No Jobs created since Obama took office, LINK

[JRK]

Obamacrats have the worst jobs record since the "Great Depression"

the truth will set you free

 

[JRK]

the govt is dumbing down there projections to make it look good
were losing more people leaving the work force as well as the same with jobs
simply put except Texas Louisiana and the Dakotas no one is really creating anything

 

[JRK]

The trend of the average of the two surveys (my preferred metric) shows about 165,000 jobs being added per month from Oct 2010 thru Jul 2012. The rising trend in the Household Survey (adjusted) was broken several months ago, however. It appears that jobs are growing but not at a pace that is necessary to make a difference for the millions who lost their jobs in the Great Recession. Various details in the report are also headed in the wrong direction.
Employment Report - July's Decent Headline Number is Misleading - Easynomics

 

[KissMy]

The Current Population Survey (CPS), also known as the household survey had a negative 195K Jobs. This number leads the Current Employment Statistics (CES) survey, also known as the payroll or establishment survey. That forecast a major drop in jobs next month.

 

[pinqy]

The trend of the average of the two surveys (my preferred metric) shows about 165,000 jobs being added per month from Oct 2010 thru Jul 2012.

Why would you average the two? They measure different things and all those included in the CES are included in the CPS.

 

[JRK]

The Current Population Survey (CPS), also known as the household survey had a negative 195K Jobs. This number leads the Current Employment Statistics (CES) survey, also known as the payroll or establishment survey. That forecast a major drop in jobs next month.

this would include losing more people in the work force as the standard of job creation

 

[JRK]

.

There are many people who believe that Obama was handed a big, steaming pile of crap, an economic disaster of historic proportions, a staggering and massively complicated spider's web of financial fecal matter that this country has never seen.

Yes, Republicans, I know, it's not true, it was all just a little blip from which we should recovered immediately, back on our merry, prosperous, "exceptional" way. We should have come roaring back after that little down dip like a horny lion. That recession was nothing special, just another bump in the road. I get it, I get it.

But for those who think that's not true, the only thing that will matter is the trajectory of the economy on Election Day. If the trajectory is up, Obama's back in. If it's down, it'll be Romney. If it's flat, it'll be a toss-up. A decent Republican candidate might well win regardless, but it is what it is. These numbers are irrelevant.

.

Mac the wheels had come off, no doubt about that

GWB was handed a recession and 9-11 in 8 months in 2001, not the same, not like it wasin 08, but it was notgoing great either, 9-11 was a huge event

BHO spent his first 2 years cramming down the health care reform law down our throats and lying about GM paying us back (they still owe us 50 billion, +-) and even with there stock there still 15-25 billion short

And what exactly did going from a deficit of 163 billion in 2007 to where we are today do for us? (budget short-fall 2007, from 2006 congress) what is it 1.4 trillion a year now?

These are not partisan quotations, it is accurate information that if people use to decide our next president (which I think enough will) its a no brainer

By the way out health care system is fine, the way we insure it is the issue that needs attention, Obama's way as best I can see was not the way we should have "attacked" it

the largest drivers of the deficit are the wars, medicare part d and the 2001/2003 tax cuts. that and interest on the debt as well. all GOP passed legislation.

If this is true why was the deficit in 07 162 billion and now exceeds 1 trillion each year?
Job loss as well as the budget going from 2,7 trillion to 3.7 trillion after BHO took office
2007 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2010 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
do your DD

 

[KissMy]

If this is true why was the deficit in 07 162 billion and now exceeds 1 trillion each year?
Job loss as well as the budget going from 2,7 trillion to 3.7 trillion after BHO took office
2007 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2010 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
do your DD

But...but...but the racist TEA party hate Obama is why we is losing money & jobs. Or at least that is what the racist black man told me at the primary election poll yesterday. This was 5 minutes after he told me that they all hated Bush so bad that he could not ride down Pennsylvania avenue in his limo on his own inauguration day.

No one ever mentioned Obama as I showed him how the employment to population ratio chart fell off a cliff soon after the democrats were elected & took control of the House & Senate 6 years ago. This caused the idiot to fly into the tirade on how the racist white people are not hiring in order to make Obama fail. The idiot was a racist black man posing as a republican election judge at the poll. Yesterday 100% of the voters selected democrat ballots & 100% were black.

 

[Politico]

Of course jobs were created. That's just a silly thing to say.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Moonglow]

All I can telll you is I have more work now than I have had since 2007.

 

[Lakhota]

CHART: Bush Vs. Obama On Private And Public Sector Job Creation | ThinkProgress

 

[Darkwind]

When Obama took office, the country was losing jobs at the rate of 750,000 a month.

Bush's final budget was in effect until October of that year when unemployment ballooned to 10.1%.

From 2001 to 2008, the country lost millions of jobs.

Thanks for giving me a chance to point that out.

A lie.

ONE month saw a loss of 750k jobs. There never was a RATE of 750k per month.

