Jobs Score. Republicans - 24 million. Democrats - 42 million

Bob wrote:

boards of FL wrote: Over a 50 year sample size? That results in twice as many jobs created on a scale on the order of tens of millions?

Over a 15 year sample size, Fox news has consistently garnered twice as many viewers as CNN or MSNBC.
Over a 20 year sample size, Limbaugh and Hannity have consistently attracted larger audiences than anything else in radio.
During that same period, the average human lifespan was increasing at the same time.
Should we draw the conclusion from this that their rhetoric is responsible for the average human lifespan increasing during that same time?

What was human life expectancy doing prior to the rhetoric of cable news and limbaugh?

PkrBum wrote:i guess if the president is so important to private job growth... then control of congress is even more important.

Which means the supposedly enlightened progressive liberals should be all for nationalizing the health care industry and putting all those new employees of the government on the new government/military pay scale.

Look at all the new jobs they can say they created while ignoring the ones lost to the private sector.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzUCO7rG0M

Damaged Eagle wrote:Which means the supposedly enlightened progressive liberals should be all for nationalizing the health care industry and putting all those new employees of the government on the new government/military pay scale.

Look at all the new jobs they can say they created while ignoring the ones lost to the private sector.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzUCO7rG0M

This would be an excellent point if it were true. Unfortunately, you have it completely backwards.

Private sector jobs Feb 1, 2001: 111,631,000
Private sector jobs Feb 1, 2009: 110,985,000
Net change in private sector: -646,000

Government jobs Feb 1, 2001: 20,835,000
Government jobs Feb 1, 2009: 22.576.000
Net change in government jobs: 1,741,000



Private sector jobs Feb 1, 2009: 110,985,000
Private sector jobs Sept 1, 2012: 111,400,000
Net change in private sector: 415,000

Government jobs Feb 1, 2009: 22,576,000
Government jobs Sept 1, 2012: 21,900,000
Net change in government jobs: -676,000


So over the 8 years of Bush, 646,000 private sector jobs were lost while 1,741,000 government jobs were gained.

Meanwhile during the Obama years, 415,000 private sector jobs were gained while 676,000 government jobs were lost.

These numbers are from the BLS: http://www.bls.gov/cps/#data

Have you anything to say?

I'm trying to get a handle on all this, Will. Here's some more info for you to digest.

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

That article is referring to non-farm jobs whereas this thread is only referring to private sector jobs. It would be interesting to look at the correlation between control of congress and job creation, as the article points that out as a topic of controversy for the usefulness of comparing the presidents and job creation. The article also mentions population growth. The PolitiFact article addresses that and shows that the population growth was slightly better during years of republican presidents, so if anything republicans had a slight boost to their job creation numbers. That fact actually works against them.

Bob sad it better than anyone else. You cannot render an explanation for job creation simply from who is President. I give Bill Gates more credit for 1990s job creation than Bill Clinton.

[quote="boards of FL"]

nochain wrote:

Let me guess, Obama's fault?

“4.5 million jobs sounds great but it's not the whole picture. Nonfarm private payrolls hit a post-recession low of 106.8 million that month, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The figure currently stands at 111.3 million as of July.
While that is indeed a gain of 4.5 million, it's only a net gain of 300,000 over the course of the Obama administration to date. The private jobs figure stood at 111 million in January 2009, the month Obama took office.
And total nonfarm payrolls, including government workers, are down from 133.6 million workers at the beginning of 2009 to 133.2 million in July 2012. There's been a net loss of nearly 1 million public-sector jobs since Obama took office, despite a surge in temporary hiring for the 2010 census.Meanwhile, the jobs that have come back aren't the same ones that were lost.”

Facts are facts and all the cherry picking of selected numbers can't change them.

Margin Call wrote:Bob sad it better than anyone else. You cannot render an explanation for job creation simply from who is President. I give Bill Gates more credit for 1990s job creation than Bill Clinton.

Come on now. 2 to 1 job creation over 50 years? I can't imagine what the probability of such a coincidence would be, though I suspect it would approach 0.

nochain wrote:There's been a net loss of nearly 1 million public-sector jobs since Obama took office, despite a surge in temporary hiring for the 2010 census.

Facts are facts and all the cherry picking of selected numbers can't change them.

Good god, man. Dig up! Dig up!

Private sector jobs as of 02/01/09: 110,985,000
Private sector jobs as of 09/01/12: 111,400,000

Now, nochain, are you skilled in arithmetic?

111,400,000 - 110,985,000 = ?

*edit: Just realized that your bold comment is referring to *public* sector jobs. Yes. I already pointed that out on the last page. The private sector has added jobs whereas government jobs have been shed. Is that bad?

boards of FL wrote:

nochain wrote:There's been a net loss of nearly 1 million public-sector jobs since Obama took office, despite a surge in temporary hiring for the 2010 census.

Facts are facts and all the cherry picking of selected numbers can't change them.

Good god, man. Dig up! Dig up!

Private sector jobs as of 02/01/09: 110,985,000
Private sector jobs as of 09/01/12: 111,400,000

Now, nochain, are you skilled in arithmetic?

111,400,000 - 110,985,000 = ?

Call CNN or anyone else who cares, those are their figures.

boards of FL wrote:

Margin Call wrote:Bob sad it better than anyone else. You cannot render an explanation for job creation simply from who is President. I give Bill Gates more credit for 1990s job creation than Bill Clinton.

Come on now. 2 to 1 job creation over 50 years? I can't imagine what the probability of such a coincidence would be if were merely coincidence, though I suspect it would approach 0.

Well, nearly 1/3 of those jobs came during the 1990s!

Take a look at this...



Looks to me like the rate of job creation during the times either party was in control of the White House was fairly even through the 70's, 80's and 90's
Now read this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession

A recession occurred early in 2000 following the dot.com bubble collapse (right before Bush took office). And another economic setback followed 9/11.
So the subsequent decrease in job growth during Bush's first term is undoubtedly more to blame on that than Bush's economic policies since he had not been in office long enough to matter.
And then of course the bottom fell out of the economy at the end of 2007.

Bob wrote:Take a look at this...



Looks to me like the rate of job creation during the times either party was in control of the White House was fairly even through the 70's, 80's and 90's
Now read this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession

A recession occurred early in 2000 following the dot.com bubble collapse (right before Bush took office). And another economic setback followed 9/11.
So the subsequent decrease in job growth during Bush's first term is undoubtedly more to blame on that than Bush's economic policies since he had not been in office long enough to matter.
And then of course the bottom fell out of the economy at the end of 2007.

I'm sorry bob... the lag/lingering effects of policies/events can only be used for dem "facts/charts/projections".

Well, if results spring forth out of pure coincidence, what can any voter look to to decide who to vote for? Gay marriage and abortion?

PkrBum wrote:I'm sorry bob... the lag/lingering effects of policies/events can only be used for dem "facts/charts/projections".

Your one-line jabs linger in a thread much like a fart in a elevator.

boards of FL wrote:Well, if results spring forth out of pure coincidence, what can any voter look to to decide who to vote for? Gay marriage and abortion?

Well if gay marriage and abortion are your issues I guess so, although I'm not sure what a president can do to influence that short of a supreme court nomination.

But for me the only issue which matters is Medicare. My economic future is riding on that. So my personal task is to try to decide which of the two, obama or romney, will be a better choice for protecting my Medicare benefits (assuming either one can have much impact on it). And it's not an easy thing to determine. Hopefully I'll have a better handle on it by the time I'm in the voting booth.

Aside from that I just sit and watch/listen and hope to be entertained by the bullshit which spews out of the mouths of both.

then you must be very upset about obamacare?

boards of FL wrote:http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/09/06/bill_clinton_s_jobs_score_from_his_dnc_speech_fact_checked_.html

As should come as no surprise to anyone who's been following this presidential campaign, last night's round of convention speeches contained their fair share of half-truths and misinformation. But the most surprising fact of the night—Bill Clinton's "jobs score"—appears to check out.

Here was the quote, as it was prepared for delivery:

"Well since 1961, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24. In those 52 years, our economy produced 66 million private sector jobs. What's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 million!"

FOCUS!.....This isn't about Former President Clinton and his record...This is about the COWH and his failures!....President Clinton addressed the DNC during his time in office and at the SOTU speech and declared.."THE ERA OF BIG GOVERNMENT IS OVER"...He then went to work with Congress (Both Sides) and Welfare reform was accomplished and passed...The same Welfare reform that the COWH has GUTTED through executive orders...There is no comparasion between President Clinton and the COWH...

newswatcher wrote:

boards of FL wrote:http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/09/06/bill_clinton_s_jobs_score_from_his_dnc_speech_fact_checked_.html

As should come as no surprise to anyone who's been following this presidential campaign, last night's round of convention speeches contained their fair share of half-truths and misinformation. But the most surprising fact of the night—Bill Clinton's "jobs score"—appears to check out.

Here was the quote, as it was prepared for delivery:

"Well since 1961, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24. In those 52 years, our economy produced 66 million private sector jobs. What's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 million!"

FOCUS!.....This isn't about Former President Clinton and his record...This is about the COWH and his failures!....President Clinton addressed the DNC during his time in office and at the SOTU speech and declared.."THE ERA OF BIG GOVERNMENT IS OVER"...He then went to work with Congress (Both Sides) and Welfare reform was accomplished and passed...The same Welfare reform that the COWH has GUTTED through executive orders...There is no comparasion between President Clinton and the COWH...

