General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsObama's Record On Job Creation Is 157,143 Per Month Since 4/2010, - better than any Republican-
Since President Obama's economic policies ended the George W. Bush gifted Great Recession, halted staggering monthly job losses that approached 800,000, and returned the nation to positive job growth in record time he has enjoyed a job creation rate that exceeds the 1st term job creation record of ANY Republican President in history.
Below is a table which shows job creation by President for ALL terms served. Reagan's record in his first term in office was 109,000 per month. Reagan inherited stellar job creation from President Carter and cut it in nearly in half. President Obama inherited the deepest drop in job loss since the Great Depression and has since September of 2010 outperformed every Republican on record.
When examining the record of job creation we must look where President Obama started out to fully understand how far he has taken us as a nation down the road to recovery.
Democratic Record:
Truman +86,500
Kennedy +100,000
Johnson +191,666
Carter +216,666
Clinton +241,666 ----------------------
+174,192 Jobs gained per month
Republican Record:
Eisenhower +36,458
Nixon +117,708
Reagan +167,708
G. H. Bush +52,000
G. W. Bush +19,895
-----------------
+78,754 Jobs gained per month
read full article: http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/2012/07/president-obama-record-on-job-creation.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
rfranklin
(13,200 posts)The figures don't match the headline.
On Edit: Here's the missing info...Reagan was only 109,000...
"Below is a table which shows job creation by President for ALL terms served. Reagan's record in his first term in ofice was 109,000 per month. Reagan inherited stellar job creation from President Carter and cut it in nearly in half. President Obama inherited the deepest drop in job loss since the Great Depression and has since September of 2010 outperformed every Republican on record."
http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/2012/07/president-obama-record-on-job-creation.html
ProSense
(116,464 posts)joeglow3
(6,228 posts)I get the point being made, but it is kind of wrong to take a portion of a presiden'ts first term (the most favorable portion) and compare it to the entire term of all other presidents.
MrDiaz
(731 posts)n/t
mikekohr
(2,312 posts)" Reagan's record in his first term in ofice was 109,000 per month. Reagan inherited stellar job creation from President Carter of +216,666 and cut it in nearly in half. President Obama inherited the deepest drop in job loss since the Great Depression and has since September of 2010 outperformed every Republican on record."
elleng
(131,103 posts)are due to 'public' job numbers, as in, teachers, firefighters, cops, etc., because the STATES have been cutting back. States are largely prohibited from exercising 'deficit spending,' must balance their budgets annually and, as we've seen, SOME states/governors just feel good kicking state employees' asses.
mikekohr
(2,312 posts)ex. President Obama is running the Federal Government with 250,000 less employees than did Ronald Reagan
State and local governments make up the rest of the decline in public sector jobs.
elleng
(131,103 posts)where the whole city is going to pay minimum wage to all employees.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)absolutely REFUSES to hold the Republicans accountable.
elleng
(131,103 posts)but may be losing my hair for different reasons!
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)If Obama is in favor of it (and even has Rmoney and the Chamber of Commerce supporting it), shouldn't we do so as well?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/obama-trade-document-leak_n_1592593.html
Some are calling it NAFTA on steroids. How did NAFTA work out? How many jobs did it create -- in this country?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)If Obama is in favor of it (and even has Rmoney and the Chamber of Commerce supporting it), shouldn't we do so as well?
...Obama's record falls below any Republican's, directly relevant to the OP, we'll kick his ass. Until then, speculating on job losses related to pending trade agreements, completely irrelevant to the OP, is nonsensical.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)If you don't like the question, too bad.
Tigress DEM
(7,887 posts)To be a right wing democrat is not really being a DEM at all.
Tig
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)I'm not really sure what Obama's angle is on this trade thing. He seems to be pulling in two directions so far.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)mikekohr
(2,312 posts)to pre depression levels. Great economic downturns require time to recover from. 9 of the last 10 recesions have occurred when a Republican was in the White House. Stop electing Republicans.
see: http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/history-of-recessions.html
A HISTORY OF RECESSION IN THE UNITED STATES 1950 TO 2008
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)The interval chosen by the OP has some good months. More realistic projections have a flatter recovery that gets employment up to 2007 levels by late in the decade.
mikekohr
(2,312 posts)simple math.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Not sure we will be doing 157,142.85 jobs added per month for 28 months.
Looks like we are going into a down cycle, with a mild recession between now and the end of 2013.
progree
(10,918 posts)Your OP said "job creation", not "private sector job creation":
On total payroll jobs I get 3,844,000 over 28 months = 137,286 per month
On private sector payroll jobs, I get 4,372,000 over 28 months = 156,143 per month
My #15 has where I obtained this stuff (bls.gov website - Bureau of Labor Statistics)
Here's something I ran across that I haven't absorbed yet -- The Minneapolis Federal Reserve's recessions and recoveries comparison tool:
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/studies/recession_perspective/index.cfm
progree
(10,918 posts)Its most useful to sort by the "Jobs Created Per Year"
On G.W. Bush's 3.0 million job creation -- realize this article / table was created 1/9/09 so it doesn't include the January 2009 job loss numbers, and subsequent revisions (Nov and Dec 2008 were preliminary, and then annually, in March, there are additional revisions).
Here's my little song and dance:
{#} Job Loss and Creation - Payroll Jobs
# Payroll Jobs: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001
# Monthly change of above: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth
# . . Hint: to see both of the above two together on the same page, go to http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001 and click on the "More Formatting Options" link in the upper right and check the "Original Data Value" and the "1-Month Net Change" checkboxes and click the "Retrieve Data" button halfway down the page on the left
# Private Sector Payroll Employment: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001
# Monthly change of above: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001?output_view=net_1mth
# . . Hint: to see both of the above two together on the same page, go to http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001
and click on the "More Formatting Options" link in the upper right and check the "Original Data Value" and the "1-Month Net Change" checkboxes and click the "Retrieve Data" button halfway down the page on the left
Factoids:
# Under Obama there have been 28 straight months of private sector job growth, totaling 4.4 million jobs (thru June 2012 with May and June preliminary)
# The economy Bush handed to Obama was losing 760,000 jobs a month (the average of the last 3 months of the Bush presidency)
# 2.6 million payroll jobs have been created under Obama since June 2009 (that's when the recession ended according to the NBER (nber.org, the official arbiter of when the economic turning points occur), and only 5 months since Obama took office) (thru June 2012 with May and June preliminary) . Bush only created 1.1 million payroll jobs in his entire 8 year presidency
# 3.2 million private sector jobs were created under Obama since June 2009 (thru June 2012 with May and June preliminary) (contrast that to Bush destroying 0.7 million private sector jobs during his presidency)
# Bush's record: created 1.1 million payroll jobs - by creating 1.8 million government jobs and destroying 0.7 million private sector jobs. ( the actual numbers are, in thousands: 1,080, 1,753, 673 ). Yes, it is ironic that a supposed "small government conservative" ended up creating government jobs and destroying private sector jobs.
