United States Job Gains Per President [Pic]

Submitted by: fancylad 4 years ago

Clinton still gettin" his.
There are 37 comments:
Male 36,500
[quote] And DAY ONE was Jan 20th.[/quote]

YES @HG! That is what the chart says! From Inaguration onwards = DUH!

It is YOU trying to "spin Obama" that has troubles with comprehension...
0
Reply
Male 2,424
I think this is why the Clinton endorsement nearly single handedly won O` the election...
0
Reply
Male 36,500
[quote]Yes dips.hit. And DAY ONE was Jan 20th. So you can`t give him credit for ALL the jobs lost in January. He wasn`t president for most of January.[/quote]

FINE! I`ll agree to that! It`s entirely consistant with what I`ve been saying all along, NO PROBLEM!
818 - 2/3 = 278.
You save 540K jobs, which means Obama lost 877 - 540 = 337,000 jobs LOST!
STILL NOT 1 million gained...
Please! Feel free to argue some more! MY position gets stronger and stronger every time you open your "pie-hole".

@tatripp: When jobs go down? It`s someone else`s fault. When jobs go UP? It`s because Obama is so wonderful!
Opposite for Bush, according to @HG and the MSM...
0
Reply
Male 1,196
@mrbrainiac2u
Woah woah woah woah...
Don`t say that right wingers believe that the ends justify the means. While some might, certainly most liberals do. Most liberals do not think abortion is good but they support the woman`s right to chose. They like to tax the rich at much higher rates than the middle class. Bill Clinton lied under oath and also lied to the American people. Many republicans act as if an end justifies the means, but plenty of democrats do too.
0
Reply
Male 1,196
I am anti Obama but i`m sick of politicians talking about creating new jobs. There job is not to create new jobs. We, the people, are supposed to create jobs, but we need a good job climate to create these jobs. Stop wasting butt loads of money on green government funded jobs and let the people decide what jobs are important and necessary.
0
Reply
Male 1,196
@mrbrainiac2u
Woah woah woah woah...
Don`t say that right wingers believe that the ends justify the means. While some might, certainly most liberals do. Most liberals do not think abortion is good but they support the woman`s right to chose. They like to tax the rich at much higher rates than the middle class. Bill Clinton lied under oath and also lied to the American people. Many republicans act as if an end justifies the means, but plenty of democrats do too.
0
Reply
Male 132
Cheers to the next 4 years of partisan, unproductive governance.
0
Reply
Male 7,922
5Cats

"TAH-DAH! @HG, srsly, what is tis graphic about? It`s about job numbers on DAY ONE of a PotUS`s term! "

Yes dips.hit. And DAY ONE was Jan 20th. So you can`t give him credit for ALL the jobs lost in January. He wasn`t president for most of January.

This is so basic. I swear to god. I`m trying to be nice but you sound like you are functionally retarded.
0
Reply
Male 36,500
[quote]Go ahead, now MOVE the goalposts, you ALWAYS do![/quote]
It was only a matter of time:

[quote]Even YOU can`t give Obama credit for Jan 2009...[/quote]
TAH-DAH! @HG, srsly, what is tis graphic about? It`s about job numbers on DAY ONE of a PotUS`s term! At what point is a sitting President actually responsible? You CANNOT just pull some arbitrary date out of your arse and wave it around! But that`s what you do! Only for ONE side of course!
This is NOT about "from some date I pick onwards" no matter HOW MUCH you`d like to move the goalposts to support your BHO...

Facts: deal with them. Goalposts are not built with wheels on the bottom...

[quote]We have been discussing it. I gave 3 points.[/quote]
November 06, 2012 2:09:36 PM
O really? Your "three points" in no way, shape or form, address the issues I`ve brought up, nor the mistakes you continue to make.
Typical.
0
Reply
Male 24
Funny how you can only get the half truth from folks leaning to the right. They`re of the mindset that the end justifies the means. Thank god the majority(ie last nights election results)of us are smart enough not to be fooled by this juvenile self centered bull sh*t. Sour Grapes...
0
Reply
Male 7,922
5Cats

"You admit you KNOW what the graphs say, and I linked them directly in any case, but you refuse to discuss it?"

We have been discussing it. I gave 3 points. Only one of them was that posting the chart with no axis was retarded.

"You still haven`t explained why YOUR link shows a LOSS of 877K jobs, not a gain of over 1 million, which is what you claim. "

Even YOU can`t give Obama credit for Jan 2009 since he was only president for the last bit of the month. I just added them up and got a net gain of: 194,000.

I`ve already told you that I blame Obama`s first year on Bush. You really think any president makes a difference day 1? They are still dealing with all the previous administration`s policies. Since Jan, 2010 there is a net gain of: 4,436,000.

So after Obama spent the first year pulling out of the Bush economic nose dive he has added 4.4 Million jobs. Pretty good, eh?
0
Reply
Male 36,500
@HG: So rather than, lets say, address the data? Address the issue? Talk about how epic your fail was?
YOU`D rather talk about trivial, non-important aestetic details!

This isn`t a PHD paper! There`s no "bonus marks" for tidy handwriting!

You admit you KNOW what the graphs say, and I linked them directly in any case, but you refuse to discuss it?

AND IT`S ME you accuse of not "understanding basic things."

You still haven`t explained why YOUR link shows a LOSS of 877K jobs, not a gain of over 1 million, which is what you claim.

You still haven`t explained how the increase or decrease in overall jobs IS NOT RELATED to job growth %. (JGP = the measure of... wait fo it... how much the overall job numbers go up or down!)

Totally UN-related! It`s like saying a platapus is... a platapus! Crazy talk!
0
Reply
Male 7,922
5Cats

"@HG: Oh where to begin:
#1 I provided the direct link, go look for yourself."

I don`t need to. I know the data. I`ve been posting it here for 6 months.

"#2 It`s from YOUR linked site, so if it`s wrong YOU are wrong."

It isn`t wrong, but the chart you posted, without dates, makes it look as if that chart is Obama`s performance when in fact most of it happened under Bush.

"#3 If you can`t tell the direction of the graphs? Adding the numbers won`t help."

1. it is only a change in 2% but without the numbers it looks like a MASSIVE drop and 2. without the dates it doesn`t show that a lot of that unemployment raise happened under Bush.
0
Reply
Male 2,417
@Gerry

I support that Bill (seeing as how i`m not a citizen)
0
Reply
Male 36,500
[quote]2. Posting charts with no axis is f.ucking retarded yes?[/quote]
@HG: Oh where to begin:
#1 I provided the direct link, go look for yourself.
#2 It`s from YOUR linked site, so if it`s wrong YOU are wrong.
#3 If you can`t tell the direction of the graphs? Adding the numbers won`t help.

I`m sorry YOUR site didn`t post well here, GOOD THING I LINKED THEM EH?

[quote]Job creation is how many jobs an economy added period. Job growth % is how many jobs an economy added compared to how many jobs it has.[/quote]
FIRST: @HG makes a wild statement with NO reference and NO link.
Then he calls me names.
THEN when I ask him what HE is refering to: he calls me nasty names.
Then @HG claims that "jobs added " have NOTHING TO DO with "job growth"
Even though one measures job growth by... counting the jobs added (or lost)!

Amazing!
HG Claims 1 million added jobs, LINKS to a site showing 877K LOST jobs. Claims vi
0
Reply
Male 3,057
Unemployment numbers from six months ago?
0
Reply
Male 37,888

The farther back you go the less this is relevant.
It didn`t matter in the 60s & 70s `cause we all had jobs. The USA manufactured things back then. And we were complaining about our foreign oil dependance being an astromical 10%!!!!

Today, I want a constitutional ammendmant that requires any and all citizens to have sex with Bill Clinton as long as he runs the economy.
0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote]been going down ever since[/quote]

It`s not really a plus if people are leaving the labor market.
0
Reply
Female 1,803
This may sound like a typical conspiracy theory, but I seriously think many companies aren`t doing any major hiring until they see how the election turns out and what new tax laws are going to be in effect.
0
Reply
Male 7,922
5Cats

"Actual Unemployment numbers."

Since you posted a chart with no axis, you do realize that Obama came into office in the middle of that skyrocketing unemployment trend right? It peaked his first year in office and has been going down ever since.
0
Reply
Male 7,922
5Cats

"What`s left? "job creation" which is the exact same thing as Job Growth %."

You CAN`T be that dense.

Job creation is how many jobs an economy added period. Job growth % is how many jobs an economy added compared to how many jobs it has.

So if I add 10,000 jobs to an economy with 10,000 jobs and to an economy with 10,000,000 jobs, according to you the job growth % is the same?

This really is basic 3rd grade stuff here.
0
Reply
Male 7,922
5Cats

1. You didn`t answer WTF you were talking about with "Percentage Growth is NOT a valid indicator!"? Did you read the chart incorrectly?

2. Posting charts with no axis is f.ucking retarded yes?

3. Yes. The BLS is a fantastic source for raw data. I post it all the time, you obviously don`t usually actually read my links.
0
Reply
Male 36,500
[quote]WTF are you even talking about?[/quote]

@HG: I`ll ask you the same: WTF were you talking about?
"Best since 2007" Best WHAT?
Best increase in the # of jobs, correct?
= Best JOB GROWTH %
Yes or No?

Is the Unemployment % better than 2007 = NO!
Is the Labor Participation % better = NO!

What`s left? "job creation" which is the exact same thing as Job Growth %.

[quote]This is why we can`t have an intelligent reasonable debate.[/quote]
I agree 100% @HG! This IS why; because you are incapable of it.
0
Reply
Male 36,500
From Your Link!



Labor Participation Rate.

Again, Your Link!


Actual Unemployment numbers.

Nice website! Bookmarking it!
0
Reply
Male 7,922
5Cats

"Percentage Growth is NOT a valid indicator!"

This is why we can`t have an intelligent reasonable debate. Because you don`t understand basic things. I haven`t mentioned percentage growth once. My link doesn`t mention percentage growth. The chart doesn`t mention percentage growth.

WTF are you even talking about?
0
Reply
Male 36,500
[quote]No it isn`t. The last few months are the best since jan 2007.[/quote]
@HG: That`s bull=shiite and you know it! Percentage Growth is NOT a valid indicator! Overall % and Labor Participation trump % Growth EVERY TIME.
You KNOW this!

Your chart, as usual, supports my claim: if I bothered to add up all the numbers? Obama = tiny job creation...
I added: 887,000 jobs LOST thus far under Obama.
Doesn`t take into account population growth, which would make the % worse...

Go ahead, now MOVE the goalposts, you ALWAYS do!
0
Reply
Male 1,931
Because the President just has a bag of jobs under his desk he`s hoarding all for himself.

The Republican viewpoint is to have little to no government intervention in the capital sector, so how are they supposed to influence the capital sector again?
0
Reply
Male 7,922
5Cats

"HEY! @HolyGod!!! Where is your "Obama created MORE jobs than Bush" Mantra now? Your WHINEY attempts at "nit picking" cause me MUCH amusement! Especially since you have ONE rule for Obama, and a DIFFERENT RULE for Bush... "

I`m not nitpicking. I look at the data. Look for yourself. I provided a link. See the chart since Obama was elected?
0
Reply
Male 7,922
5Cats

"But it`s still true! lolz! "

No it isn`t. The last few months are the best since jan 2007.
0
Reply
Male 36,500
THIEF! I offered this months ago!

But it`s still true! lolz!

HEY! @HolyGod!!! Where is your "Obama created MORE jobs than Bush" Mantra now? Your WHINEY attempts at "nit picking" cause me MUCH amusement! Especially since you have ONE rule for Obama, and a DIFFERENT RULE for Bush...

Also: Since the "job participation" rate has actually FALLEN since May? It`s even worse than this chart depicts... (for Obama, that is)

Happy to oblige @canusuck...
0
Reply
Male 7,922
BTW. Why the f.uck would you post something current as of May, 2012? We have current data. Not counting the last 5 months of job growth skews the s.hit out of this.

That excludes 824,000 jobs added under Obama.

So the number is not .1 million it is around a million.
0
Reply
Male 808
I smell a 5Cats opinion in 3...2...1...
0
Reply
Male 7,922
Yes. Look at this chart:

http://tinyurl.com/3non4n6

Been getting better since the day he took office.

He came in with a giant hole. Jan 2009 lost 818,000 jobs, Feb 2009 lost 724,000 jobs, and Mar 2009 lost 799,000 jobs.

Been adding jobs since Mar 2010.

Things have finally significantly turned around adding 192,000 jobs in Aug, 148,000 in Sep, and 171,000 in Oct.

The last thing we should do is turn back now.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
Haha, amusing. But this sort of business is always misleading as the economy doesn`t have convenient starting and ending points that coincide with presidential terms and what not.

For instance, Bill Clinton was a good president, but his numbers are always inflated. This is because he began his term near the low of a recession and ended at the very height of a rather large bubble that burst as Bush came into power.

Also, we`ve added another 150 million people since the beginning of this.
0
Reply
Male 3,745
well with all the hookers he was bangin`...
0
Reply
Male 1,178
Whilst this may be true, the current president is certainly not the only contributing factor. It`s not even the main contributing factor. So this is pretty much bullpoo...

I say this having more or less no bias towards any current presidential candidates.
0
Reply
Male 19,865
Link: United States Job Gains Per President [Pic] [Rate Link] - Clinton still gettin` his.
0
Reply