There are now fewer jobs than when Bush took office

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

After January 2001, there were 132.469 million
After April 2009, there were 132.414 million

That's a net loss of 55,000 jobs.

As for private sector jobs
After January 2001, there were 111.634 million
After April 2009, there were 109.801 million

That's a loss of 1.833 million.

[memphis]

At the same time we have 25 million more people. Not all are of working age, but still that's messed up.

[Tender Branson]

Why are you extending the timeframe to April?  Shouldn't it just be to January, when . . . oh . . .

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What is your point. Its a deep recession and when you keep having 600,000+ job loses a month your going to blow through all the gains made in recent years especially when you consider only 2 million jobs were created throughout the Bush years. We have already lost over 5 million jobs since Dec 2007 and that number is likely to grow in the coming months.

[??????????]

Want Jobs? Vote Republican.

[opebo]

States, job creation was extremely anemic during the Bush presidency, and job destruction has been enormous in the current depression it created.  Your statement is truly comical and you are ridiculous.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Want Jobs? Vote Republican.

Look at Michigan - we reelected Granholm and look where that got us.

[Lunar]

there's  this famous image that gets posted on forums by Democratic partisans, no clue about how true it is

[??????????]

That's exactly why I said what I said, duh.

[opebo]

That's exactly why I said what I said, duh.

The problem with your quip is that it only reveals your ignorance, States. 

[??????????]

That's exactly why I said what I said, duh.

The problem with your quip is that it only reveals your ignorance, States. 

I know, I should be bowing to an economic genius like you.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

there's  this famous image that gets posted on forums by Democratic partisans, no clue about how true it is

The problem with the image is that under the FDR the Unemployement rate went from a peak of 25% to a low of pratically 1% because of WW2. There was a huge Tax cut at the beginning of the Johnson administration that was proposed by JFK and that would have had more impact then the Great society which was only implace for what 3 years of LBJ's term(When were those programs implemented 1966 or 1967 I doubt it was the year they were passsed  which was 1965) and was underfunded duee to Vietnam. I also don't understand why Ike is so far down, his policies weren't that different from the Democrats, maybe he lost most of his gains in 1957-58 recession. Carter is probably getting credit for most of the jobs created during the inflationary recovery after the 1973-1974 recession, Ford got the credit for the first part of that recovery.

[opebo]

The problem with the image is that under the FDR the Unemployement rate went from a peak of 25% to a low of pratically 1% because of WW2.

No, because of 'government intervention' in the economy.  Redistribution works.  Tax cuts cannot do anything to rectify the essential problem of capitalism - rather, they exacerbate it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

there's  this famous image that gets posted on forums by Democratic partisans, no clue about how true it is

It's very true, except that the Dubya numbers are a bit out of date. He's still worse than his daddy. You can check most of the numbers on the BLS site if you want to.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The problem with the image is that under the FDR the Unemployement rate went from a peak of 25% to a low of pratically 1% because of WW2.

No, because of 'government intervention' in the economy.  Redistribution works.  Tax cuts cannot do anything to rectify the essential problem of capitalism - rather, they exacerbate it.

Yes but without ww2 he never would have been able to justify that much spending nor support that much spending, nor even enough to spend that much money on.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The problem with the image is that under the FDR the Unemployement rate went from a peak of 25% to a low of pratically 1% because of WW2.

No, because of 'government intervention' in the economy.  Redistribution works.  Tax cuts cannot do anything to rectify the essential problem of capitalism - rather, they exacerbate it.

Yes but without ww2 he never would have been able to justify that much spending nor support that much spending, nor even enough to spend that much money on.

The number of jobs in this country increased by 34% under FDR's first two terms.

[??????????]

FDRs jobs were very short term in nature. Most people who became employed because of the New Steal didn't gain much long term prosperity.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

FDRs jobs were very short term in nature. Most people who became employed because of the New Steal didn't gain much long term prosperity.

You're right, they should have just remained unemployed.  Prosperity in this country was clearly not any better in 1953 than 1933.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The problem with the image is that under the FDR the Unemployement rate went from a peak of 25% to a low of pratically 1% because of WW2.

No, because of 'government intervention' in the economy.  Redistribution works.  Tax cuts cannot do anything to rectify the essential problem of capitalism - rather, they exacerbate it.

Yes but without ww2 he never would have been able to justify that much spending nor support that much spending, nor even enough to spend that much money on.

The number of jobs in this country increased by 34% under FDR's first two terms.

I never denied that fact. I said was that even with that 34% increase in jobs the unemployment rate was still 15% at the end of his second term. By 1944 it was effectively 0% b/c he got the justification to spend on the levels necessary to end the war. Is that enough for you or do I need to get even more specific. My original point was that FDR's rating is inflated due to the effects of ww2 and thus it is misleading to say that 5.3% on the chart can be achieved under any Dem administration w/o those circumstances.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The problem with the image is that under the FDR the Unemployement rate went from a peak of 25% to a low of pratically 1% because of WW2.

No, because of 'government intervention' in the economy.  Redistribution works.  Tax cuts cannot do anything to rectify the essential problem of capitalism - rather, they exacerbate it.

Yes but without ww2 he never would have been able to justify that much spending nor support that much spending, nor even enough to spend that much money on.

The number of jobs in this country increased by 34% under FDR's first two terms.

I never denied that fact. I said was that even with that 34% increase in jobs the unemployment rate was still 15% at the end of his second term. By 1944 it was effectively 0% b/c he got the justification to spend on the levels necessary to end the war. Is that enough for you or do I need to get even more specific. My original point was that FDR's rating is inflated due to the effects of ww2 and thus it is misleading to say that 5.3% on the chart can be achieved under any Dem administration w/o those circumstances.

If he had retired after 2 terms, he would have still had 4% without WW2.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The problem with the image is that under the FDR the Unemployement rate went from a peak of 25% to a low of pratically 1% because of WW2.

No, because of 'government intervention' in the economy.  Redistribution works.  Tax cuts cannot do anything to rectify the essential problem of capitalism - rather, they exacerbate it.

Yes but without ww2 he never would have been able to justify that much spending nor support that much spending, nor even enough to spend that much money on.

The number of jobs in this country increased by 34% under FDR's first two terms.

I never denied that fact. I said was that even with that 34% increase in jobs the unemployment rate was still 15% at the end of his second term. By 1944 it was effectively 0% b/c he got the justification to spend on the levels necessary to end the war. Is that enough for you or do I need to get even more specific. My original point was that FDR's rating is inflated due to the effects of ww2 and thus it is misleading to say that 5.3% on the chart can be achieved under any Dem administration w/o those circumstances.

If he had retired after 2 terms, he would have still had 4% without WW2.

Just as I thought and that is more in line with LBJ's numbers and too be expected considering where the things were when he started.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Without WWII, FDR's New Deal wouldn't have decreased the unemployment rate that much, and (as was already stated) most of those jobs were very short term.

[opebo]

I've got news for you lads, most jobs are very short term - particularly 'private sector' jobs.  Basically such jobs are totally at the whim of the owner.

[RomneyGekko Situation Hairgel]

Want Jobs? Vote Republican.

So tax cuts for wealth create jobs?  I fail to see your logic.  The policies of the past 8 years prior to 3 months ago were complete rewards towards whording wealth, lobbyist concessions in oil and pharmaceuticals, not creating jobs.  Bill Clinton kinda had the right idea, but his deregulation of banks hurt us badly.

[??????????]

Hmm, I got a tax cut under the Bush plan. I fail to see how I'm wealthy.