From 2001 to 2007 (when democrats took control of the congress) the country added millions of jobs.

Thanks for letting Me point out the lies.

 

[KissMy]

CHART: Bush Vs. Obama On Private And Public Sector Job Creation | ThinkProgress

You & your Think Regress Chart are lying bags of shit.

 

[JRK]

Of course jobs were created. That's just a silly thing to say.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are fewer people employed now than back in January 2009 when Barack Obama was sworn in as President, and there are more people unemployed now than in January 2009.

Back then, a reported 142 million people had jobs. In July 2011, 139.2 million people had jobs.

there are fewer people working today than in 2008
this data is 1 year old, it would have taken 3 million people to find jobs in 12 months to get back to those levels as reported
is a fact, not silly
in fact the actual number of people working has not went up that much due to many have gave up and are not being counted
it is a lie, job creation
the way the govt tracks job creation is complicated, do your DD and vote on the facts

Fewer American Jobs Today Than During Obama's Inauguration

 

[JRK]

CHART: Bush Vs. Obama On Private And Public Sector Job Creation | ThinkProgress

little event called 9-11 as well as your claims are under Clintons budget

as well as Clinton recession

there was the creation of home land as well as 2 wars
your claim is spun out spin as 1 war ended as BHO took office and many of those under the govts umbrella were laid off, as the plan GWB put into place took hold

 

[pinqy]

Of course jobs were created. That's just a silly thing to say.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are fewer people employed now than back in January 2009 when Barack Obama was sworn in as President, and there are more people unemployed now than in January 2009.

Back then, a reported 142 million people had jobs. In July 2011, 139.2 million people had jobs
there are fewer people working today than in 2008
this data is 1 year old, it would have taken 3 million people to find jobs in 12 months to get back to those levels as reported.

I have no idea why you're choosing to use data that's a year old. But yes, 3 million people did gain employment in the last year. Jan 2009 seasonally adjusted employment (from the household survey) was at 142,187,000. In July 2011 it was 139,450,000 but in July 2012 it was 142,220,000.

Now since the population has grown, the employment-population ratio has dropped (from 60.6% when Obama took office to a current 58.4%) but you were just talking about level.

in fact the actual number of people working has not went up that much due to many have gave up and are not being counted

That doesn't make any sense. Why would a change of status for people already not working affect the Employment level????

it is a lie, job creation

Jobs is a different concept than Employment. The Jobs numbers come from a survey of businesses, exclude agriculture, the self employed, unpaid family workers, people who work in other people's houses (nannies, private chefs, etc) and it's a count of jobs, not people, so if someone works at a factory, but does a part time job at a retail store, they'd show up in the records of each business and so would be counted twice.

Employment is a count of people, so multiple jobholders are counted once, and the household survey includes everyone excluded in the establishment survey.

the way the govt tracks job creation is complicated, do your DD and vote on the facts

It's not complicated....every month about 486,000 worksites are asked how many people they have on the books for the pay period that contains the 12th of the month. Next month the survey is done again and if the result is higher, that's job creation. Now the actual sample selection and the math and statistical adjustments are pretty complicated, but the basics are simple....net change of jobs, up or down.

Links: www.bls.gov/cps for household data and ww.bls.gov/ces for establishment data.
For less timely data there's www.bls.gov/jlt for job openings, hires and separations, and www.bls.gov/bed for quarterly gross changes in jobs.

 

[JRK]

Of course jobs were created. That's just a silly thing to say.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are fewer people employed now than back in January 2009 when Barack Obama was sworn in as President, and there are more people unemployed now than in January 2009.

Back then, a reported 142 million people had jobs. In July 2011, 139.2 million people had jobs
there are fewer people working today than in 2008
this data is 1 year old, it would have taken 3 million people to find jobs in 12 months to get back to those levels as reported.

I have no idea why you're choosing to use data that's a year old. But yes, 3 million people did gain employment in the last year. Jan 2009 seasonally adjusted employment (from the household survey) was at 142,187,000. In July 2011 it was 139,450,000 but in July 2012 it was 142,220,000.

Now since the population has grown, the employment-population ratio has dropped (from 60.6% when Obama took office to a current 58.4%) but you were just talking about level.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would a change of status for people already not working affect the Employment level????

it is a lie, job creation

Jobs is a different concept than Employment. The Jobs numbers come from a survey of businesses, exclude agriculture, the self employed, unpaid family workers, people who work in other people's houses (nannies, private chefs, etc) and it's a count of jobs, not people, so if someone works at a factory, but does a part time job at a retail store, they'd show up in the records of each business and so would be counted twice.

Employment is a count of people, so multiple jobholders are counted once, and the household survey includes everyone excluded in the establishment survey.

the way the govt tracks job creation is complicated, do your DD and vote on the facts

It's not complicated....every month about 486,000 worksites are asked how many people they have on the books for the pay period that contains the 12th of the month. Next month the survey is done again and if the result is higher, that's job creation. Now the actual sample selection and the math and statistical adjustments are pretty complicated, but the basics are simple....net change of jobs, up or down.

