Obama Creates 4,000,000 Jobs.

[Pete7469]

wow, he be superman

he's the gawd of job creators

lets all bow

What 4 million baby sitters for the hordes of diseased little cretins from Guatemala and Honduras?

 

[Pete7469]

SNIP:

Unemployment drops to 0% as the last worker leaves the labor force

President Obama today became the first to achieve a milestone coveted by enlightened central planners everywhere, as the Bureau of Laborious Statistics announced the much-followed meaningless headline: "U3 unemployment rate for last month was ZERO PERCENT," which clearly implies that the glorious economic recovery he engineered after the disastrous Bush years has now resulted in full employment.

It appears that Professor Obama succeeded in finding the Holy Grail, which eluded history's greatest economic thinkers like Lenin, Stalin and Mao. This landmark achievement, along with his establishment of free healthcare for everyone via the Affordable Care Act, cements his reputation as the Greatest Leader in this or any other universe for all time.

The dramatic moment occurred at 12:03 PM, four weeks to the day after Lyman Yilk, a pipe-fitter from Bittcling, Pa, finally gave up looking for work.

Mr. Yilk has been unemployed since 2005, but was on a celebratory bender since the day after Mr. Obama's first election and failed to notice that the Keystone Pipeline (which Mr. Yilk was hoping to find work on) had been cancelled due to environmental concerns. When he finally sobered up four weeks ago and learned the project was dead, he abandoned his search to find a job.

all of it here
Unemployment drops to 0% as last worker leaves labor force

Didn't he find a unicorn while counciling Kim Jung Un in North Korea also?

His next miracle will be loaves and fishes for the Palestinians.

 

[boedicca]

We are missing jobs due to Obamanomics.

The Labor Force Participation Rate was 65.7% when Obama took office; it is now 62.8%. The drop iw not due to Baby Boomer Retirees...the biggest drops in participation are among younger workers.

Adjusting for population growth, if we had 65.7% LFP today, we'd have 6.7M more employed people. Instead, we have a growth in government dependents and a laggard economy.

Hopenchange!

 

[Misty]

Part time summer jobs and holiday jobs are temporary.

Businesses need incentive and the best way to achieve that is for the government to get out of the way and stay out of our pockets.

 

[Jackson]

Why You Don?t Know Obama Has Created 4.5 Million Jobs - The Daily Beast.

Fact.

President Obama has created over 4,000,000 jobs, with over 55-Straight Months of Job/Economic Growth.

Compared to the shrub's numbers. The former deserter-in-chief created 8.57 Million Jobs, but net loss of 7.121 Million Jobs Lost for net gain of 1.536 Million Jobs.

Over 1.5 Million Jobs were lost in the last full quarter (September, October, November and December) 2008. The shrub left office in January 2009.

Republicans continue to block President Obama's attempts on Infrastructure Jobs.

But when the number of Jobs created by President Obama is compared to Jobs created by bush, the stark truth is that that more jobs were created under Mr. Obama than under bush who left this country with a crippling National Debt and Two Illegal, Immoral and Unconstitutional War(s) that were fully paid for and were financed by continuing resolutions.

And they all went to immigrants.

All Employment Growth Since 2000 Went to Immigrants
http://cis.org/all-employment-growth-since-2000-went-to-immigrants

 

[blastoff]

Why You Don?t Know Obama Has Created 4.5 Million Jobs - The Daily Beast.

Fact.

President Obama has created over 4,000,000 jobs, with over 55-Straight Months of Job/Economic Growth.

Compared to the shrub's numbers. The former deserter-in-chief created 8.57 Million Jobs, but net loss of 7.121 Million Jobs Lost for net gain of 1.536 Million Jobs.

Over 1.5 Million Jobs were lost in the last full quarter (September, October, November and December) 2008. The shrub left office in January 2009.

Republicans continue to block President Obama's attempts on Infrastructure Jobs.

But when the number of Jobs created by President Obama is compared to Jobs created by bush, the stark truth is that that more jobs were created under Mr. Obama than under bush who left this country with a crippling National Debt and Two Illegal, Immoral and Unconstitutional War(s) that were fully paid for and were financed by continuing resolutions.

It's hard for Conservatives to give any credit to a hard-working Democratic president who creates jobs like President Obama. They are so against the president and apparently and sadly against jobs as well, that they neglect thanking the president for all he does for the country that keeps the country and its people employed as this report has brought out.

What a fucking crock.

 

[pinqy]

In his analysis of the June Labor Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, John Williams (Shadow Government Statistics - Home Page) wrote that the 288,000 June jobs and 6.1% unemployment rate are “far removed from common experience and underlying reality.” Payrolls were overstated by “massive, hidden shifts in seasonal adjustments,” and the Birth-Death model added the usual phantom jobs.

Williams reports that “the seasonal factors are changed each and every month as part of the concurrent seasonal-adjustment process, which is tantamount to a fraud,” as the changes in the seasonal factors can inflate the jobs number. While the headline numbers always are on a new basis, the prior reporting is not revised so as to be consistent.

Let's see....the Not seasonally adjusted change was +582,000 (Table B-1) including 121,000 from the Birth/Death adjustment so according to Williams, the actual change was +461,000 and BLS fraudulently and deceptively knocked it down to +288,000. Interesting claim.

The monthly unemployment rates are not comparable, so one doesn’t know whether the official U.3 rate (the headline rate that the financial press reports) went up or down. Moreover, the rate does not count discouraged workers who, unable to find a job, cease looking.

And it never has (a variation was allowed to be included before 1967)

To be counted among the U.3 unemployed, the person must have actively looked for work during the four weeks prior to the survey.

The person must want a job, must be available to start work, and must have actively looked for work in the previous 4 weeks unless on temporary layoff.

The U.3 rate automatically declines as people who have been unable to find jobs cease trying to find one and thereby cease to be counted as unemployed.

Or for any other reason people stop looking for work. It's a measure of how many people participating in the labor market are unsuccessful. Those no longer participating for whatever reason: death, prison, left the country, won the lottery, hospitalized, staying home with kids, going to school, etc are not included.

There is a second official measure of unemployment that includes people who have been discouraged for less than one year. That rate, known as U.6, is seldom reported and is double the 6.1% rate.

Not quite true. There are 6 alternate measures of Labor Underutilization.
The U-1 is long-term unemployed as a percent of the labor force
U-2 is job losers and those ending temp jobs as a percent of the labor force
U-3 is the official rate of Unemployed as a percent of the labor force.
U-4 is unemployed plus discouraged as a percent of the labor force plus discouraged.
U-5 is unemployed plus all marginally attached (includes discouraged) as a percent of the labor force plus all marginally attached.
U-6 is unemployed plus all marginally attached plus those working part time for economic reasons as a percent of the labor force plus all marginally attached.

So if you really just want to talk about adding discouraged, why wouln't you talk about the U-4 (6.5%)? Why talk about the U-6 and ignore that it's not just discourage but not even an unemployment rate because it includes millions of people who have jobs in its numerator?

Since 1994 there has been no official measure than includes discouraged people who have not looked for a job for more than a year. Including all discouraged workers produces an unemployment rate that currently stands at 23.1%, almost four times the rate that the financial press reports.

Let's look at that. The Not Seaonally Adjusted numbers give more detail, so we'll look at those.
Adult civilian non-institutional population: 247,814,000
Labor Force: 156,997,000 consisting of 147,104,000 employed and 9,893,000 unemployed.
This gives us 90,817,000 Not in the Labor Force, including 6,694,000 people who say they want a job but are not classified as unemployed. Source for all that is Table A-1

So turning to a breakdown of those not in the labor force, we see that of the 90,817,000 people not looking for work, 84,122,000 don't want a job and 6,694,000 do.
Of the 6,694,000, 3,856,000 want a job but did not look in the last 12 months. This is where Williams' "long term discouraged" must come from. But are all of them discouraged? Looking at the 2,838,000 who did look in the last 12 months, 810,000 couldn't take a job if offered, and 2,028,000 (the marginally attached) could.
Of the marginally attached, 676,000 quit looking due to discouragement and 1,353,000 stopped looking due to non-economic obligations or inability to work (though they're now available). If the long term discouraged follow the same ratio, then we're looking at around 918,000 long term discouraged.

