No Jobs created since Obama took office, LINK

[pinqy]

In contrast, under President Obama’s administration, the private sector has still lost a net 2.67 million private sector jobs.

Your source is over half a year out of date. Looking at the BLS database and using Not Seasonally Adjusted data, Total Private, we see that in Jan 2009 there were 109,084,000 jobs. (these numbers don't count agriculture or the self employed or unpaid family workers). In Jan 2012, there were 108,436,000; a loss of 648,000


When George W. Bush took office in Jan 2001, there were 109,680,000 private sector jobs. As already noted, in Jan 2009, there were 109,084,000 private secor jobs: a loss of 596,000 So I'm not sure what you're talking about for jobs created under Bush. Your source is mistaken.

Well, we can agree on that.

Update: Click here for the most recent jobs statistics.

This is not what the press nor the white house is reporting, it is in a fact a lie, no other way to put it
Bush vs. Obama: Unemployment (July 2011 Jobs Data) | Reflections of a Rational Republican

How on earth is July 2011 the most recent statistics?

there is your BLS stats
looks like GWB created millions of jobs according to this
and as far as why the 10 month old link? BHO has claimed he has created over 3 million jobs
that means we have added close to 5 million in 5 months
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

its called common sense
thru 2008
2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441
2002...... 130,341 108,828 22,557 583 6,716 15,259
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,509
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,227
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,530 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,335 767 7,162 13,406
thru the end of 2011
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,558 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,874 107,384 17,751 705 5,518 11,528
2011...... 131,359 109,254 18,021 784 5,504 11,733

Ok, I see what you're doing. Your cited figures are Annual Averages of Total non-farm payroll (not just private sector.

I was quoting Private Sector January figures (not seasonally adjusted) to get the January to January changes, not the annual average. If you go through the links I posted earlier, you can see the monthly figures.

So again, in January 2001, when Bush took office, there were 109,680,000 Private Sector Jobs (annual average for 2001 was 110,708,000) and in Jan 2009 when he left, there were 109,084,000 (annual average for 2008 was 114,281,000) By using the annual average, you're not including the large Dec to Jan change as the recession started.

Switching to the Official, Seasonally Adjusted Numbers, When Bush took office in Jan 2009, there were 111,637,000 private sector jobs. That went up to 115,647,000 (gain of 4,106,000) in Jan 2008, but dropped down to 110,987,000 in jan 2009 (loss of 4,662,000) for total change from start to finish of -646,000.

So Obama started at 110,987,000, and jobs continued to dissappear, reaching the bottom in February 2010 at 106,773,000 (loss of 4,212,000) and by Feb 2012 is now back up to 110,711,000 (gain of 3,938,000) for total change from start to now of -274,000

So how do we count the change? Do we go from inauguration to inauguration, or do we go from Max jobs of 115,647,000 and say Bush lost 4.67 million and then Obama lost another 4.2 million and then gained back 3 million?

It all depends on political bias, it seems.

 

[pinqy]

But instead of playing with numbers, let's look at facts. Bush took office at the beginning of a recession and jobs started going down. By the end of his first term, they had started going back up again and he gained back more than he had lost, only to get hit with a worse recession as he finished his second term.

Obama took office as the recession started, and this was a deeper recession, losing more jobs, and only now starting to go back up.

Is either one really at fault or to be praised? Not really. It's just too hard to judge what real effects any policy had.

 

[JRK]

But instead of playing with numbers, let's look at facts. Bush took office at the beginning of a recession and jobs started going down. By the end of his first term, they had started going back up again and he gained back more than he had lost, only to get hit with a worse recession as he finished his second term.

Obama took office as the recession started, and this was a deeper recession, losing more jobs, and only now starting to go back up.

