Can BO win reelection?

[dogtowner]

thats a good one

 

[FatherTime]

But Obama created more private sector jobs in one year than Dubya did in his whole term.

 

[Gipper]

But Obama created more private sector jobs in one year than Dubya did in his whole term.

Really? Could you please offer a credible source proving your statement?

 

[Openmind]

Really? Could you please offer a credible source proving your statement?

And here we go again! Haven't you heard about the "bikini graph?" Well, here is an updated one!

And just in case you can't read it, here is the explanation:

Fox News Sunday
CLAIM: Rep. Hensarling Claimed Democratic Policies Cause Unemployment
REP. JEB HENSARLING (R-TX): There's still millions of our fellow Americans who are out of work due to the economic policies of his party and President Obama.

FACT: When President Obama Took Office The Economy Was Shedding Hundreds Of Thousands Of Jobs Per Month
The Economy Shed Almost 8 Million Jobs Under Republican Policies Before The Recovery Act Could Affect The Economy. According to economist Robert J. Shapiro:

From December 2007 to July 2009 - the last year of the Bush second term and the first six months of the Obama presidency, before his policies could affect the economy - private sector employment crashed from 115,574,000 jobs to 107,778,000 jobs. Employment continued to fall, however, for the next six months, reaching a low of 107,107,000 jobs in December of 2009. So, out of 8,467,000 private sector jobs lost in this dismal cycle, 7,796,000 of those jobs or 92 percent were lost on the Republicans' watch or under the sway of their policies. Some 671,000 additional jobs were lost as the stimulus and other moves by the administration kicked in, but 630,000 jobs then came back in the following six months. The tally, to date: Mr. Obama can be held accountable for the net loss of 41,000 jobs (671,000 - 630,000), while the Republicans should be held responsible for the net losses of 7,796,000 jobs. [Sonecon.com, 8/10/10, emphasis added]

Based on Shapiro's research, the Washington Post's Ezra Klein created the following chart showing net job losses before and after the Recovery Act was enacted:



[Washington Post, 8/12/10]

From January 2008 Through July 2009, Economy Lost Nearly 400,000 Private Sector Jobs Per Month On Average. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data on monthly gains and losses in private sector jobs, the private sector added 4,000 jobs in January 2008. In July 2009, the sixth full month of the Obama presidency, the private sector shed 287,000 jobs. Over that 19-month span, the private sector shed 395,950 jobs per month on average, the data show.

Jan 08
4,000

Feb 08
-128,000

Mar 08
-87,000

Apr 08
-186,000

May 08
-240,000

Jun 08
-217,000

Jul 08
-265,000

Aug 08
-317,000

Sep 08
-434,000

Oct 08
-491,000

Nov 08
-787,000

Dec 08
-636,000

Jan 09
-841,000

Feb 09
-721,000

Mar 09
-787,000

Apr 09
-773,000

May 09
-326,000

Jun 09
-438,000

Jul 09
-287,000

AVG
-395,950


[BLS.gov, accessed 1/25/11]

PolitiFact: "True" That "Most Job Losses" Happened Before Obama Policies Took Effect. According to PolitiFact.com's analysis of President Obama's statement that "most of the jobs that we lost were lost before the economic policies we put in place had any effect": "Looking at BLS data on seasonally adjusted non-farm employment from December 2007, when the recession officially began, to January 2009, the month before the stimulus was enacted (a 25-month period), the jobs number declined by 4.4 million. ... When [Obama] refers to his economic policies, we presume he is referring to his main economic stimulus, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It passed in February 2009, but it took several months before the impact of its spending was felt in the economy. Job loss didn't stop, but Obama is right that it slowed down. In the 19 months from February 2009 through September 2010, the month of the most recent preliminary data, the overall job decline in the private and public sectors was 2.6 million. And the number of jobs lost per month has declined from around 700,000 a month at the beginning of the administration to months in which there were small net gains. ... 'I watched the president on Stewart's show last night, and I thought his basic point about the timing of the employment losses was correct and ought to be noncontroversial,' Gary Burtless, a labor markets expert at the centrist-to-liberal Brookings Institution said in an e-mail." [PolitiFact.com, 10/27/10, emphasis added]

FACT: Since President Obama's Policies Took Effect, The Job Market Has Turned Around
Since July 2009, Private Sector Has Moved Steadily From Monthly Job Losses To Monthly Job Gains. Below is a chart of Bureau of Labor Statistics data prepared by Political Correction showing monthly job gains and losses in the private sector, shaded blue for months after Recovery Act spending began to impact the economy, purple for months after President Obama's inauguration but before his policies could affect the economy, and red for months of job losses under Bush-era policies.


