Jobs Lost Under Bush; Jobs Gained Under Obama - The Economy is Creating Jobs Again

Jobs also increased world wide But at a higher rate than in the US... what you do not show is that Unemployment also went up to 10% in December and people leaving work yet not seeking unemployment also increased.. Also In January 2010 12.5% of Americans now seek free food from Food Banks. The Figures you are quoting from are not the Adjusted figures as there was an error in November 2009 jobless which was reported as increasing by 7,000 when in fact it was 165,000.. The Job creation figures are not keeping up with the number who are becoming unemployed so your graph and report is a fallacy. January the Jobless actually increases and the gobs created also decreased as the Jobs advertised were jobs which mostly were for employment of less than 21 hours a week and for the replacement of permanent jobs where redundancies were paid out..
Dressing mutton up as lamb again I see.

The true state of the Economy http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Non-Farm-Payrolls.aspx?Symbol=USD

Gary, the article you linked with "the true state of the Economy" absolutely supports what I said in my article. In fact, the article you linked includes this:

The economy grew at a 5.7 percent rate in the fourth quarter, the fastest clip in six years. Growth was driven by businesses reducing their stock of unsold goods less aggressively that in previous quarters.

While job losses in prior months were steeper than previously thought, details of the January report supported views the blood bath has stopped.

In another sign of labor market improvement, the average workweek unexpectedly rose to 33.3 hours, the highest level in a year, from 33.2 hours in December. Total average hourly earnings increased $18.89 from $18.84 in December. [my emphasis added]

Now I'm the first to agree that the economy isn't fixed yet, but then it took a decade to fix the first great depression and the indicators are all going in the right direction.

As for the unemployment rate, the rate actually reached 10.1 in October, then dropped back to 10.0 in November and December. See here. And in January it dropped again down to 9.7. Again, the trend is going in the right direction.

Is there some reason you can't accept basic facts?

As I noted in my article, it is basic economics 101 that jobs is a lagging indicator. The recession started before the job losses started, and jobs are always lagging behind the economic recovery. Again, basic logic. Companies start feeling the pinch when the economy tanks and hold onto employees as long as they can until they can't any longer and lay them off. Then again when the economy recovers companies build up some cash reserves and want to feel comfortable before hiring workers again.

Companies started feeling better and thus slowed their layoffs all through the year. They've now reached the point where they are tentatively starting to hire. Which they should continue to do as everyone feels more confident about the recovery.

Basic facts.

The job rate drop was based on a survey of 60,000 homes only, not on actual data. nonfarm got its figures from 140,000 business payrolls and is more accurate.

Job creation is all jobs created above the line, recovering jobs to a 12 month prior is not creation, but a re employment of persons to do something they were doing before.. As you can see there was just 4,000 jobs created in December and these dropped off as these people were put off after the Xmas sale period and 85,000 people ended up back on the dole.
The 9.7% does not take into account the people who left their job but are not able to register for unemployment due to the cooling off period between being unemployed and registering.
A lot of the recovered (created) jobs are week to week and not permanent
There needs to be a definite line drawn between a job for2 weeks and a job for 12 months - leading to permanent.

One man in Australia secured a deal worth $69 billion, spent nothing and created 77,500 permanent jobs, Obama spent $867 billion and in December created 4,000 (above the line) Jobs which all disappeared in January to a 85,000 (below the line) job loss.

The job rate drop was based on a survey of 60,000 homes only, not on actual data. nonfarm got its figures from 140,000 business payrolls and is more accurate.

Bunk. The job rate drop was calculated the way it always has been calculated. And the job losses in 2007 and 2008 were calculated by the Bush Administration. Seriously, you can't even accept the official numbers if you deem them to be against your preferred narrative. It's incredibly sad that your partisan bias is so skewed that you have to go out of your way to convince yourself that the official numbers that happened BEFORE Obama took office are somehow not correct.

Job creation is all jobs created above the line, recovering jobs to a 12 month prior is not creation, but a re employment of persons to do something they were doing before..

Yes, job creation is jobs created above the line. And your point is what? That the fact that the number of jobs lost per month kept increasing during the last year of Bush's presidency is somehow better than the fact that the number of jobs lost was slowed and even potentially reversed in the first year of the Obama presidency?

As you can see there was just 4,000 jobs created in December and these dropped off as these people were put off after the Xmas sale period and 85,000 people ended up back on the dole.