Is either one really at fault or to be praised? Not really. It's just too hard to judge what real effects any policy had.

your a Lib with class
I respect that
my issue is with BHO and his claims
You could claim many different things with numbers

But BHO cannot claim he has created 3 million jobs during his term or even from his ongoing stimulus

I have no issue with the facts, comparing deficts in the 160-400 billion to trillions when it comes to jobs is a joke any-way
BHO did not cause this mess, he has done little to fix it either

he is making claims that are not true, it is that simple, and is the focus of my thread
We can agree to dis agree, but we cannot change the facts no matter how they are used

 

[kiwiman127]

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.



When you point things out, you should attempt to put a little truth into your propaganda. Up until the 2007 recession began, this country was about as close to full employment as is possible in a dynamic economy. Somewhere around 4.5% unemployed.

Obama was not stuck with a Bush budget, since he signed most of the spending bills himself in March 2009. He had a full control Democrat congress and could have written those budget bills anyway that he desired. Bush had threatened to veto those bills, and the Democrats held them for Obama who signed them into law. If that created Obama a problem, it was one of his own making.

Yes, the economy was losing jobs when Bush left office, and that little detail is still occurring today. Three years into the Obama presidency, and the economy is still laying off a few hundred thousand workers every week.

"W" used the same method Obama is now using, don't let those unemployment rate numbers fool you. The Workforce Participation Rate is the true indicator. If we were at almost full employment in 2007, how close were we in 2000? (Click on the attahment)

 

[NYcarbineer]

There were 142 million employed in January of 2009.

By June 2009 there were 140 million employed.

There are 142 million currently employed.

 

[pinqy]

But instead of playing with numbers, let's look at facts. Bush took office at the beginning of a recession and jobs started going down. By the end of his first term, they had started going back up again and he gained back more than he had lost, only to get hit with a worse recession as he finished his second term.

Obama took office as the recession started, and this was a deeper recession, losing more jobs, and only now starting to go back up.

Is either one really at fault or to be praised? Not really. It's just too hard to judge what real effects any policy had.

your a Lib with class

Not a lib.

I respect that

Thank you.

my issue is with BHO and his claims
You could claim many different things with numbers

But BHO cannot claim he has created 3 million jobs during his term or even from his ongoing stimulus

Well, he can claim that he created over 3 million jobs...it's true...it happened. But it's ignoring that first, over 4 million jobs were lost. Which gets ignored, of course.


[qutoe]I have no issue with the facts, comparing deficts in the 160-400 billion to trillions when it comes to jobs is a joke any-way
BHO did not cause this mess, he has done little to fix it either[/quote] I agree. It's possible the stimulus helped, but it's also possible it made things slower...hard to say.

he is making claims that are not true, it is that simple, and is the focus of my thread
We can agree to dis agree, but we cannot change the facts no matter how they are used

He's making claims that are true, but not accurate, let's say that.

Unfortunately, many Cons are also making false statements, especially ridiculous claims of manipulating or falsifying the UE data.

 

[JRK]

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.



When you point things out, you should attempt to put a little truth into your propaganda. Up until the 2007 recession began, this country was about as close to full employment as is possible in a dynamic economy. Somewhere around 4.5% unemployed.

Obama was not stuck with a Bush budget, since he signed most of the spending bills himself in March 2009. He had a full control Democrat congress and could have written those budget bills anyway that he desired. Bush had threatened to veto those bills, and the Democrats held them for Obama who signed them into law. If that created Obama a problem, it was one of his own making.

Yes, the economy was losing jobs when Bush left office, and that little detail is still occurring today. Three years into the Obama presidency, and the economy is still laying off a few hundred thousand workers every week.

"W" used the same method Obama is now using, don't let those unemployment rate numbers fool you. The Workforce Participation Rate is the true indicator. If we were at almost full employment in 2007, how close were we in 2000? (Click on the attahment)

not sure what that has to do with
I dont know what to say

Liberals, in general cannot focus on the simple, one may not not claim to be liberal, but when you get to my age there easy to see in words and actions

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

2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441
2002...... 130,341 108,828 22,557 583 6,716 15,259
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,509
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,227
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,530 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879

both from earlier post
Look BHO is making claims that are not true
just like the oil production, yea its up, but no thanks to his policies

Under Obama, Federal Oil and Gas Production Is Down 40%

same with jobs
same with "inherited defict"
Budget 2011: Past Deficits vs. Obama’s Deficits in Pictures

 

[g5000]

If we were still counting unemployment the same way we were when Bush left office the rate would be 11% today.

