(09-13-2012 08:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-13-2012 08:44 AM)dcCid Wrote:  The bottom line is that even if only 1 private sector job has been created under the Obama administration - that would still be more that what was created under the Bush administration.

Actually, applying the same methodology by which Obama is claiming to have created 4 million jobs, Bush created 8 million. But when you measure one by one standard and the other by another, you can come up with false talking points like you did.

You can describe your methodology. But from when Bush took office to when he left, the number of private sector jobs dropped. And he inherited a growing jobs number. Obama inherited a rock slide as jobs were dropping by hundreds of thousand a month.

Interesting that the GOP developed a methodology and program to turn a diamond back into a piece of coal.

(09-13-2012 09:28 AM)dcCid Wrote:  And he inherited a growing jobs number.

Not true.

(09-13-2012 09:28 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(09-13-2012 08:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-13-2012 08:44 AM)dcCid Wrote:  The bottom line is that even if only 1 private sector job has been created under the Obama administration - that would still be more that what was created under the Bush administration.

Actually, applying the same methodology by which Obama is claiming to have created 4 million jobs, Bush created 8 million. But when you measure one by one standard and the other by another, you can come up with false talking points like you did.

You can describe your methodology. But from when Bush took office to when he left, the number of private sector jobs dropped. And he inherited a growing jobs number. Obama inherited a rock slide as jobs were dropping by hundreds of thousand a month.
Interesting that the GOP developed a methodology and program to turn a diamond back into a piece of coal.

Methodology is very simple. You aren't measuring Obama from the day he took office until the day he left. You are measuring Obama from the low point where things bottomed out until the high point. If you measure Bush from the low point to his subsequent high point the Bush number is 8 million. You're trying to measure Bush by one standard and Obama by another, and that's dishonest and misleadingly so.

Bush inherited an economy that stopped growing jobs and started losing them two months after he took office. 9/11 happened about the time that some turnaround would have been expected. Obama inherited an economy where jobs stopped free-falling and began to turn around two months after he took office. If you accept the idea that "employment is a trailing indicator" which the left keeps trotting out to explain the lackluster impact of "stimulus" then neither one inherited quite what you describe. Moreover, Obama had democrat supermajorities in both houses which pretty much meant he could do whatever, whereas Bush always had recalcitrant democrats with the ability to obstruct in the senate.

This is not to say Bush did well. He didn't, and I'm clearly on the record opposing what he did. It is to say that Obama did no better, if anything maybe even worse. And think about it, if you say on the one hand that Bush was the "worst president ever" and then the best defense you can offer for Obama is that "at least he's better than Bush," doesn't that leave Obama somewhere behind Millard Fillmore?

(09-13-2012 10:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Bush inherited an economy that stopped growing jobs and started losing them two months after he took office.

Actually, there were job losses the month he took office (I looked it up), as well as a few months prior. Then, as you describe, two months after he took office, losses were consistent.

All of that is with revisions as well, when Bush took office it was being reported that the economy was in recession.

(09-13-2012 08:44 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(09-12-2012 11:10 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  IOW, they've taken something someone at FOX did as spin, and spun it themselves. Pot:Kettle

As to the rest of it... I'm sure liberal news never makes mistakes

Ham - see post 16. But it is like the front page of the WAPO screaming that John Doe rapped his neighbors 12 year old daughter, and then several days later posting on page 37 a small retraction that says "never mind". Fox is the spin master.

I think CBS will challenge them for that. What you describe... a sensational headline followed by a back page retraction is pretty much SOP for all of them. I'm not defending Fox here... I'm merely pointing out that it is hypocritical to claim they are in any way alone here.

(09-13-2012 09:28 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(09-13-2012 08:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-13-2012 08:44 AM)dcCid Wrote:  The bottom line is that even if only 1 private sector job has been created under the Obama administration - that would still be more that what was created under the Bush administration.

Actually, applying the same methodology by which Obama is claiming to have created 4 million jobs, Bush created 8 million. But when you measure one by one standard and the other by another, you can come up with false talking points like you did.

You can describe your methodology. But from when Bush took office to when he left, the number of private sector jobs dropped. And he inherited a growing jobs number. Obama inherited a rock slide as jobs were dropping by hundreds of thousand a month.

Interesting that the GOP developed a methodology and program to turn a diamond back into a piece of coal.

Perfect example of spin by your side.

Choose your standards and judge them by those standards. If you use election day to end/current, Bush wins in a landslide. If you choose worst to final, they're pretty close. I don't have the exact figure in front of me, but neither fares very well.

You have chosen one methodology for one president, and another for another. That is, by definition, spin.

