Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-04-2012, 05:05 PM
 
Location: Where they serve real ale.
7,242 posts, read 7,906,557 times
Reputation: 3497

Advertisements

This doesn't really have anything to do with the election and instead it shows what the historical jobs results for Bush's first term (2001 to 2004) vs Obama's (2009 to today). It is good to note that Romney's policies are identical to Bush's so we can reasonably expect similar results.



As you can see the 1st Bush recession wasn't as deep as the 2nd Bush recession (which Obama inherited) but private sector job grow was EXTREMELY slow to recover (the red line) while Bush mostly lowered unemployment by simply hiring more government workers (Fed is green, state and local is blue). It was a U shaped recovery. To compare Obama had a V shaped recovery largely because of the stimulus bill and unlike Bush who had fewer private sector jobs at the end of his 1st term Obama actually has MORE private sector jobs then he started with. That's a FACT.

So why is unemployment still a bit high? Look at total government employees. Unlike Bush who hired lots of new government workers Obama has seen ever fewer government workers at both the Federal and State & local level. Once again we see the right wing nutjobs have lied and that the FACTS are the exact opposite of what the wing nuts claim.

Jobs: Bush's First Term vs. Obama's First Term - Business Insider
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-04-2012, 05:29 PM
 
6,940 posts, read 9,678,883 times
Reputation: 3153
We had full employment in 2004.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2012, 06:54 PM
 
Location: Saudi Arabia
376 posts, read 652,725 times
Reputation: 226
Default Humorous at the stats these guys come up with

Quote:
Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey View Post
We had full employment in 2004.
Here's the key stats:

1. Most important - Bush averaged $250 Billion yearly debt (which is C- grade) and Obama averaged 1.25 Trillion (Which is a low F grade Failure)
2. Unemployment - Bush's worst month in 8 years was better than Obama's best in 4 years
3) Average income - up 20% during Bush years and down 15% in Obama years

Please take me back to those horrible Bush years when I had 20 offers to work anywhere I wanted to work instead of in Saudi where I'm now working.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2012, 08:58 PM
 
Location: Chicago
937 posts, read 927,348 times
Reputation: 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tall Tiger View Post
Here's the key stats:

1. Most important - Bush averaged $250 Billion yearly debt (which is C- grade) and Obama averaged 1.25 Trillion (Which is a low F grade Failure)
2. Unemployment - Bush's worst month in 8 years was better than Obama's best in 4 years
3) Average income - up 20% during Bush years and down 15% in Obama years

Please take me back to those horrible Bush years when I had 20 offers to work anywhere I wanted to work instead of in Saudi where I'm now working.
1. This is the repercussion of Bush era policies. Spending a crap load on a credit card AND pile on the idea that you can cut taxes too is a recipe for disaster.
2. Again, Bush tax cuts, and increased gov't spending by Bush. The financial sector was bubbling.
3. Bubble economy.
Most of those complaints aren't the fault of ANY of Obama's policies. If anything, most of them alleviate the damage that was caused by Wall Street, Bush tax cuts, and silly Wars.
You can really try to pin a lot of what's happened on Obama but, in reality, it's the irresponsible spending of Bush administration, unfunded wars, ignorance on behalf of the American taxpayer and consumer, and bad Congressional decisions.
Before you go and solely blame the Obama administration, address the uncooperative congress, faulty policies Bush policies, and the lack of initiative by many Americans to eliminate corrupt policy makers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2012, 09:08 PM
 
Location: Saudi Arabia
376 posts, read 652,725 times
Reputation: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARaider08 View Post
1. This is the repercussion of Bush era policies. Spending a crap load on a credit card AND pile on the idea that you can cut taxes too is a recipe for disaster.
2. Again, Bush tax cuts, and increased gov't spending by Bush. The financial sector was bubbling.
3. Bubble economy.
Most of those complaints aren't the fault of ANY of Obama's policies. If anything, most of them alleviate the damage that was caused by Wall Street, Bush tax cuts, and silly Wars.
You can really try to pin a lot of what's happened on Obama but, in reality, it's the irresponsible spending of Bush administration, unfunded wars, ignorance on behalf of the American taxpayer and consumer, and bad Congressional decisions.
Before you go and solely blame the Obama administration, address the uncooperative congress, faulty policies Bush policies, and the lack of initiative by many Americans to eliminate corrupt policy makers.
Bush made plenty of huge mistakes including attacking Iraq when they had no part in the 911 attacks and staying in Afhgan much longer than nexessary (which Obama has extended btw). He did have to deal with a serious attack that Obama fortunately did not have to deal with. Nevertheless, there's no excuse for Trillion dollar debts....and that's what Obama gives you every time....which will lead to our financial collapse far worse than that bail out of Wall Street and the banks that Obama sanctioned to gove billions to his rich friends.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2012, 09:12 PM
 
993 posts, read 831,848 times
Reputation: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARaider08 View Post
1. This is the repercussion of Bush era policies. Spending a crap load on a credit card AND pile on the idea that you can cut taxes too is a recipe for disaster.
2. Again, Bush tax cuts, and increased gov't spending by Bush. The financial sector was bubbling.
3. Bubble economy.
Most of those complaints aren't the fault of ANY of Obama's policies. If anything, most of them alleviate the damage that was caused by Wall Street, Bush tax cuts, and silly Wars.
You can really try to pin a lot of what's happened on Obama but, in reality, it's the irresponsible spending of Bush administration, unfunded wars, ignorance on behalf of the American taxpayer and consumer, and bad Congressional decisions.
Before you go and solely blame the Obama administration, address the uncooperative congress, faulty policies Bush policies, and the lack of initiative by many Americans to eliminate corrupt policy makers.
According to your logic, whatever didn't go well in Bush's first term was Clinton's fault. You can't have it both ways.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2012, 09:14 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,101,577 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Think4Yourself View Post
while Bush mostly lowered unemployment by simply hiring more government workers (Fed is green, state and local is blue).
Wow, so Bush hired hundreds of thousands of people, and his deficits were still 1/5th of what Obamas are..

OBAMA FAILURE!!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2012, 09:19 PM
 
Location: Pluto's Home Town
9,982 posts, read 13,760,768 times
Reputation: 5691
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Wow, so Bush hired hundreds of thousands of people, and his deficits were still 1/5th of what Obamas are..

OBAMA FAILURE!!!!
I like the all caps finish. Like the two of them inherited comparable economies and revenue situations. Give me a break.

The only thing I get from the graphs are the public sector jobs can lower unemployment. I have read here that they are not "real jobs" and hiring public employees is socialism. By that yardstick, Bush was far more socialist than Obama.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2012, 09:19 PM
 
Location: Eastern NC
20,868 posts, read 23,550,845 times
Reputation: 18814
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey View Post
We had full employment in 2004.

You mean in 2004 we had 0% unemployment? Thats news to me and probably all those who were unemployed in 2004.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2012, 09:47 PM
 
993 posts, read 831,848 times
Reputation: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by trlhiker View Post
You mean in 2004 we had 0% unemployment? Thats news to me and probably all those who were unemployed in 2004.
Full employment doesn't mean 0% unemployment.

What is full employment? definition and meaning
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top