I sure would like to see the evidence we are counting unemployment differently than we were when Bush left office.

Have you ever even visited the BLS website?

 

[g5000]

2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441
2002...... 130,341 108,828 22,557 583 6,716 15,259
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,509
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,227
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,530 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879

These columns of numbers are useless without headings.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.



When you point things out, you should attempt to put a little truth into your propaganda. Up until the 2007 recession began, this country was about as close to full employment as is possible in a dynamic economy. Somewhere around 4.5% unemployed.

Obama was not stuck with a Bush budget, since he signed most of the spending bills himself in March 2009. He had a full control Democrat congress and could have written those budget bills anyway that he desired. Bush had threatened to veto those bills, and the Democrats held them for Obama who signed them into law. If that created Obama a problem, it was one of his own making.

Yes, the economy was losing jobs when Bush left office, and that little detail is still occurring today. Three years into the Obama presidency, and the economy is still laying off a few hundred thousand workers every week.

"W" used the same method Obama is now using, don't let those unemployment rate numbers fool you. The Workforce Participation Rate is the true indicator. If we were at almost full employment in 2007, how close were we in 2000? (Click on the attahment)

not sure what that has to do with
I dont know what to say

Liberals, in general cannot focus on the simple, one may not not claim to be liberal, but when you get to my age there easy to see in words and actions

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

2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441
2002...... 130,341 108,828 22,557 583 6,716 15,259
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,509
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,227
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,530 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879

both from earlier post
Look BHO is making claims that are not true
just like the oil production, yea its up, but no thanks to his policies

Under Obama, Federal Oil and Gas Production Is Down 40%

same with jobs
same with "inherited defict"
Budget 2011: Past Deficits vs. Obama’s Deficits in Pictures

SOS JR, SOS.

FactCheck.org : Bogus Oil Claims by Crossroads GPS

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The Obama depression has given us great deals at pawn shops... I bought a damn near new Paslode trim nailer for $35 and an 18v DeWalt sawsall still in the box for $50!

 

[g5000]

Obama took office in January 2009. Soooooo...here is the BLS employment situation for January 2009:

Nonfarm payroll employment fell sharply in January (-598,000) and the unemployment rate rose from 7.2 to 7.6 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today.

We were bleeding jobs at the rate of nearly 600,000 a month.

Both the number of unemployed persons (11.6 million) and the unemployment rate (7.6 percent) rose in January. Over the past 12 months, the number of unemployed persons has increased by 4.1 million and the unemployment rate has risen by 2.7 percentage points.

On page 6, we find that the number of non-farm employed in January 2008 was 138,002 thousands and the preliminary figure for December 2008 is 135,489 thousands.

Let's rewind to just after the start of the recession in December 2007 and look at the BLS employment situation for January 2008, a full year before Bush left office.

Both nonfarm payroll employment, at 138.1 million, and the unemployment rate, at 4.9 percent, were essentially unchanged in January, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today.

The number of unemployed persons (7.6 million) and the unemployment rate (4.9 percent) were essentially unchanged in January.

4.9 percent unemployment.

So in the last year of Bush's term, employment jumped from 4.9 to 7.6 percent.

And the number of unemployed jumped from 7.6 million to 11.6 million.

Now let's go to January of this year.

Nonfarm payroll employment rose by 227,000 in February, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 8.3 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.

Instead of bleeding jobs, we are now seeing jobs being created. We are now on a fairly sustained upward trend in employment.

In three years, the unemployment rate has changed from 7.6 percent to 8.3 percent.

