Some Factual Data About Private Sector Jobs

[oglfp12]

I am not a frequent poster in this forum. I don’t even visit it often, because I can’t stand all the vitriol. Nevertheless, I just had to make this Bloomberg News item available to everyone: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/private-jobs-increase-more-democrats-040007136.html?l=1

[Sexyeccentric1]

Hahahah.. thanks for posting this!

[Doove]

My favorite two parts:

"Through April, private employers have added an average of about 900 jobs per month since Obama's inauguration. During the two terms of his predecessor, Republican George W. Bush, private payrolls shrank by an average of 6,700 jobs per month."

So much for all the pinheads (meaning pretty much every righty and libertarian in here) who claim all their business buddies stopped hiring when Obama took office out of fear of what he would do.....

Oh, and so much for them also claiming that those of us who called bullshit on their claims have no clue about running a business.

And....

"Republicans, campaigning on pledges to cut government spending and programs, had a relatively better record at creating public-sector jobs. Since January 1961, federal, state and local government employment grew by 7.1 million under Republican presidents and 6.3 million when Democrats were in the White House. Government agencies added an average of 21,000 jobs per month under Republicans, compared with 22,000 for Democrats."

...so much for their claims that they favor smaller government.

Not sure what they have left, really.

[Guest123018-4]

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/ar...ins-in-a-rout/

[Randy4Candy]

T2WeenieDogs, I think I'll go with Michael Bloomberg instead of Houston's favorite oil company ho,' Marc Campos. Yep, the Bloomberg article has facts whereas the Campos diatribe has questionable, dated anecdotes. I know, a silly bias on my part but things may have changed a bit since July 2010.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/ar...ins-in-a-rout/

A 2 year old article?

I think i can top that.

Remember this part? I'm sure you do, since this will be the third time i've posted it.

"Of the administrations shown, overall growth in Mr. Obama’s first three years has been the slowest. But that is largely because government spending did not accelerate as it normally does when the private sector is weak. The private sector grew faster in the first three years of the Obama administration than it did in three of the previous five administrations — the exception being Bill Clinton’s administrations, when private sector growth was more rapid. In both of George W. Bush’s terms as well as in the first three years of the George H. W. Bush administration, though, the private sector grew more slowly."

[IIFFOFRDB]

Thanks DOG. FUCKEM.......

[Guest123018-4]

Delusional. are they not.

[Boltfan]

Interesting, but pretty irrelevant. Clinton is probably the only one to be able to take most of the credit for the jobs being created during his terms.

How many Clinton era jobs were lost and "credited" against GWB during his first year in office? How many GWB era jobs were lost and "credited" against BO, thereby hurting Obama's 900 jobs/month figure, etc.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by Doove

A 2 year old article?

I think i can top that.

Remember this part? I'm sure you do, since this will be the third time i've posted it.

"Of the administrations shown, overall growth in Mr. Obama’s first three years has been the slowest. But that is largely because government spending did not accelerate as it normally does when the private sector is weak. The private sector grew faster in the first three years of the Obama administration than it did in three of the previous five administrations — the exception being Bill Clinton’s administrations, when private sector growth was more rapid. In both of George W. Bush’s terms as well as in the first three years of the George H. W. Bush administration, though, the private sector grew more slowly."

I don't remember the quote exactly.

But I sure remember this response.

Quiet for a news cycle, then pretend this was never pointed out. Repeat claims bloggers agree with but the facts don't.

Repeat as needed.

[Af-Freakin]

LOL! ill bet it holds true that dempcrats r better 4 jobs when they hold the senate & house & regardless of economic cycle. LOL! u conservatards r fucked.

[farmstud60]

I skimmed the article, but it the numbers are pretty worthless.

1.) They go back to 1961, so there are several economic cycles that have come and gone.

2.) They really don't say when they start counting jobs, if it is January 20 when the President is sworn in, the numbers are not accurate.

3.) The best Democrat was Clinton, and he basically turned into a Republican to get re-elected when Republicans took over Congress.

[oglfp12]

Originally Posted by farmstud60

I skimmed the article, but it the numbers are pretty worthless.

1.) They go back to 1961, so there are several economic cycles that have come and gone.

2.) They really don't say when they start counting jobs, if it is January 20 when the President is sworn in, the numbers are not accurate.

3.) The best Democrat was Clinton, and he basically turned into a Republican to get re-elected when Republicans took over Congress.

1.) In my opinion, the fact the data cover several economic cycles just makes it more convincing.

2.) As for when they started counting for each administration, I think a month here or a month there would wash out over a 50 year period. Any difference would be trivial.

3.) Clinton came into office slashing government. That, combined with an intelligent tax policy helped create an economy that produced budget surpluses as he left office. I don't know if that made him a Republican, but it did make him a pretty good president.

[Texas Contrarian]

This should come as a surprise to no one.

Similarly, and contrarily to what many people believe, equity markets have often performed better during Democratic rather than Republican administrations. The reasons for this are not easy to divine -- and, in part, have to do with longer cycles, both in terms of economic activity and market sentiment.

But the simple fact is that Republicans have shown time and time again that they can shovel heaping helpings of bad economic policy with the best of 'em. In my opinion, Nixon and G. W. Bush are two of the worst half-dozen presidents of the last 100 years. (And that would be true of Nixon even if it weren't for Watergate, and for Bush even if it weren't for the Iraq War.) The economic policy records speak for themselves.

During the Clinton years, government spending as a percentage of GDP (the only measure that really matters), fell by about three percentage points. The Clinton Treasury also pursued strong-dollar policies. It isn't just a random coincidence that our economy performed very well during this period. It's plain to see that in the most fundamental ways, Obama is the anti-Clinton.

Business owners and investors don't give a rat's ass which party shovels the bad economic policy. Yet some try to make a partisan issue of this. Just look at a couple of posts earlier in this thread, where someone tried to put a happy face on all the wasteful, ineffective policies shoved through by Obama and Pelosi's congress in 2009-2010.

Sometimes people (on both sides) virtually twist themselves into pretzels with all sorts of disingenuous efforts to make their party look like a paragon of rectitude and responsibilty.