What does Mr. Williams say? He says he's adding long term discouraged to the U-6 and getting a rate of 23.1%
The U-6, again, is unemployed plus marginally attached plus part time for economic reasons as a percent of the labor force plus marginally attached. Since he uses the seasonally adjusted U-6, we have to switch back and use the seasonally adjusted unemployment, labor force, and part time for economic reasons (marginally attached isn't seasonally adjusted)

Unemployed: 9,474,000
marginally attached: 2,028,000
part time for economic reasons: 7,544,000
Our numerator is 9,474,000+2,028,000+7,544,000 = 19,046,000
Labor Force: 155,694,000
Our denominator is 155,694,000+2,028,000 = 157,722,000
To check.....19,046,000/157,722,000=0.121 or 12.1% which is what BLS says.
But Williams says adding in long term discouraged gives 23.1%
(19,046,000+X)/(154,722,000+X) = 0.231
Solving for X......X=22,611,000

22.6 million he's adding...and that's just supposed to be long term discouraged and not all other long term marginally attached.

Do you really think that sounds right when the total not in the labor force who want a job is only 6.4 million?

 

[sealybobo]

Part time summer jobs and holiday jobs are temporary.

Businesses need incentive and the best way to achieve that is for the government to get out of the way and stay out of our pockets.

Boy that montra never gets old does it.

Business needs for the masses to have more money in their pockets because this is a consumer driven economy. Small business will flourish if they have more customers.

In the 90's the masses had a much bigger piece of the economic pie. Then Bush got into office and rigged the game so the rich stole all the money. If I have to explain how then you just weren't paying attention the 8 years he was in office. Perhaps the "liberal" media didn't tell you enough. Anyways, now that the rich stole all the money, they don't want to give any of it back. If we try they cry class warfare, socialism and communism.

They want to turn this country into an every man for himself nation instead of We the People. The corporations have taken over our government. Time for a revolution if we could ever get poor and middle class Americans to stop voting against their own economic well being because of bullshit wedge issues like god gays and guns.

 

[KissMy]

the only jobs Obama has created is MORE GOVERNMENT jobs YOU GET TO PAY FOR

You Lie!

Only fascist Republican government hires government employees to pad employment numbers.

Like Clinton, Obama has been firing government leeches since the census. Obama's government is smaller than Reagan, Bush 1 & 2.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Pretty good.

Imagine if we had a pro-employer administration.

.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Why You Don?t Know Obama Has Created 4.5 Million Jobs - The Daily Beast.

Fact.

President Obama has created over 4,000,000 jobs, with over 55-Straight Months of Job/Economic Growth.

Compared to the shrub's numbers. The former deserter-in-chief created 8.57 Million Jobs, but net loss of 7.121 Million Jobs Lost for net gain of 1.536 Million Jobs.

Over 1.5 Million Jobs were lost in the last full quarter (September, October, November and December) 2008. The shrub left office in January 2009.

Republicans continue to block President Obama's attempts on Infrastructure Jobs.

But when the number of Jobs created by President Obama is compared to Jobs created by bush, the stark truth is that that more jobs were created under Mr. Obama than under bush who left this country with a crippling National Debt and Two Illegal, Immoral and Unconstitutional War(s) that were fully paid for and were financed by continuing resolutions.

Whoa - who would have thought that! I mean, I thought BUSINESS HIRED PEOPLE (so what if it's for 28-29 hours a week - gives them time to be photographers or dancers or smoke dope). I'll be damned. I mean geeez...what with Barry shooting pool in Colorado and playing golf in Hawaii, who would have thought that he would have enough time to "CREATE" jobs...

Guess that's just like HIM killing Bin Laden.


What a dumbass........

 

[RandallFlagg]

Well any jobs create are because the private sector has hired and I doubt the jackass in the WH has done much to make sure that happens.

Yep. He's a winner and I'm sure he appreciates all the Obamabots telling him how great he is.
LMAO

No kidding..it's beyond gag me with a spoon after watching it for six years

These bootlickers would follow this skinny half-breed off a cliff if he asked them to.....oh wait, they already have...

 

[Siete]

Why You Don?t Know Obama Has Created 4.5 Million Jobs - The Daily Beast.

Fact.

President Obama has created over 4,000,000 jobs, with over 55-Straight Months of Job/Economic Growth.

Compared to the shrub's numbers. The former deserter-in-chief created 8.57 Million Jobs, but net loss of 7.121 Million Jobs Lost for net gain of 1.536 Million Jobs.

Over 1.5 Million Jobs were lost in the last full quarter (September, October, November and December) 2008. The shrub left office in January 2009.

Republicans continue to block President Obama's attempts on Infrastructure Jobs.

But when the number of Jobs created by President Obama is compared to Jobs created by bush, the stark truth is that that more jobs were created under Mr. Obama than under bush who left this country with a crippling National Debt and Two Illegal, Immoral and Unconstitutional War(s) that were fully paid for and were financed by continuing resolutions.

Whoa - who would have thought that! I mean, I thought BUSINESS HIRED PEOPLE (so what if it's for 28-29 hours a week - gives them time to be photographers or dancers or smoke dope). I'll be damned. I mean geeez...what with Barry shooting pool in Colorado and playing golf in Hawaii, who would have thought that he would have enough time to "CREATE" jobs...

Guess that's just like HIM killing Bin Laden.


What a dumbass........

if a president can't create jobs then he can't kill jobs either can he ?

 

[Star]

In his analysis of the June Labor Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, John Williams (Shadow Government Statistics - Home Page) wrote that the 288,000 June jobs and 6.1% unemployment rate are “far removed from common experience and underlying reality.” Payrolls were overstated by “massive, hidden shifts in seasonal adjustments,” and the Birth-Death model added the usual phantom jobs.

Williams reports that “the seasonal factors are changed each and every month as part of the concurrent seasonal-adjustment process, which is tantamount to a fraud,” as the changes in the seasonal factors can inflate the jobs number. While the headline numbers always are on a new basis, the prior reporting is not revised so as to be consistent.

Let's see....the Not seasonally adjusted change was +582,000 (Table B-1) including 121,000 from the Birth/Death adjustment so according to Williams, the actual change was +461,000 and BLS fraudulently and deceptively knocked it down to +288,000. Interesting claim.

The monthly unemployment rates are not comparable, so one doesn’t know whether the official U.3 rate (the headline rate that the financial press reports) went up or down. Moreover, the rate does not count discouraged workers who, unable to find a job, cease looking.

And it never has (a variation was allowed to be included before 1967)

The person must want a job, must be available to start work, and must have actively looked for work in the previous 4 weeks unless on temporary layoff. Or for any other reason people stop looking for work. It's a measure of how many people participating in the labor market are unsuccessful. Those no longer participating for whatever reason: death, prison, left the country, won the lottery, hospitalized, staying home with kids, going to school, etc are not included.

There is a second official measure of unemployment that includes people who have been discouraged for less than one year. That rate, known as U.6, is seldom reported and is double the 6.1% rate.

Not quite true. There are 6 alternate measures of Labor Underutilization.
The U-1 is long-term unemployed as a percent of the labor force
U-2 is job losers and those ending temp jobs as a percent of the labor force
U-3 is the official rate of Unemployed as a percent of the labor force.
U-4 is unemployed plus discouraged as a percent of the labor force plus discouraged.
U-5 is unemployed plus all marginally attached (includes discouraged) as a percent of the labor force plus all marginally attached.
U-6 is unemployed plus all marginally attached plus those working part time for economic reasons as a percent of the labor force plus all marginally attached.

So if you really just want to talk about adding discouraged, why wouln't you talk about the U-4 (6.5%)? Why talk about the U-6 and ignore that it's not just discourage but not even an unemployment rate because it includes millions of people who have jobs in its numerator?

Since 1994 there has been no official measure than includes discouraged people who have not looked for a job for more than a year. Including all discouraged workers produces an unemployment rate that currently stands at 23.1%, almost four times the rate that the financial press reports.

Let's look at that. The Not Seaonally Adjusted numbers give more detail, so we'll look at those.
Adult civilian non-institutional population: 247,814,000
Labor Force: 156,997,000 consisting of 147,104,000 employed and 9,893,000 unemployed.
This gives us 90,817,000 Not in the Labor Force, including 6,694,000 people who say they want a job but are not classified as unemployed. Source for all that is Table A-1

So turning to a breakdown of those not in the labor force, we see that of the 90,817,000 people not looking for work, 84,122,000 don't want a job and 6,694,000 do.
Of the 6,694,000, 3,856,000 want a job but did not look in the last 12 months. This is where Williams' "long term discouraged" must come from. But are all of them discouraged? Looking at the 2,838,000 who did look in the last 12 months, 810,000 couldn't take a job if offered, and 2,028,000 (the marginally attached) could.
Of the marginally attached, 676,000 quit looking due to discouragement and 1,353,000 stopped looking due to non-economic obligations or inability to work (though they're now available). If the long term discouraged follow the same ratio, then we're looking at around 918,000 long term discouraged.

What does Mr. Williams say? He says he's adding long term discouraged to the U-6 and getting a rate of 23.1%
The U-6, again, is unemployed plus marginally attached plus part time for economic reasons as a percent of the labor force plus marginally attached. Since he uses the seasonally adjusted U-6, we have to switch back and use the seasonally adjusted unemployment, labor force, and part time for economic reasons (marginally attached isn't seasonally adjusted)

Unemployed: 9,474,000
marginally attached: 2,028,000
part time for economic reasons: 7,544,000
Our numerator is 9,474,000+2,028,000+7,544,000 = 19,046,000
Labor Force: 155,694,000
Our denominator is 155,694,000+2,028,000 = 157,722,000
To check.....19,046,000/157,722,000=0.121 or 12.1% which is what BLS says.
But Williams says adding in long term discouraged gives 23.1%
(19,046,000+X)/(154,722,000+X) = 0.231
Solving for X......X=22,611,000

22.6 million he's adding...and that's just supposed to be long term discouraged and not all other long term marginally attached.

Do you really think that sounds right when the total not in the labor force who want a job is only 6.4 million?

Thanks for the debunking - Stephanie flaps her lips a lot, and always gets things right but-----but seldom gets much correct. It seems like just the other day she even mis-identified the high-profile, easily recognizable "Chrissy (tingles) Matthews" and...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/362957-new-research-finds-the-crookedest-states-in-the-union-2.html -pewsh!-

Republicans hate it when jobs are created and-----and the billionaire owned/controlled rightwing media and their Republican lackeys can't get off the stupid button when it comes to demonizing the president that oversaw greatest first term job creation in American history, Jimmy (job creator) Carter and-----and they went so far as to actually impeach President Bill Clinton, the president on whose watch more jobs were created than any other president In American history.

The evidence is obvious, Republicans hate-----hate job creation.




Twenty-two million jobs were created during the Clinton administration.
Job creation data for each president since 1960, courtesy Wikipedia:
Kennedy-Johnson Administration: 5.9 million
LBJ administration: 9.9 million
Nixon's first term: 6.2 million
Nixon-Ford administration: 5.1 million
Carter administration: 10.3 million
Reagan administration (both terms): 16.1 million
Bush 41 administration: 2.6 million
Clinton administration (both terms): 22.7 million
Bush 43 administration: 1.95 million

Or put another way: From 1980 to the end of the Bush 43 administration, all three Republican presidents combined produced, over a period of 20 years, two million fewer jobs than Bill Clinton managed to eke out in eight. Kennedy and Johnson managed to produce 50 percent more jobs in four years than the Bushes did in twelve. (In Bush 43's first term he produced ten thousand jobs.) And as for Carter...the Republicans portray him as a president who could do nothing right, but in his four years he managed to produce nearly as many jobs as Reagan did in his second term--10.3m for Carter, 10.8m for Reagan. Even Eisenhower, one of the few Republican presidents I happen to like, was no good at job creation. His 3.5 million jobs created over eight years were far fewer than the 5.5 million Democrat Harry Truman produced in four. In percentage of increase, Eisenhower's record is similar to Reagan's first term.

Translation: Republicans really don't do this "job creation" thing very well.

.

 

[Pete7469]

In his analysis of the June Labor Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, John Williams (Shadow Government Statistics - Home Page) wrote that the 288,000 June jobs and 6.1% unemployment rate are “far removed from common experience and underlying reality.” Payrolls were overstated by “massive, hidden shifts in seasonal adjustments,” and the Birth-Death model added the usual phantom jobs.

Williams reports that “the seasonal factors are changed each and every month as part of the concurrent seasonal-adjustment process, which is tantamount to a fraud,” as the changes in the seasonal factors can inflate the jobs number. While the headline numbers always are on a new basis, the prior reporting is not revised so as to be consistent.

Let's see....the Not seasonally adjusted change was +582,000 (Table B-1) including 121,000 from the Birth/Death adjustment so according to Williams, the actual change was +461,000 and BLS fraudulently and deceptively knocked it down to +288,000. Interesting claim.

And it never has (a variation was allowed to be included before 1967)

The person must want a job, must be available to start work, and must have actively looked for work in the previous 4 weeks unless on temporary layoff. Or for any other reason people stop looking for work. It's a measure of how many people participating in the labor market are unsuccessful. Those no longer participating for whatever reason: death, prison, left the country, won the lottery, hospitalized, staying home with kids, going to school, etc are not included.



Not quite true. There are 6 alternate measures of Labor Underutilization.
The U-1 is long-term unemployed as a percent of the labor force
U-2 is job losers and those ending temp jobs as a percent of the labor force
U-3 is the official rate of Unemployed as a percent of the labor force.
U-4 is unemployed plus discouraged as a percent of the labor force plus discouraged.
U-5 is unemployed plus all marginally attached (includes discouraged) as a percent of the labor force plus all marginally attached.
U-6 is unemployed plus all marginally attached plus those working part time for economic reasons as a percent of the labor force plus all marginally attached.

So if you really just want to talk about adding discouraged, why wouln't you talk about the U-4 (6.5%)? Why talk about the U-6 and ignore that it's not just discourage but not even an unemployment rate because it includes millions of people who have jobs in its numerator?

Since 1994 there has been no official measure than includes discouraged people who have not looked for a job for more than a year. Including all discouraged workers produces an unemployment rate that currently stands at 23.1%, almost four times the rate that the financial press reports.

Let's look at that. The Not Seaonally Adjusted numbers give more detail, so we'll look at those.
Adult civilian non-institutional population: 247,814,000
Labor Force: 156,997,000 consisting of 147,104,000 employed and 9,893,000 unemployed.
This gives us 90,817,000 Not in the Labor Force, including 6,694,000 people who say they want a job but are not classified as unemployed. Source for all that is Table A-1

So turning to a breakdown of those not in the labor force, we see that of the 90,817,000 people not looking for work, 84,122,000 don't want a job and 6,694,000 do.
Of the 6,694,000, 3,856,000 want a job but did not look in the last 12 months. This is where Williams' "long term discouraged" must come from. But are all of them discouraged? Looking at the 2,838,000 who did look in the last 12 months, 810,000 couldn't take a job if offered, and 2,028,000 (the marginally attached) could.
Of the marginally attached, 676,000 quit looking due to discouragement and 1,353,000 stopped looking due to non-economic obligations or inability to work (though they're now available). If the long term discouraged follow the same ratio, then we're looking at around 918,000 long term discouraged.

What does Mr. Williams say? He says he's adding long term discouraged to the U-6 and getting a rate of 23.1%
The U-6, again, is unemployed plus marginally attached plus part time for economic reasons as a percent of the labor force plus marginally attached. Since he uses the seasonally adjusted U-6, we have to switch back and use the seasonally adjusted unemployment, labor force, and part time for economic reasons (marginally attached isn't seasonally adjusted)

Unemployed: 9,474,000
marginally attached: 2,028,000
part time for economic reasons: 7,544,000
Our numerator is 9,474,000+2,028,000+7,544,000 = 19,046,000
Labor Force: 155,694,000
Our denominator is 155,694,000+2,028,000 = 157,722,000
To check.....19,046,000/157,722,000=0.121 or 12.1% which is what BLS says.
But Williams says adding in long term discouraged gives 23.1%
(19,046,000+X)/(154,722,000+X) = 0.231
Solving for X......X=22,611,000

22.6 million he's adding...and that's just supposed to be long term discouraged and not all other long term marginally attached.

Do you really think that sounds right when the total not in the labor force who want a job is only 6.4 million?

Thanks for the debunking - Stephanie flaps her lips a lot, and always gets things right but-----but seldom gets much correct. It seems like just the other day she even mis-identified the high-profile, easily recognizable "Chrissy (tingles) Matthews" and...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/362957-new-research-finds-the-crookedest-states-in-the-union-2.html -pewsh!-

Republicans hate it when jobs are created and-----and the billionaire owned/controlled rightwing media and their Republican lackeys can't get off the stupid button when it comes to demonizing the president that oversaw greatest first term job creation in American history, Jimmy (job creator) Carter and-----and they went so far as to actually impeach President Bill Clinton, the president on whose watch more jobs were created than any other president In American history.

The evidence is obvious, Republicans hate-----hate job creation.




Twenty-two million jobs were created during the Clinton administration.
Job creation data for each president since 1960, courtesy Wikipedia:
Kennedy-Johnson Administration: 5.9 million
LBJ administration: 9.9 million
Nixon's first term: 6.2 million
Nixon-Ford administration: 5.1 million
Carter administration: 10.3 million
Reagan administration (both terms): 16.1 million
Bush 41 administration: 2.6 million
Clinton administration (both terms): 22.7 million
Bush 43 administration: 1.95 million

Or put another way: From 1980 to the end of the Bush 43 administration, all three Republican presidents combined produced, over a period of 20 years, two million fewer jobs than Bill Clinton managed to eke out in eight. Kennedy and Johnson managed to produce 50 percent more jobs in four years than the Bushes did in twelve. (In Bush 43's first term he produced ten thousand jobs.) And as for Carter...the Republicans portray him as a president who could do nothing right, but in his four years he managed to produce nearly as many jobs as Reagan did in his second term--10.3m for Carter, 10.8m for Reagan. Even Eisenhower, one of the few Republican presidents I happen to like, was no good at job creation. His 3.5 million jobs created over eight years were far fewer than the 5.5 million Democrat Harry Truman produced in four. In percentage of increase, Eisenhower's record is similar to Reagan's first term.

Translation: Republicans really don't do this "job creation" thing very well.

.

If it wasn't for redundant safety laws fuckheads like this wouldn't exist.


Their genetic garbage would have been removed from the genepool generations ago.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Fact.

President Obama has created over 4,000,000 jobs, with over 55-Straight Months of Job/Economic Growth.

Care to elaborate as to how?

 

[KissMy]

Bush took the employment rate of the 197 million working age population from 74% down to 65%. Bush destroyed 18 million jobs.

Obama took the employment rate of the 203 million working age population from 65% up to 69%. Obama restored or created 8 million jobs.

Employment Rate of Working Age Population

Obama is mopping the floor with both Bush's. They could only dream of having Obama's increased employment rates. For 5 years now Household Income, Hires & Quits rates have been rising while the Unemployment & U-6 rates have been falling.

Employment is rising at increasing velocity. First 6 months of 2014 average 231k jobs added per month, last year the average was 194K jobs added per month.

The last time over 200,000 new jobs were created 6 months in a row was in 1999 when Bill Clinton was president!

 

[koshergrl]

 

[hjmick]

Obama Creates 4,000,000 Jobs.

He didn't bui... uh... do that...

 

[pinqy]

In his analysis of the June Labor Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, John Williams (Shadow Government Statistics - Home Page) wrote that the 288,000 June jobs and 6.1% unemployment rate are “far removed from common experience and underlying reality.” Payrolls were overstated by “massive, hidden shifts in seasonal adjustments,” and the Birth-Death model added the usual phantom jobs.

Williams reports that “the seasonal factors are changed each and every month as part of the concurrent seasonal-adjustment process, which is tantamount to a fraud,” as the changes in the seasonal factors can inflate the jobs number. While the headline numbers always are on a new basis, the prior reporting is not revised so as to be consistent.

Let's see....the Not seasonally adjusted change was +582,000 (Table B-1) including 121,000 from the Birth/Death adjustment so according to Williams, the actual change was +461,000 and BLS fraudulently and deceptively knocked it down to +288,000. Interesting claim.

And it never has (a variation was allowed to be included before 1967)

The person must want a job, must be available to start work, and must have actively looked for work in the previous 4 weeks unless on temporary layoff. Or for any other reason people stop looking for work. It's a measure of how many people participating in the labor market are unsuccessful. Those no longer participating for whatever reason: death, prison, left the country, won the lottery, hospitalized, staying home with kids, going to school, etc are not included.



Not quite true. There are 6 alternate measures of Labor Underutilization.
The U-1 is long-term unemployed as a percent of the labor force
U-2 is job losers and those ending temp jobs as a percent of the labor force
U-3 is the official rate of Unemployed as a percent of the labor force.
U-4 is unemployed plus discouraged as a percent of the labor force plus discouraged.
U-5 is unemployed plus all marginally attached (includes discouraged) as a percent of the labor force plus all marginally attached.
U-6 is unemployed plus all marginally attached plus those working part time for economic reasons as a percent of the labor force plus all marginally attached.

So if you really just want to talk about adding discouraged, why wouln't you talk about the U-4 (6.5%)? Why talk about the U-6 and ignore that it's not just discourage but not even an unemployment rate because it includes millions of people who have jobs in its numerator?

Since 1994 there has been no official measure than includes discouraged people who have not looked for a job for more than a year. Including all discouraged workers produces an unemployment rate that currently stands at 23.1%, almost four times the rate that the financial press reports.