The number of unemployed persons, at 12.8 million, was essentially unchanged in February.

So there are 1.2 million more unemployed than when Obama took office.

These are the facts.

 

[JRK]

Obama took office in January 2009. Soooooo...here is the BLS employment situation for January 2009:

Nonfarm payroll employment fell sharply in January (-598,000) and the unemployment rate rose from 7.2 to 7.6 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today.

We were bleeding jobs at the rate of nearly 600,000 a month.

Both the number of unemployed persons (11.6 million) and the unemployment rate (7.6 percent) rose in January. Over the past 12 months, the number of unemployed persons has increased by 4.1 million and the unemployment rate has risen by 2.7 percentage points.

On page 6, we find that the number of non-farm employed in January 2008 was 138,002 thousands and the preliminary figure for December 2008 is 135,489 thousands.

Let's rewind to just after the start of the recession in December 2007 and look at the BLS employment situation for January 2008, a full year before Bush left office.





4.9 percent unemployment.

So in the last year of Bush's term, employment jumped from 4.9 to 7.6 percent.

And the number of unemployed jumped from 7.6 million to 11.6 million.

Now let's go to January of this year.

Nonfarm payroll employment rose by 227,000 in February, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 8.3 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.

Instead of bleeding jobs, we are now seeing jobs being created. We are now on a fairly sustained upward trend in employment.

In three years, the unemployment rate has changed from 7.6 percent to 8.3 percent.

The number of unemployed persons, at 12.8 million, was essentially unchanged in February.

So there are 1.2 million more unemployed than when Obama took office.

These are the facts.

Un spun
simple
to the point
Thank you

Thats all there is to this and my point from the start

 

[Syphon]

Obama took office in January 2009. Soooooo...here is the BLS employment situation for January 2009:

Nonfarm payroll employment fell sharply in January (-598,000) and the unemployment rate rose from 7.2 to 7.6 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today.

We were bleeding jobs at the rate of nearly 600,000 a month.

Both the number of unemployed persons (11.6 million) and the unemployment rate (7.6 percent) rose in January. Over the past 12 months, the number of unemployed persons has increased by 4.1 million and the unemployment rate has risen by 2.7 percentage points.

On page 6, we find that the number of non-farm employed in January 2008 was 138,002 thousands and the preliminary figure for December 2008 is 135,489 thousands.

Let's rewind to just after the start of the recession in December 2007 and look at the BLS employment situation for January 2008, a full year before Bush left office.





4.9 percent unemployment.

So in the last year of Bush's term, employment jumped from 4.9 to 7.6 percent.

And the number of unemployed jumped from 7.6 million to 11.6 million.

Now let's go to January of this year.

Nonfarm payroll employment rose by 227,000 in February, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 8.3 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.

Instead of bleeding jobs, we are now seeing jobs being created. We are now on a fairly sustained upward trend in employment.

In three years, the unemployment rate has changed from 7.6 percent to 8.3 percent.

The number of unemployed persons, at 12.8 million, was essentially unchanged in February.

So there are 1.2 million more unemployed than when Obama took office.

These are the facts.

when Obama took office the economy was losing 750,000 jobs a month. did you think just because he got elected this would automatically stop? it took 6 months before his policies took hold, and how and behold things started to turn around.

you have a failed argument thinking that a new president has any control over economic and domestic policy within his first 3-6 months.

 

[JRK]

Obama took office in January 2009. Soooooo...here is the BLS employment situation for January 2009:

Nonfarm payroll employment fell sharply in January (-598,000) and the unemployment rate rose from 7.2 to 7.6 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today.

We were bleeding jobs at the rate of nearly 600,000 a month.



On page 6, we find that the number of non-farm employed in January 2008 was 138,002 thousands and the preliminary figure for December 2008 is 135,489 thousands.

Let's rewind to just after the start of the recession in December 2007 and look at the BLS employment situation for January 2008, a full year before Bush left office.





