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.

[○∙◄☻¥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It's very true, except that the Dubya numbers are a bit out of date.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.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[○∙◄☻¥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.