Do the exact opposite... measuring Bush by the standards you have for Obama, and Obama by your standards for Bush, and its 8mm Bush to basically zero. Do you think THAT is fair/accurate/balanced?

Perhaps the best comparison is start to finish for both, where Obama BARELY beats out someone the left considers the worst President "ever", and spent more than he did to accomplish it. Hardly a ringing endorsement. and before you accuse me of spin, in the alternative comparison, Obama does about half as well as Bush.

Here's a graph showing private sector job growth under Bush and Obama:



From 2003-2007 we did gain about 8 million jobs. Unfortunately, the tailspin that started in Bush's last year left him with 646,000 fewer private sector jobs than when he started.

We need to pass Obama's Jobs Act he proposed last year, which Macroeconomic Advisors estimates would have created 1.5 million jobs. Republicans can't claim Obama's policies have failed if they block his policies from being implemented.

(09-13-2012 03:10 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Here's a graph showing private sector job growth under Bush and Obama:



From 2003-2007 we did gain about 8 million jobs. Unfortunately, the tailspin that started in Bush's last year left him with 646,000 fewer private sector jobs than when he started.

We need to pass Obama's Jobs Act he proposed last year, which Macroeconomic Advisors estimates would have created 1.5 million jobs. Republicans can't claim Obama's policies have failed if they block his policies from being implemented.

Sure they can. Macroeconomic advisors also estimated that the original stimulus would keep unemployment from reaching 8%, and that the economy would be growing much more much faster than it did, BEFORE the democrats lost COngress... in fact, that was WHY they lost Congress. Now you can argue that Obama never said 8%, but his economic advisors certainly did project that. So despite how WRONG they were on numerous items, NOW you're convinced they have it right?

I mean, even a blind squirrell occassionally finds a nut. Obama is BOUND to stumble onto something that works sooner or later.


More to the point, because Obama can't take claim for private sector jobs and not take credit for public sector jobs as well.

I'm having trouble locating the data, because the "series" changed in 2003, but accourding to the BLS, NSA... When Bush took office total employment was 128,672,000 When he left, it was 131,555,000 (actually that is 1/09, so 1 month into Obama, but close enough... it certainly doesn't HELP Bush that I use 1/09)... Roughly 3mm jobs total positive. Here is where I start to lose data.... The last "official" NSA number was 12/2011 at 132,952,000. Roughly 1.5mm jobs. Since then, it appears that your NON government jobs show roughly a 500k gain. Even if we assume that the public sector gained TWICE that many jobs, which I just can't believe... that puts total employment at around 134,500,000... ALSO for a gain of 3mm jobs. Remember, that assumes 1mm new government jobs since January, so I think I'm being generous...

So if you take out all of the cherry-picking of data, either by series or by years, Obama is arguably competitve with the "worst" (according to ALL of the left, many in the middle and even some on the right) President in our history.

I am MORE than happy to let you complete and or refute my data. It came from bls.gov the current employemt series (ces). EEU 0000000001 (N) Pretty much the baseline data. No funny business. No having to define "is" to define a job, and not even bothering to debate the quality of those jobs. Until I substituted in YOUR information, it was all NSA. Given that I am assuming 1mm new jobs in government in 9 months, I don't think I need to worry about being off by much if you use SA data.

Obama's Jobs Act? Let's aim a little lower, how about a legally required budget. Haven't had one pass for 4 years.

(09-11-2012 04:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Idiots

Fox News Flubs Statistics To Make Obama’s Economic Record Look Horrible

No the real idiots are you Marxist Liberals who continue to defend Oscuma.NO HOPE IN THE DOPE!

How mad are you that a black Muslim Kenyan Socialist Critical Race Theorist is going to win reelection while overseeing the worst economy since the Great Depression? How mad is Mitt Romney?

(09-14-2012 08:53 AM)Max Power Wrote:  How mad are you that a black Muslim Kenyan Socialist Critical Race Theorist is going to win reelection while overseeing the worst economy since the Great Depression? How mad is Mitt Romney?

He's not a Kenyan Socialist.

(09-14-2012 10:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-14-2012 08:53 AM)Max Power Wrote:  How mad are you that a black Muslim Kenyan Socialist Critical Race Theorist is going to win reelection while overseeing the worst economy since the Great Depression? How mad is Mitt Romney?

He's not a Kenyan Socialist.

Yeah, not sure why he said "Socialist" when we all know he is a Communist.

Liberty thinks he is a communist. Got the hammer and sickle under Obama and everything. What I want to know is, what's Obama waiting for?