# The Clinton economy created 22.7 million payroll jobs of which 20.8 million were in the private sector
{#} Job Loss and Creation - Unemployment Rate, Labor Force Participation Rate
# Unemployment Rate, from 1948 on: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
# Labor Force Participation Rate from 1948 on: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
(on both of the above, you can change the "From" and "To" dates to whatever you want at the top center pulldown boxes)
# Unemployment rate, seas adjusted
(All values are January unemployment rates, specifically Jan 1989, Jan 1993, Jan 2001, Jan 2009), with the exception of the current unemployment rate under Obama, which is the end of last month. If you get into Obama's unemployment rate, it is worthwhile to point out that if one starts from June 2009, when the recession ended according to the NBER (the official arbiter of economic turning points, NBER.org), and just 5 months after Obama took office, then the unemployment rate has been cut by 1.3 percentage points. Obama cannot be blamed for the job losses in his first 5 months, given that the economy Bush handed him was losing 760,000 jobs per month in his last 3 months, and it takes many months to enact and implement new policies and for them to take effect).
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"] Bush I: 5.4% to 7.3%, Change= + 1.9%
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"] Clinton: 7.3% to 4.2%, Change= - 3.1%
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"] Bush II: 4.2% to 7.7%, Change= + 3.5%
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"] Obama: 7.7% to 8.2%, Change= + 0.5% (the last is the May unemployment rate)
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"] beg.6/09: 9.5% to 8.2%, Change= - 1.3% (beginning June 2009)
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"] (June 2009, just 5 months after Obama took office, is when the recession ended, per NBER.org)
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"] Obama's first 5 months: 7.7% to 9.5%, Change= + 1.8% (Jan '09 - May '09)
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"] Obama thereafter: 9.5% to 8.2%, Change= - 1.3% (Jun '09 - Jun '12)
# Under Bush II, the unemployment rate rose by 3.5 pp (percentage points) while the Civilian Labor Force Participation rate fell 1.5 pp: from 67.2% to 65.7% (had the participation rate stayed the same, the unemployment rate would have risen even further). Contrast that to Clinton, where the unemployment rate dropped 3.1 pp while the Civilian Labor Force Participation rate rose by 1.0 pp. Secret information: Under Obama through June 2012 the unemployment rate rose 0.5 pp while the civilian labor force participation rate fell 1.9 pp, from 65.7% to 63.8%
{#} Job Loss and Creation - Unemployment Insurance Claims
# Unemployment insurance initial claims: http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims.asp
# It peaked at 667,000 initial claims 3/28/09 (2 months after Obama took office) and since then it has shown a steady improvement.
# Myth: "those who have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits are not counted as unemployed. If they were counted, the official unemployment rate would be much higher" (you often hear this claim from the RepubliCONS when a Democratic president is in the White House, and vice versa).
# Fact: the count of the unemployed and the unemployment rate is not a count of those receiving unemployment benefits, nor is unemployment benefit receiver status factored at all into any of the official unemployment rate statistics (U3, U4, U5, U6, etc.). Rather, the unemployment rate is based on a survey of 60,000 households chosen at random. See: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm or Google: "Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey"
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)The compiler of this chose to exclude the "bad" months for Obama and then compare the result with the entire terms of other presidents who were not done the favor of excluding the bad months from their record.
Really?
This is the kind of shit Republicans do.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)The compiler of this chose to exclude the "bad" months for Obama and then compare the result with the entire terms of other presidents who were not done the favor of excluding the bad months from their record.
...President Obama's term isn't over, and it's not the "bad months" that were excluded. In fact, prior to the OP period, there was at least one month in which 500,000 jobs were created.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002643728
Job creation for 2010 and 2011 averaged about 130,000 per month.
Who knows what the next seven months will bring.
progree
(10,918 posts)as he stated in his subject line that he was beginning at 9/2010 (though I would have made it clear that is a long, long 19 or 20 months into his presidency which began Jan 20, 2009)
Well, I don't know about letting Repubs or Dems excluding *any* of their "bad months", just the "bad months" that weren't their fault. Obama's circumstances are different than any Repub presidents as none of them have been handed a Great Recession by their predecessor. Obama was handed an economy that shed 4.3 million jobs in Bush's last 10 months (that accelerated to a 760,000 jobs per month rate in his last 3 months).
In my compilations, I usually start in June 2009, a mere 5 months after Obama took office (it also coincides with the month the Bush recession ended, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the official arbiter of recession and expansion start and end months). Actually, it takes a lot longer than 5 months for legislation to be enacted and for any such to turn around a multi-trillion dollar economy. Also, a president inherits the previous president's budget which ends on September 30 -- a little over 8 months after the new president takes office.
If we're going to be fair, or fairer, we ought to subtract off the first "n" months at the beginning of a president's first term, since their policies did not cause any slump they may have inherited. But not just any "n" months, e.g. nobody would consider it fair to discard the *last* several months of G.W. Bush's job record, given that it occurred after being president for more than 7 straight years.
I've argued with plenty of righties, but I've never had one argue that Obama is responsible for what was handed to him or for the job losses of the first several months.
Is your idea of what's fair is this?:
payroll jobs, thousands:
133,561 January 2009 1st month of "Obummer's" presidency (beginning noon January 20)
133,088 June 2012 latest month of data
------------------------------------------------
___ 473 job loss under "Obuhmuh" (473,000 jobs lost)
Anyway, the job numbers going all the way back to FDR are available below. Maybe you could come up with some way of presenting Obama's jobs record in a fairer way.
# Payroll Jobs: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001
# Monthly change of above: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth
# . . Hint: to see both of the above two together on the same page, go to http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001 and click on the "More Formatting Options" link in the upper right and check the "Original Data Value" and the "1-Month Net Change" checkboxes and click the "Retrieve Data" button halfway down the page on the left
mikekohr
(2,312 posts)that is the point at which monthly job creation numbers returned to "positive" numbers. From 2/2009 to 8/2010 President Obama was still climbing out the the ENORMOUS hole dug for him by Bush. (Incidently that was the quickest return to positive job creation from a recession in 25 years.)
The record shows two unmistakable patterns:
1). Every time a Republican succeeds a Democrat in the White House, the job creation rate plummets.
2).Every time a Democrat succeeds a Republican in the White House, the job growth rate soars. Every time! No exceptions!
Under President Obama it is no different. Once his policies got us back out of the black hole Bush left him his numbers exceed the 1st term record of job creation of every Republican President. All Democratic Presidents inherit poor job numbers from their Republican predecessors. They in effect return the opening kick-off from deep in their own end zone. President Obama had to return the opening kick off from the back of the parking lot.