FOCUS! No one is saying this is about Clinton's job record! And no one is comparing Clinton and Obama!

PkrBum wrote:then you must be very upset about obamacare?

Not at all. It will not impact anything. Chance and coincidence guide us, contrary to anything you see.

PkrBum wrote:then you must be very upset about obamacare?

Well right now I hope to go on Medicare Advantage when I turn 65 in a year and a half.

It's true that Obamacare takes $700 billion out of Medicare (over ten years) and a big chunk of that will come out of Advantage in particular.
Right now the government is paying about ten grand per person to insurance companies who are providing Medicare Advantage policies. And Obama's plan will reduce that figure to $9000 per person. And Obama claims that thousand dollars will come out of the hides of health care providers and not us beneficiaries. But that could be just another load of bullshit. Dunno.

Romney, on the other hand, says fuck no to that, he's gonna restore that $700 billion to Medicare.
But some analysts are telling us that Romney's Medicare plan will bring Medicare to insolvency as early as 2016.

So as W.D. Childers was always fond of saying, "we need to get this hay down to where (us old) goats can get to it". And so far the rhetoric and bullshit and propaganda aint got it down low enough for me yet.

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:then you must be very upset about obamacare?

Not at all. It will not impact anything. Chance and coincidence guide us, contrary to anything you see.

I humbly disagree, I have never seen government improve anything that was not riddled with wasteful spending, poor management, and knee jerk decisions. Obamacare will have a huge impact on our country, you can't add tens of millions of people to a government system with out it having an impact.

alecto wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:then you must be very upset about obamacare?

Not at all. It will not impact anything. Chance and coincidence guide us, contrary to anything you see.

I humbly disagree, I have never seen government improve anything that was not riddled with wasteful spending, poor management, and knee jerk decisions. Obamacare will have a huge impact on our country, you can't add tens of millions of people to a government system with out it having an impact.

There are six major government health care programs—Medicare, Medicaid, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), the Department of Defense TRICARE and TRICARE for Life programs (DOD TRICARE), the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) program, and the Indian Health Service (IHS) program costing about $500B annually right now. There are also many many more taxpayer funded state and local health programs.

How is adding another poorly conceived, but likely very expensive, program like obamacare going to help?

Bob wrote:

PkrBum wrote:then you must be very upset about obamacare?

Well right now I hope to go on Medicare Advantage when I turn 65 in a year and a half.

It's true that Obamacare takes $700 billion out of Medicare (over ten years) and a big chunk of that will come out of Advantage in particular.
Right now the government is paying about ten grand per person to insurance companies who are providing Medicare Advantage policies. And Obama's plan will reduce that figure to $9000 per person. And Obama claims that thousand dollars will come out of the hides of health care providers and not us beneficiaries. But that could be just another load of bullshit. Dunno.

Romney, on the other hand, says fuck no to that, he's gonna restore that $700 billion to Medicare.
But some analysts are telling us that Romney's Medicare plan will bring Medicare to insolvency as early as 2016.

So as W.D. Childers was always fond of saying, "we need to get this hay down to where (us old) goats can get to it". And so far the rhetoric and bullshit and propaganda aint got it down low enough for me yet.

Bob,

Yep, kiss Medicare Advantage good-bye....my wife is on it. It's the Obama plan to drive everyone into a universal healthcare plan. Who knows?

The Paul Ryan Plan, is , wait for it, Medicare Advantage with options. Go figure.....you want vision, dental, you pay more.....you want extra services, you pay more. You will have choices, unlike cable TV.

So, a plan where you get what you pay for....it that a problem?

Bob wrote:Take a look at this...



Looks to me like the rate of job creation during the times either party was in control of the White House was fairly even through the 70's, 80's and 90's
Now read this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession

A recession occurred early in 2000 following the dot.com bubble collapse (right before Bush took office). And another economic setback followed 9/11.
So the subsequent decrease in job growth during Bush's first term is undoubtedly more to blame on that than Bush's economic policies since he had not been in office long enough to matter.
And then of course the bottom fell out of the economy at the end of 2007.

The bottom fell out right after the outgoing president signed those Free Trade Acts that Mr and Mrs Heinz... I mean Kerry... took advantage of to move their company onto foreign soil.

The fact of the matter is that enough companies have now left that there is no cash in the lower part of the private sector in this country to sustain a manufacturer who only sells their product here while unable to sell to their own employees where they manufacture that said product.

Thus we are now where we are at.

So much for that service economy that the liberals were raving about... Even those are going overseas...

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHhzi8PvDYw