Obama will create millions of jobs

Huh? I guess the One can now create millions of jobs out of the thin air according to this lit piece that was dropped off at my door. It was not paid by the Obama campaign, but come on, Obama cannot create these jobs. If you are spreading the wealth, there won't be anyone to create these jobs.

Oh and the references are quite astonishing. How about and try to choose references that are not a part of Obama's Web site or speeches?
------

AttachmentSize
obama-millions.jpg77.46 KB
another-one.jpg68.69 KB
No votes yet

these remind of all of the Chuck Norris fables of a year or so ago...'Cept those were jokes!

It'll be interesting, if Obama gets elected. He has whipped up such a strong fervor, that when he can't deliver all he's promised (much less the mountains of hyperbole others heap upon him), what the backlash will be.

As a note, McCain can't deliver what he promises, either, so I'm not trying to compare the two. No president in recent memory has.

Webby, there were over 22 million new jobs created during the Clinton administration. Obama's economic plan is similar to Clinton, in relation to taxes

Pink Slip
A "threat to our political system"

Pink Slip

when did the economy start to improve? The quarter before Clinton took office. Clinton enjoyed the fruits of the Reagan era. You forgot to leave out this important fact.

GDP growth::

According to the following Bureau of Labor and Statistics document, there were 10 million jobs created under the Bush administration from 2001-2007.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf

Learn how to read data Webby. Bush created 4.8 million jobs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

So that's:
Clinton 22.7 million jobs
Bush 4.8 million jobs

Pink Slip
A "threat to our political system"

Pink Slip

Any user can figure it out.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf

There is a publicly edited wiki article or the real data. I stick with the real data in this instance. The numbers are not even the same in the data vs what is in the wiki article.

Also all of the charts and data show the economy has continued to whiz along. Of course the stats have not come out for the recent quarter, but things still are strong. Not really Herbert Hoover.

The other thing, is even if Obama wins, he will not have the same situation as Clinton. No fundamentals have changed and the same behavior will continue, abuse and all. 93 is way different than 09 and any president will need to deal with the problems, which have yet to been dealt with. Everyone was bailed out. Why change?

I would love to hear your response on the growth that started in 92.

since the Bush administration has created "millions" of jobs, maybe we should continue it. Better to stay with a known than an unknown without much experience who says he wants to spread the wealth.

The wiki article references cold hard numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Here's where the 4.8 million number comes from. Even in the chart you provided, there were more than twice as many jobs created in Clinton's 2 terms.

Pink Slip
A "threat to our political system"

Pink Slip

but everyone you can just download the table from below and do your own math:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf

Try this link. You just have to change the beginning year to 2001.

132,469,000 jobs when Bush took office
137,318,000 jobs through last month

Pink Slip
A "threat to our political system"

Pink Slip

Oh, come on. Can't you get past your party affiliation to at least give credit where it's due, even once?

Bill Clinton's two-term, eight-year economic success story was all because of Reaganomics? If you believe that, you're hitting the happy Kool Aide even harder than usual.

No 'job creation' figures are complete without also looking at unemployment rates. For the eight-year span of Clinton, besides his 22 million or whatever jobs created, the unemployment figures were: 6.9, 6.1, 5.6, 5.4, 4.9, 4.5, 4.2, 4.0. A decrease every single year of his presidency.

If 'the 'fruits of the Reagan years' were so sustaining under Bush One, why was he (Bush) shown the door and asked not to let it him in in the ass in the '92 election loss to Clinton? Because the unemployment figures for the two proceeding years were 6.8 and 7.5.

In some repects Clinton was fortunate because his years also coincided with the explosion in information technology but the numbers are what they are and the guy sitting behind the big desk gets the credit.

For once, try applying your 'fairness' doctrine to yourself.

see by the chart above, there is party affiliation then facts. Facts show things turned around in 92 and Clinton rode the tide.

Clinton 'rode the tide' for eight years? No credit whatsoever for sustained growth, decreasing unemployment and lowering the national debt?

I hope you people get your just desserts on Tuesday. You're a complete joke.

You're right Webby, Clinton's economic success was because of Reagan. (haha) And I'm sure Obama's economic success will be traced back to GWB, in your mind.

Pink Slip
A "threat to our political system"

Pink Slip

Seriously, HOW does a President "create jobs"?
I really want to know why people think a President can "create jobs".

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

Chris, if you were to look at the Wikipedia article Pink Slip cited instead of dismissing it out-of-hand, the data it uses is directly FROM THE BLS. Directly pulled from it. And it supports Pink Slip's statement. I wonder where the discrepancy between data in the two lies? The Wikipedia chart looks at total non-farm jobs, and I wonder if some of the discrepancy lies there? I'd have to dig around more to ferret out other reasons.

So, even going with Chris's BLS table, 10 million vs. 22 million is a significant difference. It was more during Clinton's administration than during Reagan's and Bush I's administrations combined. Take out of it what you will.

Facts show things turned around in 92 and Clinton rode the tide. Is that a joke (seriously, I'm asking that question, are you kidding, if so, then disregard the next bit)? Clinton, who saw the longest period of economic expansion, just rode the Republican tide, after inheriting staggering debt and coming out of a negative period of GDP? One year does not a turnaround make - the economy didn't remarkably just recover. It's not just that simple. And if you can just ride the trend, then what explains the last 7 years?

Why dismiss the economic success of Clinton's administration? Clinton's administration did a lot of wonderful things for our economy, including looking at *gasp* balancing the federal budget, something the Republican party is allergic to doing. People did *well* during the nineties, by and large. And Chris, you're dead-on: the situation is different now, there is no looming tech explosion wave to ride (good point pink slip), so the next presidency can't be judged by the party affiliation of the past. Green technologies might be the next wave? What else? And will the next candidate invest in "it" enough to create a mainstream industry that the American public can benefit from?

Looking at job creation under presidencies (pulled from the BLS data, btw, in the Wikipedia article), it's interesting.
JOB GROWTH FOR DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS.
Since Truman's election in 1948, Democrats have occupied the White House for 24 years, and Republicans for 36. In Democratic years, according the the chart above, job growth per year has been 2.26 million; and in Republican years, 1.07 million.

It seems that questions about Obama creating jobs is answered - jobs will be created under his administration. And they will be created under McCain. Important questions might be how many, in what sectors, what types, are they sustainable, etc.

Playing around with the BLS labor data chart, looking at all levels of governmental employees, it's interesting. During the Reagan era, 1 million gvt. jobs were added, under Bush I - .8 million (for 4 years), under Clinton - 1.6 million, under Bush - 1.5 million (as of last year). When comparing civilian job growth vs. governmental job growth, Clinton's administration saw probably between 90-95% of the growth in the civilian sector. I don't get where Democrats are about big government and Republicans aren't?

Our lovable webmaster is in complete and total party-hack mode, parroting all the conservative issue-points now that we're two days from election.

It's the same load of manure as when I came out of church services this morning, only to find flyers on all the cars in the lot, from some 'Christian Alliance' yada-yada, 'advising' us all how to vote based on their perceived moral values. What a 'Christian' thing to do for Sunday worshippers.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.