Every Single Job Since 2000 Has Been Wiped Out

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

...and then some. And those silly, ignorant Fox News watchers think the stimulus has failed. Where do they get these ideas?

MORT ZUCKERMAN: The Great Recession has now earned the dubious right of being compared to the Great Depression.

In the face of the most stimulative fiscal and monetary policies in our history, we have experienced the loss of over 7 million jobs, wiping out every job gained since the year 2000.

From the moment the Obama administration came into office, there have been no net increases in full-time jobs, only in part-time jobs. This is contrary to all previous recessions. Employers are not recalling the workers they laid off from full-time employment.

The real job losses are greater than the estimate of 7.5 million. They are closer to 10.5 million, as 3 million people have stopped looking for work.

Equally troublesome is the lower labor participation rate; some 5 million jobs have vanished from manufacturing, long America’s greatest strength.

Just think: Total payrolls today amount to 131 million, but this figure is lower than it was at the beginning of the year 2000, even though our population has grown by nearly 30 million

[ugonow]

It is Obamas fault that every job since 2000 was wiped out by 2009?

[ugonow]

And to be fair...you should point out when it was we reached the point of losing every job created since 2000 and when private sector job creation started up again.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 21, 2011 11:11:19 GMT -5 ugonow said:

It is Obamas fault that every job since 2000 was wiped out by 2009?

Yes. Under Obama ONLY part-time jobs have been added. Numerous people have given up. This is Obamanomics-- that's why...

From the moment the Obama administration came into office, there have been no net increases in full-time jobs, only in part-time jobs. This is contrary to all previous recessions.

This means Obama has accomplished the impossible: He's actually got a record WORSE than Jimmy Carter.

[ugonow]

It is Obamas fault that every job since 2000 was wiped out by 2009?



Yes. Under Obama ONLY part-time jobs have been added. Numerous people have given up. This is Obamanomics-- that's why...

Obama came into office in late Jan of 2009.By that time every job created since 2000 had been lost and it was his fault.

[ugonow]

Job growth under Bush was worst since WWII
Jacksonville Business Journal - by G. Scott Thomas
Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2009, 10:01am EST

President George W. Bush will leave office Tuesday with the worst employment-growth record of any president since World War II, according to a new analysis by Bizjournals.

The nation’s job base grew at an annual rate of 0.28 percent during Bush’s eight years as president – by far the slowest pace for any of the 11 presidents in the postwar era, according to Bizjournals. Bizjournals is the online media arm of American City Business Journals American City Business Journals Follow this company , The Business Review's parent company.

The previous low had been set by Bush’s father, George H.W. Bush, with an annual job-growth rate of 0.59 percent. The elder Bush served between 1989 and 1993.

Bizjournals used seasonally adjusted data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics to calculate employment-growth rates for the administrations of all presidents since Harry Truman. Each president’s record was based on a comparison of job totals in the final full month served by his predecessor and his own final month. George W. Bush’s span ran from December 2000, when nonfarm employment totaled 132.5 million, to December 2008, when it reached 135.5 million.

The administration with the strongest growth rate since World War II was that of Lyndon Johnson, who served between November 1963 and January 1969. Employment increased at an annual pace of 3.74 percent during that period.

Bizjournals also looked at five subsets of job growth, with the younger President Bush finishing

[ugonow]

politicalirony.com/2010/02/06/jobs-lost-bush-v-obama/

[Deleted]

Jun 21, 2011 13:17:26 GMT -5 ugonow said:

It is Obamas fault that every job since 2000 was wiped out by 2009?



Yes. Under Obama ONLY part-time jobs have been added. Numerous people have given up. This is Obamanomics-- that's why...

Obama came into office in late Jan of 2009.By that time every job created since 2000 had been lost and it was his fault.

Who didn't know that Bush's inability to effect a positive net job growth was Obama's fault?

No net job growth under Bush... oh wait, sorry, that should read NO private sector job growth under Bush... he did manage a few public sector jobs...

[Mkitty is pro kitty]

no net increases in full-time jobs,

Under Obama ONLY part-time jobs have been added.

LOL, I'm a liberal, and I know the difference between net and gross.

No net job growth under Bush...

Obama created more jobs in one year than Bush did 8.

"WHEN ONE YEAR BEATS EIGHT"
www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_01/027440.php

ignorant Fox News watchers think the stimulus has failed

Like how Perry used his to plug up the deficit? Is that a success or failure? I'd love to hear a Conservative talk his way out of that one.