Interesting that you can discern this just from a graph. In fact, the jobs created in November were about 5,000, which isn't anything to write home about but certainly a more positive development than the continuing and increasing job losses that represent the disaster of 2008 (before Obama was elected). And many of the jobs shed in December are simple gamesmanship by companies - by whacking the payroll in December they get to take massive capital loss credits on their taxes, which is pretty common for companies who have had a bad year. Use those losses to balance off gains and pay zero taxes. Pretty good deal. Wish I had that option. And by the way, your logic is bizarre regarding your claim that the job losses in December are people let go during the Xmas season - you in fact contradict yourself completely. There were many people hired for the Xmas sales, etc. and these would have only been let go again after the post-Xmas sales, i.e., they would be in the January numbers. But then again, this happens every single year, so isn't even rationale as reason for this years big swing.

The 9.7% does not take into account the people who left their job but are not able to register for unemployment due to the cooling off period between being unemployed and registering. A lot of the recovered (created) jobs are week to week and not permanent

And neither did the 10.1% in October, the 10% in each of November and December, or the whatever % in any other month or year. Again, you cite something that is normally the case and try to use it to explain why this case is different.

There needs to be a definite line drawn between a job for2 weeks and a job for 12 months - leading to permanent.

Feel free to post a graph.

One man in Australia secured a deal worth $69 billion, spent nothing and created 77,500 permanent jobs, Obama spent $867 billion and in December created 4,000 (above the line) Jobs which all disappeared in January to a 85,000 (below the line) job loss.

Given your already demonstrated faulty premise, and the shear illogic of this statement on its face, I'll just let it stand as a testament to someone who for whatever reason just simply can't accept facts when they differ from the preferred narrative.

And since you seem to be working so hard to discredit the very limited and absolutely factual gist of this post, I suppose I need to reiterate that jobs is only one facet of the economy. There are many other metrics and virtually all of them show that the economy is in recovery despite the many people who would prefer the country fail. This is in agreement with the majority of economists, who say that the economy was saved from a severe depression and is slowly getting back on its feet. As the right end of the chart shows, there is still work to be done on the jobs front, which always lags the recovery anyway, and we shouldn't be complacent.

Which makes me wonder why there are folks who see the massive job losses of 2007 and 2008 as somehow better than the cutback in job losses and even a job gain in 2009.

Don't take this comment as rooting for Democrats. I think they've become Republican-Lite in many respects, but the stats are interesting:

Since WWII, looking at all Democratic and Republican administrations; every single Democratic administration produced better job growth numbers than the best job growth producing Republican administration.

That's because the Republicans help the rich redistribute income to the rich and the Democrats don't do that as much.

I am afraid that people will see and hear what they want to see and hear. If they want to blame Obama for everything, they will no matter what the facts are. If they want to credit Obama for the jobs turnaround even though the stimulus has not had time to take effect (the first several months after he came to office) they will. That's just the way people are.

AMEN!

Unfortunately, yes they will. There are people who started to blame Obama even before he was elected.

And we're certainly not out of the woods yet. But it is dishonest to say that the economy isn't recovery when in fact it is. It's dishonest to say that the jobs picture isn't getting better when in fact it is.

And obviously anyone who lost their job and hasn't gotten a new one is still hurting. We need to keep working to get them back on the payroll. And only the private sector can hire that many people.

It's time for the "free market" to start doing something for America.

David,

If more people are unemployed today than yesterday, the job situation is worse today than yesterday. I don't know what measure you have in mind for "the ecomony" but that measure would need to include unemployment I should think. Did you have some particular measure in mind?

We do not have and never have had a "free market" so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for one to come about. (It might have some unpleasant aspects if it did happen, like a drop back to a pre-agricultural (hunting and gathering) economy.)

Larry, while the trend is currently for continued job losses, the amount of jobs lost is declining (moving toward positive territory). The economy was overheated and had too mach capacity chasing too little demand in many, many sectors.

Yes, it includes unemployment, of course. Unemployment is not the only measure of the economy, though obviously it is the one that hits individuals closest to home. But even by that measure there has been improvement, with the unemployment rate retreating from it's peak in October of 10.1%, down to 10.0% in November and December, and now to the 9.7% that it was in January. It's at least going in the right direction, and as I've said above hiring and job growth always lags the economy as a whole as companies need to rebuild their coffers and get comfortable hiring again.

