There are now fewer jobs than when Bush took office

[Southern 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.

[Southern 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.

[Southern 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.

[Southern 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.

[Southern 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.