It was a success! ... so what Obama did was successful?
It was a failure! ... so what Rick Perry the Conservative hero from Texas did was a failure?

[ugonow]

Can you imagine what Perry's deficit would be without all those stimulus funds he used to shore it up? More than the 27 BILLION it is now.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 21, 2011 11:01:23 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

...and then some. And those silly, ignorant Fox News watchers think the stimulus has failed. Where do they get these ideas?

MORT ZUCKERMAN: The Great Recession has now earned the dubious right of being compared to the Great Depression.

In the face of the most stimulative fiscal and monetary policies in our history, we have experienced the loss of over 7 million jobs, wiping out every job gained since the year 2000.

From the moment the Obama administration came into office, there have been no net increases in full-time jobs, only in part-time jobs. This is contrary to all previous recessions. Employers are not recalling the workers they laid off from full-time employment.

The real job losses are greater than the estimate of 7.5 million. They are closer to 10.5 million, as 3 million people have stopped looking for work.

Equally troublesome is the lower labor participation rate; some 5 million jobs have vanished from manufacturing, long America’s greatest strength.

Just think: Total payrolls today amount to 131 million, but this figure is lower than it was at the beginning of the year 2000, even though our population has grown by nearly 30 million

given that only 1.1M jobs were created under Bush, the worst job growth record since Hoover, this was a fairly low hurdle to clear.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 21, 2011 12:38:00 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jun 21, 2011 11:11:19 GMT -5 ugonow said:

It is Obamas fault that every job since 2000 was wiped out by 2009?

Yes. Under Obama ONLY part-time jobs have been added. Numerous people have given up. This is Obamanomics-- that's why...

From the moment the Obama administration came into office, there have been no net increases in full-time jobs, only in part-time jobs. This is contrary to all previous recessions.

This means Obama has accomplished the impossible: He's actually got a record WORSE than Jimmy Carter.

Carter's economic record was actually pretty good, compared to Bush.

and yes, so far, Obama's record is worse than Bush.

[ed1066]

Jun 21, 2011 20:32:57 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 21, 2011 12:38:00 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Yes. Under Obama ONLY part-time jobs have been added. Numerous people have given up. This is Obamanomics-- that's why...



This means Obama has accomplished the impossible: He's actually got a record WORSE than Jimmy Carter.

Carter's economic record was actually pretty good, compared to Bush.

and yes, so far, Obama's record is worse than Bush.

Ah, macro (may I still call you macro?), I should tell you that the "blame Bush" strategy is no longer de rigueur these days. In other words, it's been too long and that dog won't hunt. Suggest you change it up or risk looking like Lakhota, or worse, Warsaw...

[djAdvocate]

Jun 21, 2011 20:56:00 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

Jun 21, 2011 20:32:57 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Carter's economic record was actually pretty good, compared to Bush.

and yes, so far, Obama's record is worse than Bush.

Ah, macro (may I still call you macro?), I should tell you that the "blame Bush" strategy is no longer de rigueur these days. In other words, it's been too long and that dog won't hunt. Suggest you change it up or risk looking like Lakhota, or worse, Warsaw...

sorry, Ed. i have always placed blame where it is due, and will continue to do so. i criticized Clinton, now Bush.

i also criticize Obama, for the record. i will do so now. i think he was an IDIOT to put tax breaks in the stimulus package. i think he was really lame for not running the gauntlet on taxes with the GOP when he had the votes to sustain it. i think his foreign policy stinks every bit as bad as Bush's- maybe worse because he is more wordly and should understand the criminality of his actions.

but as far as the stink that likes thick on the economy right now, i hold Bush mostly responsible, and i think i have ample justification for it.

good to see you, btw, Ed.

[djAdvocate]

PS- do you deny that Bush, not Carter had the worst job creation record since Hoover?

[Deleted]

"I think he was an IDIOT to put tax breaks in the stimulus package. i think he was really lame for not running the gauntlet on taxes with the GOP when he had the votes to sustain it."

[lakhota]

Although I'm not an Obama fan, I'm confused how anyone can say he hasn't created "any" jobs. Also, it's hard to calculate how many he may have saved.



www.newinstinct.com/?cat=49

[ed1066]

Jun 21, 2011 21:14:31 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 21, 2011 20:56:00 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

Ah, macro (may I still call you macro?), I should tell you that the "blame Bush" strategy is no longer de rigueur these days. In other words, it's been too long and that dog won't hunt. Suggest you change it up or risk looking like Lakhota, or worse, Warsaw...

sorry, Ed. i have always placed blame where it is due, and will continue to do so. i criticized Clinton, now Bush.

i also criticize Obama, for the record. i will do so now. i think he was an IDIOT to put tax breaks in the stimulus package. i think he was really lame for not running the gauntlet on taxes with the GOP when he had the votes to sustain it. i think his foreign policy stinks every bit as bad as Bush's- maybe worse because he is more wordly and should understand the criminality of his actions.

but as far as the stink that likes thick on the economy right now, i hold Bush mostly responsible, and i think i have ample justification for it.

good to see you, btw, Ed.