But economists almost universally agree that the economy is in recovery. The 4th quarter was the fastest growth in something like 6 years. Companies have stopped the massive layoffs that dumped close to 5 million jobs in the year and a half before Obama took office.

As for the "free market," I agree that it doesn't actually exist. To many it seems to mean when companies can lobby for government welfare in the form of tax breaks, subsidies, tariffs on foreign competition, bargain basement access to natural resource leases, and offshore tax havens so they don't have to pay any US taxes...all while screaming about how "the market" doesn't need or want government intervention.

James, how can an economy be "overheated" when there are still poor folks in that economy who are doing without? Sometimes I just don't understand where economists are coming from. :-)

Unfortunately, a huge number of these jobs we "Created" were in the Federal Government. See my post about HERE. With the exception of Dec. Obama has only slowed the decline, which would be heading that way anyways, because of natural market tendencies.

Actually, there are two components to the jobs picture.

The first is "jobs created." Many of these were funded by the stimulus package, which as the name suggests, was designed to "stimulate" the economy. There also is the census this year, which means more government employees. But the stimulus also provided funds to enable private industry to hire for many projects that were needed anyway.

The second is "jobs saved." These are jobs that companies would have gotten rid of if they didn't have a little assurance. Again, private sector jobs.

Obama has only slowed the decline,

Well, when a runaway train is running downhill at breakneck speed, the first thing you have to do is apply the brakes.

which would be heading that way anyways, because of natural market tendencies.

First off, what "natural market tendencies." [Please be specific]

Secondly, it seems that "natural market tendencies" were what got us into a near depression in the first place. Meanwhile, you seem to suggest that it is okay that the economy bubble and burst (which hardly seems natural) while nearly 5 million Americans are being laid off from their jobs? All while CEOs protect their bonuses and compensation packages? In other words, "natural market tendencies" would protect the corporate classes and lay off the worker classes?

Not sure the vast majority of Americans would appreciate that.

Did you know the stimulus created over 100 jobs in NH' District 00?

Did you know that NH does not have a District 00.

Did you know that NHDOT hired 450 people with stimulus money in June and laid off over 1000 in Sept? The 450 do not get unemployment. So those jobs aren't counted in the loss column.

Do you have citations for this information? Frankly, there is so much intentional disinformation out there that it is highly likely your information isn't accurate.

BTW, the charts in my article come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

What the chart doesn't show is that those of us who are gaining employment are doing so at a fraction of our previous wages. I was laid off in March from a job that paid $128K, with paid vacation and holidays and fully-funded pension. It took until September to find a job that paid $35 per hour (do the math), no benefits, no paid vacation and no pension. If this is what you call recovery, then maybe you need a new dictionary.

I agree that many jobs are lesser paid than before, but that is a trend that has been going on for a long long time. Also, it's normal for the lower paying jobs to come back first as companies slowly rebuild their staff. Obviously they aren't going to just hire back 7 million people overnight.

BTW, the average household income in 2007 in the United States was about $50,000. For individual men, the median income was about $45,000. Just think how they feel.

And it isn't me that is calling this a recovery, it is economists that say we are in recovery.

It's not lower paying jobs coming back first, it's the same jobs coming back at much lower pay. And yes, this has been going on ever since companies started "insourcing" employees from foreign countries. It's just accellerated under this President because companies are taking advantage of how bad employment has gotten.

A comment by Dan E was removed because he has been warned that by stealing my Gather icon photo he would not be allowed to comment on my posts. I welcome differing opinions, but I can not, and will not, condone theft and dishonesty. His recent stalking behavior has been reported to Gather.

I don't know what Dan E said, but I wonder what was so offensive about my comment that was deleted:

"The real number is about 17% because the 10% doesn't include many small businesses."

Maybe it's true that liberals are offended by the truth?

No. But if that is the case now, then how bad was it at the height of job losses? How bad was it when unemployment was at its highest (ie before the policies that have been returning us to employment gradually kicked in)?

We all understand that unemployment, as it is calculated, is designed to be a narrow figure so as to take into account only those who would be 'in the labor pool' to begin with. That said, it doesn't detract from its usefulness of a measure, nor does the fact that it doesn't take into account non-job-seekers discount the figures during periods of low unemployment. