Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

George W. Bush: Worst job creating president in 70 years!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Elwood P Dowd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-13-06 12:08 AM
Original message
George W. Bush: Worst job creating president in 70 years!
Edited on Thu Apr-13-06 12:10 AM by Elwood P Dowd
http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=sr-109-2-1

Worst private sector job growth since Hoover Administration. A growing economy should be good news for those seeking jobs. But over the course of President Bush’s five years in office, his Administration has the worst private sector job creation record since Herbert Hoover more than 70 years ago. This translates into an average annual job growth rate of 0.2 percent per year in the private sector since 2001. (Joint Economic Committee Democrats, 12/7/05) The manufacturing sector, often the source of jobs with good pay and benefits, has lost almost 3 million jobs since the start of the Bush Administration. This lack of job growth is particularly troubling given that we are so far into the economic recovery. Payroll employment grew by only 108,000 in December 2005; it was not uncommon to see monthly job gains of 300,000 and even 400,000 during economic expansions under previous Administrations. (Economic Policy Institute, The Boom That Wasn’t, 12/19/05)

<more>


http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02112006.html

Job growth over the last five years is the weakest on record. The US economy came up more than 7 million jobs short of keeping up with population growth. That’s one good reason for controlling immigration. An economy that cannot keep up with population growth should not be boosting population with heavy rates of legal and illegal immigration.

Over the past five years the US economy experienced a net job loss in goods producing activities. The entire job growth was in service-providing activities--primarily credit intermediation, health care and social assistance, waiters, waitresses and bartenders, and state and local government.

US manufacturing lost 2.9 million jobs, almost 17% of the manufacturing work force. The wipeout is across the board. Not a single manufacturing payroll classification created a single new job.

<more>


http://www.aflcio.org/issues/jobseconomy/jobs/jobcrisis.cfm

Jobs Crisis in America

The nation's economy has nearly 79,000 fewer private-sector jobs than when President George W. Bush took office.

<more>

http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/145081.htm

Private Sector Jobs: Net Four-Year Loss

News reports suggested that January job data spared President Bush from joining Herbert Hoover as the only president to see a net job loss during a four-year term. However, under Bush's watch, private sector jobs dropped 760,000, according to January 2005's anemic job growth projections. Bush's public reputation was spared only because of growth in government sector jobs, a cushy buffer missing during the Hoover days.

In January 2000, when President Bush took office, there were 111,622,000 private sector jobs in the US. Projected numbers for January 2005 are 110,862,000, a net loss of 760,000 private sector jobs. In comparison, in January 1997 there were 101,639,000 private sector jobs -- meaning 9,983,000 were created during President Clinton's second term of office.

As other analysts have pointed out, the recession can no longer be used as the whipping boy for this abysmal economic performance: it's been over for three
years.

<more>

Note: Author of the above mistakenly listed January 2000 instead of January 2001.


The link below shows a graph with every president's job creation record since WWII.

http://www.musicforamerica.org/node/1323


Here is a link with a brief description of how Bush's Dept Of Labor lies about job creation.

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2004/05/what_are_they_s.html

That estimate comes from the Labor Department's "birth/death model." You can look up these numbers on the Department's Web site.

As staggering as the assumption about new companies was in March, the Labor Department got even more brazen in April. Last Friday, it was disclosed that these imaginary jobs had been increased by 117,000 to 270,000 for the latest month - because, I guess, the stat jockeys got a vision from the gods of spring.

Without those extra 117,000 make-believe jobs, the total growth for April would have been just 171,000 - sub-par for an economy that's supposed to be growing at more than 4 percent a year, but right on the pros' targets.

Take away all 270,000 make-believe jobs and, well, you have the sort of pessimism that the political pollsters are seeing.

<more>


Here is an article from 2003 - The Labor Research Association

http://www.laborresearch.org/story.php?id=327

Bush’s Job-Loss Recovery the Worst on Record Since the Great Depression (October 7, 2003)

By Cynthia Green

With wages stagnant, job creation slow and unemployment swelling, it’s clear that President Bush’s trillion-dollar tax cuts still haven’t produced the kind of economic recovery that will lift all workers and job seekers.

A new report by the Economic Policy Institute shows that the labor market is in worse shape now that when the most recent recession ended, in November 2001.

In "Labor Market Left Behind," senior economist Jared Bernstein and EPI President Lawrence Mishel give Bush and his team the dubious honor of presiding over the lousiest recovery, in terms of employment growth, since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began tracking employment in 1939.

<more>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
fun n serious Donating Member (102 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-13-06 12:41 AM
Response to Original message
1. Thank you
This is great reading. Thanks for posting this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-13-06 12:43 AM
Response to Original message
2. Worst Everything President in 70 years. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-13-06 12:48 AM
Response to Original message
3. but... but.. but... 9/11!!!
9/11!!! 9/11!!! 9/11!!! 9/11!!! CLENIS!!! 9/11!!!9/11!!!9/11!!! 9/11!!! 9/11!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bbinacan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-13-06 12:51 AM
Response to Original message
4. Devil's advocate here
We are at 4.7% unemployment.The standard for full employment is a "frictional" or a "transitional" rate of 5%.:hide:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Elwood P Dowd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-13-06 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. It's a lie!
Plus it also includes a ton part-time jobs and minimum wage jobs. You could have 0% unemployment with everyone making 10 cents an hour. Hell, we may have that eventually with the Bush Crime Family in charge of the economy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bbinacan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-13-06 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. What is a Lie?
Cite facts and don't call me a liar. Have you ever taken an Econ class?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-13-06 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. You weren't called the liar, the 4.7% is a lie
Most of that number is because so many people on unemployment are not counted after six months. The 4.7% is only for people unemployed within the last six months, many more people have been unemployed for a much longer time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-13-06 01:25 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. This is off subject, but I just wanted to say you have one of the most
powerful sig lines in that of Cindy. :cry:

Why people bash this woman linazelle, I will never, ever understand.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Elwood P Dowd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-13-06 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Thanks
Edited on Thu Apr-13-06 01:22 AM by Elwood P Dowd
I should have pointed out in the post that the number was a lie, not you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bbinacan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-13-06 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. Thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-13-06 07:31 AM
Response to Reply #4
17. govt. unemployment figures are being spun, ever since reagan.
it ONLY tracks people still looking for work. It does not track those who've given up, the underemployed nor does it track new workers entering the system who have yet to find work for the first time.
It would be better to track employment rather than unemployment for an accurate picture.
The best estimates I've seen say to ad at least 10% to any released govt. unemployment figure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trogdor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-13-06 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #17
22. If I were the new Sec'y of Labor...
...I'd un-pimp them all the way back to 1982, and hold a big, fat press conference to announce my un-pimped figures (and a way to make it better). That's the only way you'll un-pimp the numbers; un-pimp them for Clinton, too.

I read somewhere that you should probably add between three and five points to the official unemployment number. The last recession resulted in a real unemployment figure somewhere in the range of 13-16 percent, while President Clinton's low-water mark of 3.9% was probably closer to 6% - still not bad, and as close to full employment as any administration has seen in he post-World War II era.

The simple fact is, you can't get below 4% without cooking the books - it just can't be done because of the way our economy works. That's why people used to say 5% represented full employment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-13-06 12:55 AM
Response to Original message
5. Yea, what did Al Franken joke? Something like if W and HW had been
the only presidents since the birth this nation, not one American would have ever worked!! ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
area51 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-13-06 01:18 AM
Response to Original message
10. economy
I hear you; this is a subject near & dear to my heart, esp. since I'm unemployed. I'm afraid a lot of people don't realize just how bad this economy is until they lose their job & have to try to find another, & are shocked at just how hard it is to find employment. Here's an interesting pdf interview w/an economist who says we're at 12% unemployment.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msgadget Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-13-06 01:24 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Thanks for that link!
I HATE it when unemployment statistics are trumpeted - people have SUCH short memories! Good luck with your job search.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-13-06 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. The answers are there for all to see...especially the MBA Grad
But why then is he not carrying a profit* after all these 5 years?

* National Surplus(Profit/Positive/etc) is much better than National Deficit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-13-06 01:30 AM
Response to Original message
15. Most of these numbers are out of date
So I wouldn't cite them in arguments.

But your initial fact remains that Bush is worst job creating president in 70 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Elwood P Dowd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-13-06 01:37 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. That was just some links I had in my files
I would imagine the latest numbers might be better, but then look who is in charge of those numbers. What about the CPI numbers? Who was the old Democratic senator who said, "There is some serious book cooking going on up here." Probably Fritz Hollings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shenmue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-13-06 07:41 AM
Response to Original message
18. Yep, he stinks at everything
:dunce: :dunce: :dunce:

Name me one thing that moron has improved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mnmoderatedem Donating Member (599 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-13-06 07:46 AM
Response to Original message
19. not to mention
If I'm not mistaken, I believe most of the "job creation" under shrub has been in the low paying service sector field, as exporting of manufacturing/technical etc. jobs have forced middle class workers to take lower paying jobs, thus depressing wages.


Maybe someone has a link that can demonstrate this...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Twist_U_Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-13-06 07:48 AM
Response to Original message
20. Its part of the plan
NWO

problem,reaction,solution
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-13-06 08:31 AM
Response to Original message
21. And he managed to do it WITHOUT an economic depression
That's quite a feat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 09:06 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC