificially “juiced” the economy making job losses “less bad” than would have occurred otherwise, but burdening us with stratospheric debt levels which create more problems in the future.

        • Ole Ole Olson
          +1 Vote -1 Vote +1Ole Ole Olson
          October 14, 2010 at 7:39 pm

          Mook, thank you for your response. The sum of numbers from the Bush months (considered Feb 2001 to Jan 2009) total 1.08m, with a total of .8m private sector jobs. The sum of numbers for private sector job growth in 2010 is .863m, exceeding that of Bush. As already noted, that does not include the 2009.

          As for the national debt, Republican administrations are responsible for 83% of the it. Reagan tripled it and Bush doubled it, fiscal conservatives didn’t say a peep. I would even further argue that the majority of the deficit for fiscal 2009 was actually caused by Bush too.

          The other issues are another article unto themselves.

  30. Pingback:

    Vote -1 Vote +1Another Blog Title