CBO: The Recovery Act Created Jobs, Lowered Unemployment, And Boosted GDP. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office:

 

[Openmind]

thats a good one

Except that it is a lie!

Obama created more jobs under his policies in the last 2 years than Bush in the whole of his 8 years.

Obama Created More Jobs In One Year Than Bush Created In Eight ... thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/01/07/.../obama-more-jobs-bush/


Obama Created More Jobs In One Year Than Bush Created In Eight
By Alex Seitz-Wald on Jan 7, 2011 at 5:30 pm

This morning, the Labor Department released its employment data for December, showing that the U.S. economy ended the year by adding 113,000 private sector jobs, knocking the unemployment rate down sharply from 9.8 percent to 9.4 percent — its lowest rate since July 2009. The “surprising drop — which was far better than the modest step-down economists had forecast — was the steepest one-month fall since 1998.” October and November’s jobs numbers were also revised upward by almost 80,000 each. Still, 14.5 million Americans remain unemployed, and jobs will have to be created much faster in coming months for the country to pull itself out of the economic doldrums.

Responding the jobs report, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) noted that President Obama and the Democratic Congress have created “more jobs in 2010 than President Bush did over eight years.”

Indeed, from February 2001, Bush’s first full month in office, through January 2009, his last, the economy added just 1 million jobs. By contrast, in 2010 alone, the economy added at least 1.1 million jobs. This chart, produced by Pelosi’s office, demonstrates the difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration on jobs:




As the Wall Street Journal noted in the last month of Bush’s term, the former president had the “worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records.” And job creation under Bush was anemic long before the recession began. Bush’s supply-side economics “fostered the weakest jobs and income growth in more than six decades,” along with “sluggish business investment and weak gross domestic product growth,” the Center for American Progress’ Joshua Picker explained. “On every major measurement” of income and employment, “the country lost ground during Bush’s two terms,” the National Journal’s Ron Brownstein observed, parsing Census data.

 

[GenSeneca]

And here we go again! Haven't you heard about the "bikini graph?" Well, here is an updated one!

Your graph starts in FY '08, at the end of Bush's second term.

Also, politicians, much less presidents, don't create jobs. If they could, there would never be unemployment.

 

[Openmind]

Your graph starts in FY '08, at the end of Bush's second term.

Also, politicians, much less presidents, don't create jobs. If they could, there would never be unemployment.

So what? This demonstrate that the job loss was under Bush, that it took him one year to loss all those jobs, and that it took Obama the same amount of time to CREATE just about the same amount of jobs that were lost under Bush's last year.

And, if you had read the "words" of explanation that went with the chart, you would have read this statement:

from February 2001, Bush’s first full month in office, through January 2009, his last, the economy added just 1 million jobs. By contrast, in 2010 alone, the economy added at least 1.1 million jobs.

So. . .let me translate for you: Obama created more jobs in 2010 ALONE than Bush created in 8 years.

And. . .if you really believe that Presidential policies do not influence job creation. . .why do you think that they influence job loss?

You can't have it both way!

 

[clarkatticus]

You guys are delusional, the only candidates from the GOP that could beat Obama are Christie and Huckabee, and they are not running. Milk Toast Mitt might be able to hold his own for half a debate but most Gop'ers vomit in their mouths every time they have to say the support him.

 

[steveox]

Any President doesnt put his hand over his heart when facing the flag shouldnt be re-elected.

Any President doesnt know how many states in America shouldnt be re-elected.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Really? Could you please offer a credible source proving your statement?

you could try watching non Fox news, its pretty well reported...you know what with New Private sector jobs added each year only offset by the losses in the Goverment sector...you know the jobs you cheer for when they get cut...

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Your graph starts in FY '08, at the end of Bush's second term.

Also, politicians, much less presidents, don't create jobs. If they could, there would never be unemployment.

realy? so the Unemployment has nothing to do with Obama...have you told the rest of the Right wingers?