Good to see you here, too, old buddy!

[djAdvocate]

Jun 21, 2011 21:41:28 GMT -5 @lakhota said:

Although I'm not an Obama fan, I'm confused how anyone can say he hasn't created "any" jobs. Also, it's hard to calculate how many he may have saved.



www.newinstinct.com/?cat=49

saving is not the same as creating, Lakhota. but i think he has a legitimate chance of breaking Bush's (horrific) first term jobs record, still.

[lakhota]

saving is not the same as creating, Lakhota.

I disagree...

[djAdvocate]

Jun 21, 2011 21:56:48 GMT -5 @lakhota said:

saving is not the same as creating, Lakhota.

I disagree...

disagree with it all you like: it won't change the definitions.

i might save my son's life tomorrow, but i won't create it.

[lakhota]

If you actually save his life tomorrow - you have created him - otherwise he would no longer be here.

[hello fromWarsaw]

Economists (not bought off) agree the stimulus worked. What doesn't work is Pub obstruction, paralysis, and nonstop gloom and doom- not to mention the Pub hoarding of corporations and banks. We can blame Bush for years- check the housing market and his STUPID wars...
And here's PBP blaming Obama for what obviously happened under Bush. Link for Zuckerman?

[djAdvocate]

Jun 21, 2011 22:00:39 GMT -5 @lakhota said:

If you actually save his life tomorrow - you have created him - otherwise he would no longer be here.

if you can't see the difference between saving and creating then you are as bad as those folks that said Al Gore said he invented the internet.

please don't waste any more time with me on this.

[Deleted]

Saving impacts net totals. So it certainly counts mathematically.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 21, 2011 22:00:39 GMT -5 hello fromWarsaw said:

Economists (not bought off) agree the stimulus worked. What doesn't work is Pub obstruction, paralysis, and nonstop gloom and doom- not to mention the Pub hoarding of corporations and banks. We can blame Bush for years- check the housing market and his STUPID wars...
And here's PBP blaming Obama for what obviously happened under Bush. Link for Zuckerman?

i am not arguing that the stimulus didn't work. the OMB claims that at least 3M jobs were saved. unfortunately, 4M were lost during the same stretch (no fault of the stimulus- just an "overshoot" of 2008). that is what people care about, and what affects consumption.

what happened last fall could rightly be called Stimulus II, btw. and the GOP was 100% behind it. they just call it something else.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 21, 2011 22:04:35 GMT -5 oped said:

Saving impacts net totals. So it certainly counts mathematically.

shifting the goalposts is beneath a good liberal. stop it.

i never said anything about whether it "counted" or not, i said that creating is not the same as saving.

if you disagree, then go hang with Lakhota and leave me out of it. i have no time for these small arguments.

[lakhota]

If something Obama did actually saved jobs that would otherwise have been lost - then those jobs were created by Obama. Here is another way to look at it: One minute after an employee is terminated, Obama's stimulus kicks in and s/he is rehired. Then the only thing separating created from saved is one minute...

[Deleted]

I understand what you are getting at, and actually, I would have preferred if less of the stimulus went to shoring up existing state jobs, and more of it went to create infrastructure jobs, (and on works jobs rather than unemployment) ... I feel like a lot of it was wasted band-aiding... and not really making necessary improvments...

But mathematically... well... you know...

[djAdvocate]

Jun 21, 2011 22:14:45 GMT -5 @lakhota said:

If something Obama did actually saved jobs that would otherwise have been lost - then those jobs were created by Obama. Here is another way to look at it: One minute after an employee is terminated, Obama's stimulus kicks in and s/he is rehired. Then the only thing separating created from saved is one minute...

yes, that is certainly A way of looking at it. it is just a way i happen to disagree with.

if a doctor saves my limb, it is absolutely, in no way, whatsoever, the same as him creating it.

if you are thinking that i am going to criticize the doc for saving my limb, you would be just as wrong as thinking i am criticizing Obama and the simulus for saving jobs.