If we want to avoid the painful climb back from economic catastrophe's we have to quit electing the jackasses that cause them: Republicans.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)You flat out admit you intentionally ignored negative months and just started tracking when it went positive. Yet, you did not give that luxury to any other president.
Edit to add, I think people give the president too much credit/blame for the economy. As much as I love Clinton, Elmer Fudd could have been president and gotten the same result with the dot.com boom. Along those lines, Krugman could have been president in Bush first couple years and would still have seen losses due to the dot.com bust (which HAD to happen as that bubble was WAAAAY too big) and 9/11.
I know, it is a losing battle to try and convince an ignorant public that the president really doesn't have THAT much control. Thus, I commend your efforts to frame it in the best possible light.
mikekohr
(2,312 posts)The internet brings out the worst in some people and encourages people to engage in behavior they would never have the guts to engage in in person. That is one reason I do not hide behind an anonymous name on my posts. Like you.
My name and reputation is on every thing I ever post. Anywhere.
The numbers do not lie. Since 9/2011 President Obama's record on job creation exceeds the 1st term results of every Republican president in history. I'm sorry that disappoints you.
The larger historical facts in the lead post are:
1). Every Republican President tanks job creation.
2). Every Democratic President reverses that trend by a large margin
Your thinking in explaining away those facts is to assign the results to chance and bad luck. I am stating the indisputable facts that the results are due to Republican economic incompetance and Democratic accomplishment.
When examining the record of job creation we must look where President Obama started out to fully understand how far he has taken us as a nation down the road to recovery.
see also: http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/job-growth.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)Since it had a link I assumed that your were linking to something someone else was saying.
So I apologize for the flat "this is dishonest," which was not meant as a personal observation.
In terms of excluding what is not a president's fault... Reagan was a cancer on America but the immense job-loss phase of his first term was certainly not his fault.
And if we excluded the downside of the 1981 recession while including the employment increases during the recovery from that recession the upside numbers would be staggering. And that wouldn't really be to Reagan's credit.
Yes, job creation is historically poor under Republicans.
Yes, Obama's jobs record is not due (on the negative side) to Obama policies.
mikekohr
(2,312 posts)Cut from: A HISTORY OF RECESSION IN THE UNITED STATES 1950 TO 2008
Written by: mike kohr 2/12/2008
Recession of 1981-1982 Ronald Reagan(R) At the time, the most severe contraction of economy since the Great Depression, massive deficit spending/deregulation of markets, and tight fiscal policy in an effort to kill inflation were blamed for this downturn **
** “The Reagan Recession” which ran from July of 1981 thru November of 1982 is often categorized as starting under Carter’s watch during the 1st and 2nd quarters of 1980. By the end of the July of 1980 that mild downturn had ended. Starting in the 3rd quarter of 1980, 3 of the next 4 quarters produced increased GDP. Reagan’s tight fiscal policy and massive deficit spending contracted the economy again in late 1981, producing unemployment of 10.8% and prime interest rates that hovered between 15% and 21.5%
Read Full Article: http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/history-of-recessions.html
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)Reagan-lovers try to give him credit for the mega-recession of 1981 today (because in hindsight it whipped inflation) but he really had nothing to do with it.
This is one of the many ironies of Reagan. He was elected by a nation despairing over inflation despite the fact that his policies were very pro-inflation. A typical example of people voting for "change" without any idea what that means. (If Romney were elected in 2012 it would be similar--a guy whose economic proposals are designed to make a bad economy worse being elected because we "need a change" on the economy.)
The recession of 1981 was induced by Paul Volker. It wasn't due to Reaganomics and the sharp rebound from it also had nothing to do with Reaganomics. It was what would have happened under any president if the Fed decided to keep raising rates until the economy cracked, and then cut them back down when it did.
mikekohr
(2,312 posts)Never has. Never will.
spanone
(135,873 posts)
liberal N proud
(60,344 posts)When clearly facts have no premise in the republican lead media portrayal of the events of nearly the last 4 years.
progree
(10,918 posts)Do you have anything scaled by population size or labor force size? For example at the beginning of the Truman administration there were 41.8 million jobs. At the beginning of the Obama administration, there were 135.5 million jobs -- or 3.2 times the size as the Truman administration. It gives the later presidents a huge advantage over the earlier presidents when comparing presidents by the thousands of jobs created in their terms. Another way to put it -- what was the percent increase in jobs under each president? As for population, it was 152.3 million in 1950, vs. about 308.7 million in 2010, a doubling (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html). Thanks.
=======
Here's something that has the number of jobs in millions at the beginning of each president's term, as well as the jobs created during their presidency. Interesting factoid: Carter (in one term) created more jobs than both Bushes (12 years) combined! And he created more jobs per year than Reagan). Its dated 1/9/2009, so doesn't have January 2009's numbers (so G.W. Bush creating 3 million jobs is overstated)
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/
mikekohr
(2,312 posts)and part of the historical BIG picture of Democrats ALWAYS producing higher monthly job creation numbers than their Republican predecessor or successors and Republicans presidents ALWAYS producing less jobs per month than their Democratic predecessor.
see: http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/job-growth.html
-snip-
"Considering the steady growth in population of the United States during this time frame the job creation rate should steadily increase each month (currently it must grow by 128,000 per month to keep up with population growth). This trend only manifests itself when examining Democratic administrations."
-end of snip-
The Republican economic and tax model has never worked. Not once.
progree
(10,918 posts)labor force size, as it is unfair for example, to compare Eisenhower's job creation numbers, in thousands, with a later president, like Obama, when the population is nearly 2X the size and the labor force is about 3X the size (please see my number 36 on this). Its much easier to create, say 200,000 jobs/month in an economy and population in a bigger country (U.S. in 2010's) than in a smaller country (U.S. in 1950's or 1980's).
mikekohr
(2,312 posts)Eisenhowers sucks. Compare Nixon to Johnson's. Nixon's sucks. Compare Nixon's to Carter's. Nixon's sucks. Compare Reagan to Carter's. Reagan's sucks. Compare Comapre Bush I to Clinton's and Bush I's rercord sucks ass. Compare Bush II's to Clinton's and Bush II's record really, really, really, really, sucks ass.
Pretty simple and remarkably consistant stuff. And yes those are technical terms.
progree
(10,918 posts)How would you feel if someone compared (former French socialist prime minister) Mitterand's job creating record in thousands to Reagan's and concluding that Reaganomics beats socialism (while leaving out the fact that France's economy is much smaller than the U.S.'s?)
I keep wondering what you are trying to hide with all your cherry-picking -- the last 28 months of Obama vs. Reagan's entire first term, not scaled by size of the workforce, ignoring Reagan's 2nd term (Reagan's first term was hampered by Volker raising interest rates through the ceiling to tamp out inflation). I'm not the only one here commenting on the obvious cherry-picking. It would make your case much stronger without it.
Also, most comparisons I've seen of presidents' economic records also have a lag of 1 year -- since it takes at least a year for a new president to get legislation enacted, and for that legislation to have an impact. That might work to the Dems advantage actually, certainly Obama's, since one doesn't have to arbitrarily remove Obama's first 20 months or whatever.
(Its also interesting that the low point of payroll jobs was Feb 2010, but you start in Sept 2010).
progree
(10,918 posts)On total (not just private sector) payroll jobs since 9/2010, I get 3,844,000 over 28 months = 137,286 per month, not your OP headline's 157,143 (which is close to the private sector's job creation number of 4,372,000 over 28 months = 156,143 per month. See my post #33. Must compare apples to apples).
Though there is another point of confusion: In your OP, you say 157,143/month since 9/2010.
In your #31, when questioned on the 157,143 number, you say 4,400,000 private sector jobs divided by 28 months is 157,142.85. (Me: actually 4,372,000 private sector jobs divided by 28 months = 156,143)
Well, going back from June 2012, 28 months takes us back to February 2010, not September 2010. (February 2010 is the month with the lowest payroll jobs in the Bush-Obama recession. September 2010 is the last month that there were job losses).
Anyway, I'm using your number ( http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/2012/07/president-obama-record-on-job-creation.html )
for Reagan's first term of 109,000 per month
Reagan 1st term: 109,000 jobs/mo. Payroll jobs at beginning of his term: 90.9 M.
. . Scaled: 119,912 jobs/mo created per 100 million jobs. Which is a 0.1199%/month job increase record.
Obama 3/1/10 - 6/30/12: 3,844,000 / 28 mo. = 137,286 jobs/mo. Payroll jobs at beginning of his term: 133.6 M.
. . Scaled: 102,759 jobs/mo created per 100 million jobs. Which is a 0.1028%/month job increase record.
So Reagan in his first term has a slightly better job creation record per 100 million jobs (119,912) than does Obama in his latest 28 months (102,759).
Is that what you are trying to hide?
Not to mention Reagan's 2nd term of 226,400 jobs/mo (which I calculate from your data of 109,000 jobs/mo in the first term and 167,708 both terms combined). Which when scaled, comes to 249,000 jobs/mo per 100 million jobs.
Though redoing Obama for the last 21 months, your "since 9/2010" (rather than the last 28 months), produces a better result:
Obama 10/1/10 - 6/30/12: 3,203 M jobs / 21 months = 152,524 jobs/mo. Payroll jobs at beginning of his term: 133.6 M.
. . Scaled: 114,165 jobs/mo created per 100 million jobs. Which is a 0.1142%/month job increase record.
(Still below (though slightly) Reagan's first term record of 119,912 jobs/mo per 100 million jobs)
You are right that Democratic administrations job creation records are overall vastly superior overall to Republicans. But cooking the numbers to score a 100% grand slam perfect record -- e.g. showing that Obama is a bigger job creator than the best Republican job creator (Reagan) -- detracts from that message, as several people in this thread have commented.
Just for the fun of it, I put the presidents in chronological order, color coded in blue for Dems and red for RepubliCONs. Which also amply illustrates your point about comparing the presidencies pairwise always showing the Dems having the advantage every time.
Jobs created per month
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=blue]Truman +86,500[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=red ]Eisenhower +36,458[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=blue]Kennedy +100,000[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=blue]Johnson +191,666[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=red ]Nixon +117,708 [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=blue]Carter +216,666 [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=red ]Reagan +167,708[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=red ]G. H. Bush +52,000[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=blue]Clinton +241,666[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=red ]G. W. Bush +19,895[/font]
mikekohr
(2,312 posts)But toward the end you are grasping reality. Republican job creation sucks. Always. Without exception.
Your explaining away the 31% better monthly job Creation record (in raw numbers) of President Obama, from 9/2012, as compared to the 1st term record of President Reagan, is overwrought. It is that kind of staggering minutia that causes people to tune out.
The population of the US grew 33% between 1984 and today. The labor force only grew by 30%. The difference in part due to an aging population. It it all but impossible to split out and weight exactly the differences from one administration to another over time.
But make no mistake about it. The problems we are overcoming today are deeply rooted in Reagan's Trickle Down economic and tax policies. Reagan was an economic F-U.
Trickle Down exploded the debt. The deregulation mindset set the stage for the repeal of Glass/Steegal and the collapse of the housing and financial industry. Reagan's anti labor rhetoric has been instrumental in the all out assault on the Labor Movement and the hollowing out of the middle class. The stagnation (loss actually) of median income of the last 30 years started with Reagan.
Two things grow when a Republican is in the White House, unemployment and the National Debt.
http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/national-debt.html
progree
(10,918 posts)Last edited Tue Jul 17, 2012, 12:23 PM - Edit history (1)
Is having the correct numbers minutia? Even without the scaling due to population size or labor force size, why don't you correct the numbers?
Is comparing apples to apples minutia?
And, is it last 21 months or last 28 months that you are talking about? Can't you tell us that? Please see mind-numbing minutia post #46.
And, is it private sector payroll jobs or all payroll jobs? Apples and Apples.
When the labor force has tripled in size, scaling becomes necessary. What matters really is percent increase, not increase in raw numbers. You would be squawking if some rightie compared former France socialist prime minister Mitterand's raw job creation numbers in thousands with those of Reagan's and concluding that Reaganomics beats socialism. (Without of course taking into consideration that France's population and workforce size is much smaller than the U.S.'s). That's not "mind-numbing minutia". One doesn't have to show all the calculations, just the data and the results. Just like seasonally adjusting most economic data -- the "staggering minutia" that goes into the seasonal adjustments is "mind numbing, tedious, and ultimately a turn off" but everyone agrees on its importance. You (and I) would loudly squawk if some rightie selectively used unseasonally adjusted numbers to make Obama look bad.