(09-14-2012 10:17 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(09-14-2012 10:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-14-2012 08:53 AM)Max Power Wrote:  How mad are you that a black Muslim Kenyan Socialist Critical Race Theorist is going to win reelection while overseeing the worst economy since the Great Depression? How mad is Mitt Romney?

He's not a Kenyan Socialist.

Yeah, not sure why he said "Socialist" when we all know he is a Communist.

Thanks for calling attention to my typo, or lapse, or brain cramp, or whatever it was.

I meant to say, "He's not a Muslim Kenyan."

(09-14-2012 11:24 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Liberty thinks he is a communist. Got the hammer and sickle under Obama and everything. What I want to know is, what's Obama waiting for?

What do you mean, what's he waiting for? What's he waiting for, for what?

To implement communism, of course.

Intrade has Obama at 65% Romney 35%. Not looking good for Mittens.

(09-13-2012 03:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-13-2012 03:10 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Here's a graph showing private sector job growth under Bush and Obama:



From 2003-2007 we did gain about 8 million jobs. Unfortunately, the tailspin that started in Bush's last year left him with 646,000 fewer private sector jobs than when he started.

We need to pass Obama's Jobs Act he proposed last year, which Macroeconomic Advisors estimates would have created 1.5 million jobs. Republicans can't claim Obama's policies have failed if they block his policies from being implemented.

Sure they can. Macroeconomic advisors also estimated that the original stimulus would keep unemployment from reaching 8%, and that the economy would be growing much more much faster than it did, BEFORE the democrats lost COngress... in fact, that was WHY they lost Congress. Now you can argue that Obama never said 8%, but his economic advisors certainly did project that. So despite how WRONG they were on numerous items, NOW you're convinced they have it right?

I mean, even a blind squirrell occassionally finds a nut. Obama is BOUND to stumble onto something that works sooner or later.


More to the point, because Obama can't take claim for private sector jobs and not take credit for public sector jobs as well.

I'm having trouble locating the data, because the "series" changed in 2003, but accourding to the BLS, NSA... When Bush took office total employment was 128,672,000 When he left, it was 131,555,000 (actually that is 1/09, so 1 month into Obama, but close enough... it certainly doesn't HELP Bush that I use 1/09)... Roughly 3mm jobs total positive. Here is where I start to lose data.... The last "official" NSA number was 12/2011 at 132,952,000. Roughly 1.5mm jobs. Since then, it appears that your NON government jobs show roughly a 500k gain. Even if we assume that the public sector gained TWICE that many jobs, which I just can't believe... that puts total employment at around 134,500,000... ALSO for a gain of 3mm jobs. Remember, that assumes 1mm new government jobs since January, so I think I'm being generous...

So if you take out all of the cherry-picking of data, either by series or by years, Obama is arguably competitve with the "worst" (according to ALL of the left, many in the middle and even some on the right) President in our history.

I am MORE than happy to let you complete and or refute my data. It came from bls.gov the current employemt series (ces). EEU 0000000001 (N) Pretty much the baseline data. No funny business. No having to define "is" to define a job, and not even bothering to debate the quality of those jobs. Until I substituted in YOUR information, it was all NSA. Given that I am assuming 1mm new jobs in government in 9 months, I don't think I need to worry about being off by much if you use SA data.

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

above data selected starting at this site:

http://www.bls.gov/data/#employment
using monthly/multiscreen

During the bush years the gov payroll (including state and local) grew by over 2 million, while private sector lost.

I would use. You used January because it works in Bush's favor, Feb or even July is probably a better starting point due to laps time.

During they bush years they were providing stimulus' and cutting taxes. They had no problem running up the deficit during good years. While removing regulation and fraud investigations that caused the current crises.

(09-14-2012 07:17 PM)dcCid Wrote:  While removing regulation and fraud investigations that caused the current crises.

Bulls**t. I doubt you can name a single regulation or fraud investigation that was removed under Bush that caused the current crisis. Not one.

(09-14-2012 08:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-14-2012 07:17 PM)dcCid Wrote:  While removing regulation and fraud investigations that caused the current crises.

Bulls**t. I doubt you can name a single regulation or fraud investigation that was removed under Bush that caused the current crisis. Not one.

the fbi warned of mtg fraud and the impeding issues in 04 or 05 - will look it up.

Barney Frank even tried to pass regulation to reduce it - bush threatened to veto it so the GOP would not pass it. It was talking about "look the other way" when passing the risk down the road.

The administration also had the GSE's purchase subprime securities from wall street to meet HUD goals that they kept raising, and told the gse's they could by liar loans and piggybacks (although frequently in structured executions versus the normal MBS route)