Links: Current Population Survey (CPS) for household data and ww.bls.gov/ces for establishment data.
For less timely data there's Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey Home Page for job openings, hires and separations, and Business Employment Dynamics Home Page for quarterly gross changes in jobs.

The U3 rate is the percentage of the "participating labor force" that is unemployed. That is all well and good, except that the Obama labor department has decided that it will simply manipulate the definition of "labor force" to suit its own needs. And what the Obama administration has done is simply shrink the definition of the "labor force" by pretending that hundreds of thousands of non-working adults are no longer in existence for all intents and purposes.
Advance Indiana: Obama Administration Manipulated Unemployment Statistics To Achieve Lower Rate


Though the labor force participation rate actually increased to 63.7 percent in February, it remains near historic lows. Those not looking for jobs are simply not counted in the official jobless rate. The rate is thus treated with skepticism as an accurate gauge for measuring the job market's health.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said in recent remarks to Congress that the current rate "no doubt understates the weakness in the labor market in some broad sense."

News Headlines
Jobless Rate Flat at 8.3% Even as Payrolls Grow 227,000 - US Business News - CNBC

Unemployment: The Dirty Little Secret Everyone's Ignoring | Fox News

Media Celebrate 'Good' September Jobs Number, But Obama's Still 6.2 Million Short of Promise | NewsBusters.org


Well, it turns out that the civilian labor force (the denominator of the unemployment rate) declined faster than the number of people who had jobs (the numerator). The civilian labor force ended June at 153.4 million vs. July’s 153.2 million. In contrast, 139.3 million people had jobs in June. The number of people with jobs declined by about 38,000 people from June to July, whereas about 193,000 people retired or simply stopped looking for work over the same period.

Both the Bush and Obama presidencies have been marked by a steady decline in the labor force participation rate. The labor force participation rate measures the number of people in the labor force as a percentage of the total working-age population. The labor force participation rate dropped 0.2% in July from 64.1% the previous month.

this link has a graph that ends the debate, If not I agree to dis agree, look you wnat 4 more years of this, have at it, but your being lied to
Bush vs. Obama: Unemployment (July 2011 Jobs Data) | Reflections of a Rational Republican

NFP Big Miss: 120K, Expectations 205K, Unemployment 8.2%, "Not In Labor Force" At New All Time High | ZeroHedge

AND FOR THE END GAME

2002 73278 72397 72490 72848 72671 71468 71441 72300 72940 73019 73695 73934 72707
2003 74596 74421 74516 74615 74701 72897 73430 74540 75612 75252 75310 76007 74658
2004 76093 76203 76025 76497 76308 74718 74204 75511 76755 76214 76176 76763 75956
2005 77712 77392 77492 77167 76792 75584 75031 75952 76855 76655 76964 77550 76762
2006 78463 78077 77948 77990 77732 76114 75704 76702 77785 77278 77315 77537 77387
2007 78726 78955 78798 79423 79130 77460 77087 78717 79061 79200 78904 79451 78743
2008 79788 80306 79860 79990 79402 78045 77564 78719 79851 79601 80204 80686 79501
2009 81293 81109 81358 81437 81116 79734 79614 81190 82706 82915 83204 84231 81659
2010 83876 83804 83499 83418 83633 82923 82620 83421 84468 84878 85017 85733 83941
2011 86168 86216 85977 86248 85864 84951 84859 85528 86049 86181 86757 87212 86001
2012 88784 88322 88288 88879 87968 86770 86828

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

 

[Lakhota]

CHART: Economy Has Recovered All Private Sector Jobs Lost Since Obama Took Office | ThinkProgress

 

[Lakhota]

Bush vs. Obama: Jobs

By Andrew Leonard

During George W.'s first term, big government boosted employment. For Obama, it's the opposite.

There is a number buried in today’s government labor report that deserves closer examination: 35,000. That’s the net number of private sector jobs created during the Obama administration to date. That’s right, it’s a positive number. After the worst economic disaster to befall the United States in 80 years, that’s a number that maybe we should be applauding. Remember: The private sector hemorrhaged more than 2 million jobs in the first three months of 2009 alone. The hole was deep.

Unfortunately, it’s still a tiny number, and it is dwarfed by a much larger figure: 607,000. That’s the number of public sector jobs — federal, state and local — that have been lost since Obama took office. It’s a story that probably isn’t getting told enough about the Obama administration: Big government keeps getting smaller.

But the real eye-opener comes when we compare Obama’s numbers to George W. Bush’s. In Bush’s first term, the economy shed 913,000 private sector jobs! 913,000! The only thing that saved Bush’s first term from being a complete economic disaster, in terms of employment, was robust public sector growth: The economy added 900,000 government jobs. One wonders: Without the massive growth in the public sector during Bush’s first term, would he have been reelected?

More: Bush vs. Obama: Jobs - Salon.com