I'm not the only person in this thread who "tuned out" to the overwrought over-stretched-to-the-breaking-point selective cherry picking of your OP (see also joeglow3, FarCenter, cthulu2016, Prosense) - comparing 21 (or 28?) of Obama's best months and type of jobs with the best jobs numbers -- private sector -- to total payroll jobs in Reagan's entire worst term -- a term in which Volker was pushing interest rates through the roof to squeeze inflation out of the economy. Particularly considering what Obama's entire term (so far) record really is:
payroll jobs, thousands:
133,561 January 2009 1st month of Obama's presidency (beginning noon January 20)
133,088 June 2012 latest month of data
------------------------------------------------
___ 473 job loss under Obama's (473,000 jobs lost)
Also, historically, there is rapid job creation coming out of a recession, once it has gotten momentum. For example, in Reagan's first term, once job creation got rolling in April 83, 333,858 jobs / month were added in the next 21 months ( or if you prefer, 305,375 jobs / month in the next 28 months ). That's a 4.41% and 4.03% annual rate of increase respectively compared to the workforce size at the beginning of his term. (Equivalent to Obama increasing jobs by 490,687 / month over 21 months and 448,824 / month over 28 months respectively. Whereas, in the last 21 months, 152,524 jobs / month were created (137,286 jobs / month in the last 28 months).
Anyway, as for the other presidents, here's another presentation for what its worth.
Jobs created per month, in ascending order
Nixon and Reagan both beat both Truman and Kennedy. Other than that, Republicans are all clustered at the beginning of the list (the worst job creators are at the beginning).
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=red ]G. W. Bush +19,895[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=red ]Eisenhower +36,458[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=red ]G. H. Bush +52,000[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=blue]Truman +86,500[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=blue]Kennedy +100,000[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=red ]Nixon +117,708[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=red ]Reagan +167,708[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=blue]Johnson +191,666[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=blue]Carter +216,666[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=blue]Clinton +241,666[/font]
Jobs Created and Percentage increase in jobs created, in ascending order by the latter
# Jobs per month - Using Mike Kohr's numbers
# Jobs at start of Term, Millions - from http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/
# Annual percentage increase in jobs (simple, non-compounding) = (jobs created per month * 12 / jobs at start of term) * 100%
# I have not checked either source.
# Red - Republican presidents, Blue = Democrats.
The power of scaling by work force size -- Truman's mediocre-looking 86,500 jobs/month beats Reagan's 167,708 jobs/month in percentage increase terms.
You will be happy to note (as I am) that the worst Democratic president beats the best Republican president (counting completed presidencies).
I also put Obama's last 21 months jobs record -- 152,524 jobs/month -- at the end for comparison. (His 21 month job creation record in terms of jobs/month is better than his 28 month job creation record -- 137,286 jobs/mo, so I'm showing him in the most favorable way)
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= ] Average [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= ] number of Jobs at Annual [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= ] Jobs start of Percentage[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= ] Created Term Increase [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= ] President Per Month Millions In Jobs [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= ] ========= ========= ======== ======= [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=red ] G.W. Bush 19,895 132.5 0.18% [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=red ] G.H. Bush 52,000 106.9 0.58% [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=red ] Eisenhower 36,458 50.2 0.87% [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=red ] Nixon 117,708 69.2 2.04% [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=red ] Reagan 167,708 90.9 2.21% [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=blue] Kennedy 100,000 53.7 2.23% [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=blue] Truman 86,500 41.8 2.48% [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=blue] Clinton 241,666 109.4 2.65% [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=blue] Carter 216,666 80.4 3.23% [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=blue] Johnson 191,666 57.3 4.01% [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= ] Uncompleted Terms [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=blue] Obama,21mo 152,524 133.6 1.37% (Obama's last 21 months) [/font]
====================================================
Since we're talking about job creation during recovery phases, this brought to mind a tool that I haven't taken the time to absorb, FWIW:
The Minneapolis Federal Reserve's recessions and recoveries comparison tool:
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/studies/recession_perspective/index.cfm
Unfortunately, Clinton repealed Glass Steagal. I hate to say it but Democrats share a lot of the blame for the housing / financial crisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act
mikekohr
(2,312 posts)Bill Clinton should have vetoed it and made the House and Senate override the veto. A pox on the house of every Democrat that voted for this bill and Clinton's unmatched economic record will be stained by his signing of this bill.
The biggest failure of Democrrats is when they cave to Republican economic ideas and principles.
And once again thanks for pointing out in excruciating detail that which I pointed out in the link in the lead post:
http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/job-growth.html
-clip-
Considering the steady growth in population of the United States during this time frame the job creation rate should steadily increase each month (currently it must grow by 128,000 per month to keep up with population growth). This trend only manifests itself when examining Democratic administrations:-end clip-
It should be 28 months instead of 21. Thanks for catching that. But please answer my question as to why you seems so interested in defending Ronald Reagan's economic record and philosophy? He, his record, and his legacy even more than Romney, are the problem today, and not the solution.
progree
(10,918 posts)http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/job-growth.html
[font color=blue]-clip- Considering the steady growth in population of the United States during this time frame the job creation rate should steadily increase each month (currently it must grow by 128,000 per month to keep up with population growth). This trend only manifests itself when examining Democratic administrations:-end clip- [/font]
You're welcome. Your statement above falls short of what I stated and documented in my last post -- the percentage increase in payroll jobs of even the worst Democrat exceeds the percentage increase of even the best Republican. Your data does not show this, nor does it show what the above clip claims to show. You just said it because it sounds "progressive" and that's good enough for you. What's more what you say above is not true for ANY Democratic president (post WWII) -- they all have some months of job decreases, so they fall short of your "job creation rate should steadily increase EACH month" (emphasis mine, albeit in most cases they are minor blemishes on excellent overall records, excepting notably Truman -- who has negative job months all over his time in office, and Carter, who, besides a couple scattered negative months, has one continuous 4 month stretch in 1980 where 1.16 million jobs were lost). Nice try though.
You're welcome. By the way, that was pointed out long ago by one or two others as well as me in #43 and #46.
"But please answer my question as to why..." You word this to make it sound like you asked the question before and that I ducked it. False and false.
As for me defending Reagan's philosophy, you won't find that in anything I previously wrote, and you know that. It is clear from the way that you cook your numbers [font color=red]{1}[/font] that you are a compulsive liar, but falsely implying that I'm a RW troll or Reaganite is way over the top. But please answer my question as to why you don't ask joeglow3, FarCenter, cthulu2016, and Prosense why they "seem so interested in defending Ronald Reagan's economic record and philosophy" -- since they committed the crime (in your mind) of also pointing out the blatantly obvious apples and oranges nature of your Reagan vs. Obama job creation comparison.
Why are you giving us incorrect information and obviously apples v. orange comparisons that are easily seen through [font color=red]{1}[/font] (note the 4 other people who mentioned it) and thus ruining our credibility if we used them in discussions with right-wingers or potential swing voters. Are you a RW troll? And your website is so blatantly ideological in tone that anyone looking for the truth will quickly go elsewhere. Too bad - it's a great story (job creation by post WWII presidents with completed terms (which excludes Obama) showing an overwhelming superiority over Republican presidents in job creation, but when you have obvious errors and the ultra-ideological tone, people will just go elsewhere. I'd like to link to it, but I can't ethically, and I know it would be a turnoff to swing voters.
