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.
Its not really that difficult.. If you are going to write a story about the TOTAL jobs created, then job losses dont enter the equation. That is what they are doing for Obama.. Ignoring ALL of the job losses which took place in 2009, but counting them under Bush.. Not fair for several reasons, the most obvious being that you cant count only positives for one and count positives and negatives for another, and claim they are equal. Thats elementary school math.
The second being that presidents dont create jobs.. Congress does..
My goodness, then what did you mean when you wrote, "Bush had numerous years where he created twice the number of jobs created in 2010"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
If companies were hiring at the same right now as they were during the Bush/Republican Congress years, we'd see unemployment in the low 5's like we did then.. But we dont..
"There have been a total of 863,000 private sector jobs created in 2010, exceeding the total created under the Bush/Cheney regime.... The net jobs gained during 2010 stands at 613,000, which is over half of the 1,080,000 jobs were created during the entire time George W. Bush was in office." See also the total numbers for 2000-2010 above the bikini graph.
My goodness, then what did you mean when you wrote, "Bush had numerous years where he created twice the number of jobs created in 2010"?
Bush had years where nearly 2M jobs were created.. thats twice the numbers being claimed by obama is it not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by delusianne
"There have been a total of 863,000 private sector jobs created in 2010, exceeding the total created under the Bush/Cheney regime.... The net jobs gained during 2010 stands at 613,000, which is over half of the 1,080,000 jobs were created during the entire time George W. Bush was in office." See also the total numbers for 2000-2010 above the bikini graph.
Wrong again.. its like elementary school all over again...
Net gains during 2010 which if you say stands are 613,000 is NOT more than the 1,080,000 during the entire Bush years in office, which was the claim during the story.. In addition, the ONLY way to ONLY get 1,080,000 is if you count the job losses.. AGAIN you cant count the job losses under Bush but NOT under Obama.. Doing that and claiming they are equal would be ridiculous..
Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Its elementary school math, probably 5th grade..
They're so desperate for anything that puts a positive spin on Obama's presidency that even obviously skewed graphs and studies look good to them.
But that is exactly what Bush supporters did while he was in office. His Administration's numbers were cooked too. Surely people don't have that short an attention span! Oh wait, yes they do. Partisanship kills brain cells first.
But that is exactly what Bush supporters did while he was in office. His Administration's numbers were cooked too. Surely people don't have that short an attention span! Oh wait, yes they do. Partisanship kills brain cells first.
Unemployment numbers were in the low 5% range.. I guess many would prefer what we have now though...
But that is exactly what Bush supporters did while he was in office. His Administration's numbers were cooked too. Surely people don't have that short an attention span! Oh wait, yes they do. Partisanship kills brain cells first.
You'll get no argument on that point from me. I wasn't a fan of Bush either. In point of fact lying to the population is a favorite tool of politicians regardless of party.
However, attempting to use the "but Bush did it too" argument doesn't justify promoting skewed facts now.
unfortunately there are too many stupid people out there that would beleive something like this...What is the explanation for so many people being out of work or under employed? Wouldn't we like to have an honest answer to that if these figures are correct? Of course they are not. Why not do a study on how many jobs were lost, while these jobs were being created. If 10 jobs are lost and 6 added, is this a true job creation?
You really need to post this in that Unemployment forum so they'll know it's time to get to work.
So far the OP has not posted it in the unemployment forum. I would be very interested in the responses of it from there.
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.
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.