Let's look at that. The Not Seaonally Adjusted numbers give more detail, so we'll look at those.
Adult civilian non-institutional population: 247,814,000
Labor Force: 156,997,000 consisting of 147,104,000 employed and 9,893,000 unemployed.
This gives us 90,817,000 Not in the Labor Force, including 6,694,000 people who say they want a job but are not classified as unemployed. Source for all that is Table A-1

So turning to a breakdown of those not in the labor force, we see that of the 90,817,000 people not looking for work, 84,122,000 don't want a job and 6,694,000 do.
Of the 6,694,000, 3,856,000 want a job but did not look in the last 12 months. This is where Williams' "long term discouraged" must come from. But are all of them discouraged? Looking at the 2,838,000 who did look in the last 12 months, 810,000 couldn't take a job if offered, and 2,028,000 (the marginally attached) could.
Of the marginally attached, 676,000 quit looking due to discouragement and 1,353,000 stopped looking due to non-economic obligations or inability to work (though they're now available). If the long term discouraged follow the same ratio, then we're looking at around 918,000 long term discouraged.

What does Mr. Williams say? He says he's adding long term discouraged to the U-6 and getting a rate of 23.1%
The U-6, again, is unemployed plus marginally attached plus part time for economic reasons as a percent of the labor force plus marginally attached. Since he uses the seasonally adjusted U-6, we have to switch back and use the seasonally adjusted unemployment, labor force, and part time for economic reasons (marginally attached isn't seasonally adjusted)

Unemployed: 9,474,000
marginally attached: 2,028,000
part time for economic reasons: 7,544,000
Our numerator is 9,474,000+2,028,000+7,544,000 = 19,046,000
Labor Force: 155,694,000
Our denominator is 155,694,000+2,028,000 = 157,722,000
To check.....19,046,000/157,722,000=0.121 or 12.1% which is what BLS says.
But Williams says adding in long term discouraged gives 23.1%
(19,046,000+X)/(154,722,000+X) = 0.231
Solving for X......X=22,611,000

22.6 million he's adding...and that's just supposed to be long term discouraged and not all other long term marginally attached.

Do you really think that sounds right when the total not in the labor force who want a job is only 6.4 million?

Thanks for the debunking - Stephanie flaps her lips a lot, and always gets things right but-----but seldom gets much correct. It seems like just the other day she even mis-identified the high-profile, easily recognizable "Chrissy (tingles) Matthews" and...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/362957-new-research-finds-the-crookedest-states-in-the-union-2.html -pewsh!-

Republicans hate it when jobs are created and-----and the billionaire owned/controlled rightwing media and their Republican lackeys can't get off the stupid button when it comes to demonizing the president that oversaw greatest first term job creation in American history, Jimmy (job creator) Carter and-----and they went so far as to actually impeach President Bill Clinton, the president on whose watch more jobs were created than any other president In American history.

The evidence is obvious, Republicans hate-----hate job creation.




Twenty-two million jobs were created during the Clinton administration.
Job creation data for each president since 1960, courtesy Wikipedia:
Kennedy-Johnson Administration: 5.9 million
LBJ administration: 9.9 million
Nixon's first term: 6.2 million
Nixon-Ford administration: 5.1 million
Carter administration: 10.3 million
Reagan administration (both terms): 16.1 million
Bush 41 administration: 2.6 million
Clinton administration (both terms): 22.7 million
Bush 43 administration: 1.95 million

Or put another way: From 1980 to the end of the Bush 43 administration, all three Republican presidents combined produced, over a period of 20 years, two million fewer jobs than Bill Clinton managed to eke out in eight. Kennedy and Johnson managed to produce 50 percent more jobs in four years than the Bushes did in twelve. (In Bush 43's first term he produced ten thousand jobs.) And as for Carter...the Republicans portray him as a president who could do nothing right, but in his four years he managed to produce nearly as many jobs as Reagan did in his second term--10.3m for Carter, 10.8m for Reagan. Even Eisenhower, one of the few Republican presidents I happen to like, was no good at job creation. His 3.5 million jobs created over eight years were far fewer than the 5.5 million Democrat Harry Truman produced in four. In percentage of increase, Eisenhower's record is similar to Reagan's first term.

Translation: Republicans really don't do this "job creation" thing very well.

.

Unless you want to make the claim that the President is the sole factor controlling job creation and the sole factor in recession, economic shocks, changing overall economic conditions, your claim doesn't really stand up. Looking at the time periods and things going on beyond the President's control (such as the dot.com boom under Clinton...which of course was due to Al Gore inventing the internet).

Yes, of course there were policy issues that had an effect, but you're making it far too simplistic.