Another problem I have is I simply hate being lied to. It is why I'm a member of organizations like Angies List and Consumer Reports so that some lying ***holes don't rip me off or endanger my life (e.g. certain prescription drugs). I particularly have issues with someone calling himself a "progressive" who lies to his fellow progressives. I feel I ought to be able to come to Democratic Underground and not be lied to, but I suppose that is naïve. Lies destroy our democracy - democratic governance requires at least a somewhat informed public.
Some people will say, "why shouldn't we lie, after all the RepubliCONS are lying all of the time", and "it's dumb to bring a knife to a gunfight". Yes, it sounds wonderfully "progressive" and "logical". But lying for the sake of lying is just plain stupid if you gain nothing from it in exchange for losing your credibility. For example, sneakily substituting Obama's 28-month PRIVATE job creation number (157,143/mo after you artfully rounded up from 156,143/mo) in place of his TOTAL job creation number (137,286/mo) gains you nothing substantive (since either way it is still better than what you insist on comparing it to -- Reagan's overall first term of 109,000/mo), but you wipe out your credibility with anyone who actually goes to the BLS.gov site and looks at the total job creation numbers and find nothing like 157,143/mo that you proclaim. So do you really think they are going to believe any of your other job numbers? Or anything on your website?
Not to mention the strained beyond-the-breaking point comparison of Obama's best 28 months to Reagan's worst term, where someone doesn't even have to check your numbers to wonder what else you are trying to pull on us (as 4 other people besides myself have already noted).
It is reminiscent of "progressive" radio talk host Norman Goldman -- he is a lawyer who puts out a lot of hard factual information and legal analysis (having earned the title "senior legal analyst" during his frequent appearances on the Ed Schultz show). And then he is constantly yammering about John "Boner" this and John "Boner" that and John "Boner" here and John "Boner" there. And when he gets criticized for such silly adolescent asinine name-calling, he defends it by saying the Republicans do name-calling, so we have to too, otherwise we're bringing a knife to a gun fight. And I start to wonder given this silly logic if his legal analysis might also be suspect. It is the kind of pre-adolescent hyper-partisanship that turns off anyone in the middle or right from listening to him. We're going to defeat the Republicans by saying "boner boner boner boner boner"? That's bringing a gun to a gun fight? Give me a break.
======================================================================
[font color=red]{1}[/font] Cooked numbers (all of this reported in past posts):
# Comparing Obama's best job number -- PRIVATE sector job growth (156,143/mo over 28 months) -- to Reagan's TOTAL (private + govt) job growth, and not telling anybody. It is still something you refuse to fix or reveal, judging from my latest visit to your Obama job creation page http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/2012/07/president-obama-record-on-job-creation.html ). (Obama's 28 month TOTAL job growth is 137,286 per month, 12.6% less than the 157,143/mo over 28 months that you tout as what to compare to Reagan's total job growth).
# Stretching the number even a little further -- rounding up 4.372 million jobs to 4.4 million jobs and then dividing by 28 months to get 157,143 average jobs/month -- presented with 6 significant digits as if it is accurate to 6 digits (when you've first rounded up a 4 digit number (4.372) to 2 digits (4.4) ). The consequence is minor, but just shows how you have some bizarre need to stretch for a half percent extra with no regard as to what another stretch does to your credibility.
# Comparing Obama's best 28 months to Reagan's entire worst term (a term that began with Volcker, a Carter appointee, having already raised interest rates through the roof (beginning in October 1979) to crush inflation) -- at least this apples v. oranges comparisons was something you didn't try to hide. (Too bad Carter doesn't get credit for this Profiles In Courage act, since the worsening economy in 1980 -- a consequence of this brave act -- probably cost him the election).
# The scaling issue - comparing Reagan's raw job creation numbers in thousands with Obama's, leaving aside the fact that the employed labor force at the beginning of the Reagan presidency was 2/3 the size of Obama's at the beginning of his presidency.
# Your statement, "President Obama's Record On Job Creation Is 157,143 Per Month Since 4/2010, - better than any Republican President", is simply untrue. Not just that the correct number is 137,286 as discussed above, but that either way, both Reagan and Bush II (and probably some other Republican presidents but I didn't bother to check) had better 28-month (and 21-month) job creation records than Obama -- triple the job creation rate in the case of Reagan, and a 48% better 28-month job creation rate in the case of G.W. Bush (and a 38% better 21-month rate).
/==================================================
Job Creation Rates in the Best Contiguous 28 and 21 months of 3 Presidents
As of 7/29/12 (last data is June 2012)
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= ] Average [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= ] number of Jobs at Annual [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= ] Jobs start of Percent [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= ] Created Term Increase [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= ] Per Month Millions In Jobs Period [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= ] *** Best 28 months *** [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=red ] Reagan 305,357 91.0 4.03% Apr 1983 - July 1985[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=red ] Bush II 200,643 132.5 1.82% Jan 2004 - Apr 2006[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=blue] Obama 137,286 133.6 1.23% Mar 2010 - Jun 2012[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= ] *** Best 21 months *** [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=red ] Reagan 333,857 91.0 4.40% Apr 1983 - Dec 1984[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=red ] Bush II 209,000 132.5 1.89% Aug 2004 - Apr 2006[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=blue] Obama 152,524 133.6 1.37% Oct 2010 - Jun 2012[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= ] ^#^#^#^ [/font]
The "best 21" and "best 28" months are eyeball-determined contiguous 21 or 28 months. I didn't spend much time trying to make sure these were truly the best 21 and best 28 contiguous months. For Obama, they are the last 21 and 28 months (and again, by the eyeball test his best 21 and 28 contiguous months).
For Reagan, the period "April 1983 - July 1985" means that on the monthly job changes table, the selection range highlight included both of the end months -- April 1983 and July 1985 -- and all the months in between. It is the equivalent on the absolute job numbers table of subtracting the March 1983 number from the July 1985 number. Similarly for the other periods in this column.
And the picture on Labor Force Participation rate is pretty gloomy too. The 28 month and 21 month figures for the same periods as above:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
Labor Force Participation Rate Changes during the Best 28 months and Best 21 Months
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= ] *** Best 28 months *** [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=red ]Reagan +1.0%, from 63.7% to 64.7%[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=red ]Bush II +0.2%, from 65.9% to 66.1%[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=blue]Obama -1.1%, from 64.9% to 63.8%[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= ] *** Best 21 months *** [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=red ]Reagan +0.9%, from 63.7% to 64.6%[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=red ]Bush II 0.0%, from 66.1% to 66.1%[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=blue]Obama -0.8%, from 64.6% to 63.8%[/font]
The labor force participation rate drop under Obama would be even worse if so many had not become disabled -- since June 2009, 2.6 M jobs have been created but 3.1 M signed up for disability -- Newsweek 7/23/12
I only bring these negative statistics for Obama up because (1) you don't seem to comprehend why so many are skeptical about your touting a great job recovery under Obama and (2) so that you realize that anyone who spends a few minutes at the bls.gov site will easily be able to contradict your assertions and (3) as a self-regarded Democratic strategist, you need to understand just how far short Obama's job recovery on the lead up to the Nov 2012 election is, compared to Reagan's "Morning In America" lead up to his re-election campaign in 1984. For example, in the 18 months up through June 1984, the Reagan economy averaged 316,944 jobs/month (a 4.18% annual growth rate), compared to Obama's 152,333 jobs/month in the 18 months up through June 2012 (a 1.37% annual growth rate).
\==================================================
One last about my "Mind numbing, tedious, and ultimately a turn off" table in #46 that you criticize in #48 -- I notice also that this website -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms which you link to from your http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/job-growth.html page includes a percentage change column, so that presidents over a 66 year period spanning a tripling of the workforce are not being unfairly compared with unscaled raw job creation numbers in thousands. (Besides showing results for presidential terms, it also shows results for presidential terms shifted by 8 months to coincide with the fiscal years that a president has budgetary input for -- something similar to what I mentioned in #43)
Bill Clinton should have vetoed it and made the House and Senate override the veto. A pox on the house of every Democrat that voted for this bill and Clinton's unmatched economic record will be stained by his signing of this bill.
The biggest failure of Democrats is when they cave to Republican economic ideas and principles.
Yup. Bill Clinton was quite a Reaganite in a lot of ways. NAFTA topped off by granting Most Favored Nation status to the Chinese dictatorship (buh bye manufacturing sector). Welfare "reform". So was Carter with deregulating the trucking and airline industries. And Obama with TPP Trans-Pacific Partnership (aka NAFTA on hyper-steroids). Reagan had a few lefty policies like being a big booster of the Earned Income Tax Credit and he extended the solvency of Social Security and Medicare for many decades.
/============================================
The Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would grant enormous new powers to corporations, is a massive assault on democracy.
http://www.thenation.com/article/168627/nafta-steroids
=============================================/
progree
(10,918 posts)I see that in January 1981 - when Reagan took office, the unemployment rate was 7.5%. When he left office, in January 1989, it was 5.4%. Doesn't seem to fit your assertion.
Though I suppose if you combine Reagan and Bush I (Bush I immediately followed Reagan in January 1989), it is almost breakeven: in January 1981 - when Reagan took office, the unemployment rate was 7.5%. In January 1993 when Bush I left office, the unemployment rate was 7.3% -- a measly 0.2% improvement during the combined presidencies.
Oh, on the national debt - to be fair, that (in $) has grown under every president -- Republican and Democrat -- since WWII.
As % of GDP, the national debt fell under both Eisenhower and Nixon. (It also fell under all post WWII Dems except Obama)
mikekohr
(2,312 posts)in an attempt to deny the record.
Over the last 70 years the record is clear, two things grow when a Republican is in the White House, National Debt and Unemployment.
Romney's economic plan, which doubles down on Reaganomics, Will expand the deficit.
see: http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/2012/06/trickle-down-has-never-worked-not-once.html
http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/2012/02/republican-candidates-propose-even.html
?
And his record suggests unemployment will grow as well.
see: http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/2012/05/remember-romneys-record-on-job-creation.html
Republicans have not had a new idea in 30 years or a good one in 140.
progree
(10,918 posts)in an attempt to deny the record.
And what is it that Clinton said that agrees with you and disagrees with anything I said? Hmmmm???
And, uhh, what true record am I trying to deny, HMMMMM????? Please be specific and include actual quotes, not generalized false accusations
[font color=blue]Progree #52: "I see that in January 1981 - when Reagan took office, the unemployment rate was 7.5%. When he left office, in January 1989, it was 5.4%. Doesn't seem to fit your assertion.
"Oh, on the national debt - to be fair, that (in $) has grown under every president -- Republican and Democrat -- since WWII.
"As % of GDP, the national debt fell under both Eisenhower and Nixon. (It also fell under all post WWII Dems except Obama)" [/font]
[font color=red]Mike #53: "Over the last 70 years the record is clear, two things grow when a Republican is in the White House, National Debt and Unemployment." [/font]
Clear? Repeating the same lie over and over again isn't going to make it true, nor is it going to make it "clear". Have you considered getting help? Why are you lying to your fellow progressives?
What about the unemployment rate going down from 7.5% to 5.4% when Reagan was in the White House? HMMMMMMMM? It is not "clear" to anybody but you that unemployment grew when Reagan was in the White House. Not unless you have a bass-ackward definition of "grow"
As for "hair splitting", besides claiming that reducing the unemployment rate from 7.5% to 5.4% is growing unemployment --
Claiming Obama created 157,143/mo jobs per month over the last 28 months (through June 2012) when the real number is 137,286/mo, (a 14.5% overstatement) (and this has been pointed out to you over and over and over again but you refuse to change your website or acknowledge that here) is hair-splitting? When Reagan's best 28 months, in percentage increase terms, is more than 3 X better than Obama's best 28 months? And Bush II's best 28 month record is 48% better? That's hair-splitting?
A bizarre comparison of a 14.5% overstated Obama job number for his best 28 months (thru June 2012) compared to Reagan's entire worst term -- an issue 4 other people pointed out to you -- is hair-splitting?
Would you be calling this "hair-splitting" if it were the other way around, and some RepubliCON inflated some Republican "best 28 month" number by 14.5%, and then compared it to some Democrat's worst term?
If your statements and numbers are only a “hair-split” distance from the truth in your mind, then why don’t you just tell the truth? Why throw away your credibility for a “hair-split” difference?
The rest of your #53 post refers to your website, and is about what Romney might do in the future. It is irrelevant to our discussion about you lying about the past records of presidents. And given what I've documented so far about your work -- see #51 and #52 -- and your doubling down on your lie about the record being when a Republican is in the White House, unemployment grows -- I have no use for your website. I prefer to use facts when trying to convince others, not cooked numbers, irrelevant and obviously apples and oranges comparisons, and false histrionic assertions. Sorry about that. I've explained in #51 why lying is unnecessary, counter-productive, and therefore just plain stupid. And a big disservice to progressives.
====================================
By the way, I updated my version of the Job Numbers through July 31 (using today's -- August 3's -- job report numubers) at #55:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1070714
a kennedy
(29,706 posts)does it only come out once a month??
mikekohr
(2,312 posts)There are various reports listing unemployment numbers by weekly, biweekly, monthly and quarterly. The final monthly job creation record numbers come out after numerous revisions.
Here are the souces I used to compile my monthly job creation graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/
see graph at: http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/job-growth.html
progree
(10,918 posts)The famous jobs report -- both the payroll jobs and the unemployment rate -- come out the FIRST FRIDAY of the month, 830 AM ET.
By the way, the payroll jobs report and the unemployment rate are based on separate surveys (the former of employers, the latter of households) though they happen to come out at the same time -- first Friday of the month.
Here's where the OFFICIAL data may be accessed. Accessing it from anywhere else may be problematic as one may be viewing someone's inaccurate or old copy or massaged - for - political - purposes copy.
# Payroll Jobs: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001
# Monthly change of above: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth
# . . Hint: to see both of the above two together on the same page, go to http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001 and click on the "More Formatting Options" link in the upper right and check the "Original Data Value" and the "1-Month Net Change" checkboxes and click the "Retrieve Data" button halfway down the page on the left
# Private Sector Payroll Employment: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001
# Monthly change of above: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001?output_view=net_1mth
# . . Hint: to see both of the above two together on the same page, go to http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001
and click on the "More Formatting Options" link in the upper right and check the "Original Data Value" and the "1-Month Net Change" checkboxes and click the "Retrieve Data" button halfway down the page on the left
# Unemployment Rate, from 1948 on: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
# Labor Force Participation Rate from 1948 on: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
(on both of the above, you can change the "From" and "To" dates to whatever you want at the top center pulldown boxes
ananda
(28,876 posts)Jobs and labor have historically been the province of the Democrats.
progree
(10,918 posts)To all interested: some official job numbers plus some clearly sourced and factual talking points -- when your RW uncle rants and raves about "no jobs Obama".
{#} Job Loss and Creation - Payroll Jobs
Factoids (official source follows):
# Under Obama there have been 29 straight months of private sector job growth, totaling 4.5 million jobs (thru July 2012 with June & July preliminary)
# The economy Bush handed to Obama lost 4.3 million jobs during the last 10 months of the Bush administration. Furthermore, at the end of the Bush administration the rate of job losses was accelerating -- losing 2.28 million jobs just in his last 3 months -- an average of 760,000 lost jobs a month (the average of the last 3 months of the Bush presidency).
# 2.7 million payroll jobs have been created under Obama since June 2009 (that's when the recession ended according to the NBER (nber.org, the official arbiter of when the economic turning points occur), and only 5 months since Obama took office) (thru July 2012 with June & July preliminary) . Bush only created 1.1 million payroll jobs in his entire 8 year presidency
# 3.4 million private sector jobs were created under Obama since June 2009 (thru July 2012 with June & July preliminary) (contrast that to Bush destroying 0.7 million private sector jobs during his presidency)
# Bush's record: created 1.1 million payroll jobs - by creating 1.8 million government jobs and destroying 0.7 million private sector jobs. ( the actual numbers are, in thousands: 1,080, 1,753, 673 ). Yes, it is ironic that a supposed "small government conservative" ended up creating government jobs and destroying private sector jobs.
# The Clinton economy created 22.7 million payroll jobs of which 20.8 million were in the private sector
Official sources of information for the above:
# Payroll Jobs: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001
# Monthly change of above: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth
# . . Hint: to see both of the above two together on the same page, go to http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001 and click on the "More Formatting Options" link in the upper right and check the "Original Data Value" and the "1-Month Net Change" checkboxes and click the "Retrieve Data" button halfway down the page on the left
# Private Sector Payroll Employment: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001
# Monthly change of above: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001?output_view=net_1mth
# . . Hint: to see both of the above two together on the same page, go to http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001
and click on the "More Formatting Options" link in the upper right and check the "Original Data Value" and the "1-Month Net Change" checkboxes and click the "Retrieve Data" button halfway down the page on the left
This one compares all post-WWII presidents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms
{#} Job Loss and Creation - Unemployment Rate, Labor Force Participation Rate
# Unemployment Rate, from 1948 on: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
# Labor Force Participation Rate from 1948 on: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
(on both of the above, you can change the "From" and "To" dates to whatever you want at the top center pulldown boxes)
# Unemployment rate, seas adjusted
(All values are January unemployment rates, specifically Jan 1989, Jan 1993, Jan 2001, Jan 2009), with the exception of the current unemployment rate under Obama, which is the end of last month. If you get into Obama's unemployment rate, it is worthwhile to point out that if one starts from June 2009, when the recession ended according to the NBER (the official arbiter of economic turning points, NBER.org), and just 5 months after Obama took office, then the unemployment rate has been cut by 1.2 percentage points. Obama cannot be blamed for the job losses in his first 5 months, given that the economy Bush handed him was losing 760,000 jobs per month in his last 3 months, and it takes many months to enact and implement new policies and for them to take effect).
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"] Bush I: 5.4% to 7.3%, Change= + 1.9%
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"] Clinton: 7.3% to 4.2%, Change= - 3.1%
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"] Bush II: 4.2% to 7.7%, Change= + 3.5%
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"] Obama's first 5 months: 7.7% to 9.5%, Change= + 1.8% (Jan '09 - May '09)
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"] Obama thereafter: 9.5% to 8.3%, Change= - 1.2% (Jun '09 - Jul '12)
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"] Obama entire term so far: 7.7% to 8.3%, Change= + 0.6% (Jan '09 - Jul '12)
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"] (June 2009, just 5 months after Obama took office, is when the recession ended, per NBER.org)
# Under Bush II, the unemployment rate rose by 3.5 pp (percentage points) while the Civilian Labor Force Participation rate fell 1.5 pp: from 67.2% to 65.7% (had the participation rate stayed the same, the unemployment rate would have risen even further). Contrast that to Clinton, where the unemployment rate dropped 3.1 pp while the Civilian Labor Force Participation rate rose by 1.0 pp. Secret information: Under Obama through July 2012 the unemployment rate rose 0.6 pp while the civilian labor force participation rate fell 2.0 pp, from 65.7% to 63.7%
{#} Job Loss and Creation - Unemployment Insurance Claims
# Unemployment insurance initial claims: http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims.asp
# It peaked at 667,000 initial claims 3/28/09 (2 months after Obama took office) and since then it has shown a steady improvement.
# Myth: "those who have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits are not counted as unemployed. If they were counted, the official unemployment rate would be much higher" (you often hear this claim from the RepubliCONS when a Democratic president is in the White House, and vice versa).
# Fact: the count of the unemployed and the unemployment rate is not a count of those receiving unemployment benefits, nor is unemployment benefit receiver status factored at all into any of the official unemployment rate statistics (U3, U4, U5, U6, etc.). Rather, the unemployment rate is based on a survey of 60,000 households chosen at random. See: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm or Google: "Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey"