4.9 percent unemployment.

So in the last year of Bush's term, employment jumped from 4.9 to 7.6 percent.

And the number of unemployed jumped from 7.6 million to 11.6 million.

Now let's go to January of this year.



Instead of bleeding jobs, we are now seeing jobs being created. We are now on a fairly sustained upward trend in employment.

In three years, the unemployment rate has changed from 7.6 percent to 8.3 percent.

The number of unemployed persons, at 12.8 million, was essentially unchanged in February.

So there are 1.2 million more unemployed than when Obama took office.

These are the facts.

when Obama took office the economy was losing 750,000 jobs a month. did you think just because he got elected this would automatically stop? it took 6 months before his policies took hold, and how and behold things started to turn around.

you have a failed argument thinking that a new president has any control over economic and domestic policy within his first 3-6 months.

Look Obama is the one making the claims that he has created 3 million jobs during his term, not any-one else
No-one has tried to hide the fact that this country was in bad shape when he took office, but he also has spent trillions that we do not have and lied about how thats worked, and as far as the 750,000, what does that have to do with claiming BHO has created million in jobs when we are over 1 million short of when he took over?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If we were still counting unemployment the same way we were when Bush left office the rate would be 11% today.

I sure would like to see the evidence we are counting unemployment differently than we were when Bush left office.

Have you ever even visited the BLS website?

He routinely makes shit up. Inexplicably.

 

[JRK]

Obama took office in January 2009. Soooooo...here is the BLS employment situation for January 2009:

Nonfarm payroll employment fell sharply in January (-598,000) and the unemployment rate rose from 7.2 to 7.6 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today.

We were bleeding jobs at the rate of nearly 600,000 a month.

Both the number of unemployed persons (11.6 million) and the unemployment rate (7.6 percent) rose in January. Over the past 12 months, the number of unemployed persons has increased by 4.1 million and the unemployment rate has risen by 2.7 percentage points.

On page 6, we find that the number of non-farm employed in January 2008 was 138,002 thousands and the preliminary figure for December 2008 is 135,489 thousands.

Let's rewind to just after the start of the recession in December 2007 and look at the BLS employment situation for January 2008, a full year before Bush left office.





4.9 percent unemployment.

So in the last year of Bush's term, employment jumped from 4.9 to 7.6 percent.

And the number of unemployed jumped from 7.6 million to 11.6 million.

Now let's go to January of this year.

Nonfarm payroll employment rose by 227,000 in February, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 8.3 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.

Instead of bleeding jobs, we are now seeing jobs being created. We are now on a fairly sustained upward trend in employment.

In three years, the unemployment rate has changed from 7.6 percent to 8.3 percent.

The number of unemployed persons, at 12.8 million, was essentially unchanged in February.

So there are 1.2 million more unemployed than when Obama took office.

These are the facts.

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt
you ask for a header, this link and those numbers have been put in this thread many times, I assumed you knew that

A steady growth rate is 300,000, not 150,000, your claim is not accurate. We shed many of those jobs 3 years ago, not 3 months ago
This is why we cannot get back to where we where in 2009 when he took office, its a complete failure when you look at the trillions of debt we have added

 

[NYcarbineer]

From BLS
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,335 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,558 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,874 107,384 17,751 705 5,518 11,528
2011(p)... 131,358 109,253 18,021 784 5,504 11,733


5 million fewer people working
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

When do you start holding Obama accountable for the jobs lost or created during his presidency?

You can't start counting from January of 2009.

 

[JRK]

ny your on ignore
u know why

 

[JRK]

If we were still counting unemployment the same way we were when Bush left office the rate would be 11% today. As it is Gallup says it's 9.1% using the same numbers that the BLS uses. The Obama Administration uses "Seasonal Adjusted" to lower the rate to 8.3%.

This isn't the slightest bit true.

BLS has not changed the way they calculate the U3 rate since Obama has been President. The number is calculated the SAME way.

movin on