No its Obamas fault for Unemployment...but if jobs are Created its not because of him, but if they are lost, its because of him.

Its amazing how your world works.

 

[PLC1]

I can't agree with anything you state.

so what else is new?

First, BJ Bubba was a notorious womenizer and he got elected 30 years after JFK did. So, your theory does NOT hold water. It only applies to Rs because the press would crucify a skirt chasing R while ignoring a D horndog, as they did with JFK and BJ Bubba.

the voters didn't know about "BJ Bubba's" womanizing until after the election. Further, as a womanizer, Clinton was a piker compared to Kennedy.

Of course, what you miss is JFK would be a conservative today. The Ds would never nominate a anti-commie hawk and tax cutter today. The D party has fallen too far into the leftist sewer, but facts are not known to some people.

Oh, I didn't miss that JFK was a conservative, certainly more of a conservative than out latest R president. Neither party is what it once was.

Second, Reagan would easily win the R nomination and the WH today just as he did in 1980. He was a consistent conservative for decades. Yes, he did do some things you lefties claim would disqualify him for the R nomination, but again this does not hold water. A progressive (Romney) is about to win the R nomination. So, once again your opinion is WRONG HEADED but it is consistent with leftist thinking.

The memory of Reagan would win the Republican nomination. Kennedy, the real one minus the womanizing, would probably win it too. The Reagan who sold arms to Iran and bailed out the S and L's would not win any nomination. We "leftists" remember the real Reagan.

Oh, yes, give us a candidate who is like the legendary Reagan or the real Kennedy (without the womanizing). We seriously need a real leader today.

 

[Gipper]

so what else is new?




the voters didn't know about "BJ Bubba's" womanizing until after the election. Further, as a womanizer, Clinton was a piker compared to Kennedy.



Oh, I didn't miss that JFK was a conservative, certainly more of a conservative than out latest R president. Neither party is what it once was.



The memory of Reagan would win the Republican nomination. Kennedy, the real one minus the womanizing, would probably win it too. The Reagan who sold arms to Iran and bailed out the S and L's would not win any nomination. We "leftists" remember the real Reagan.

Oh, yes, give us a candidate who is like the legendary Reagan or the real Kennedy (without the womanizing). We seriously need a real leader today.

Once again you get much wrong, but there is some light of truth in your post...just a little.

Why did the voters NOT KNOW about BJ's womenizing? Any guesses? Yet, here we are debating some silly allegations about Cain BEFORE the primaries have BEGUN. BJ was womenizing for decades before he ran for president.

We can agree on JFK being a conservative now. That is one thing we can agree on. But, BJ being a piker to JFK's womenizing is meaningless. They were both womenizers and the lib press protected them. See the double standard....yet?

Claiming Reagan could NOT get the nomination TODAY by citing what he did as president, is completely nonsensical. How could he win the nomination today if voters get to evaluate his actions as PRESIDENT? You can only evaluate his record BEFORE he became president as a guide for winning the nomination TODAY. Does that make sense to you? Oh God!!!

And, yes we need another Reagan or JFK. But, sadly that just ain't going to happen. One party is communist and the other party is progressive today, which is why we are in so much trouble. If we had followed conservative policies rather than progressive policies, we would be in great shape.

 

[clarkatticus]

Every station I turned to reported Clinton's womanizing on a daily basis and the BS that went with it. It is reasonable to assume most stations did not cover it as often as FOX would have, but cover it they did. I still don't give a crap if he screwed every woman that said yes in the White House and I don't condemn Cain for being accused of sexual harrassment, it is a common enough charge that many execs have to face it at one time or another. Late breaking news---It was Perry who dropped the dime on him, what a pussy

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Every station I turned to reported Clinton's womanizing on a daily basis and the BS that went with it. It is reasonable to assume most stations did not cover it as often as FOX would have, but cover it they did. I still don't give a crap if he screwed every woman that said yes in the White House and I don't condemn Cain for being accused of sexual harrassment, it is a common enough charge that many execs have to face it at one time or another. Late breaking news---It was Perry who dropped the dime on him, what a pussy

They live in a dream world where Jenifer Flowers seems to have vanished of the face of the earth...of course there was the whole issue of Consensual vs Sexual Harassment...

If Video of Cain came out ripping a womans shirt off at a meeting came out, they would blame the left cry its because he is black and his support would go up....they don't care...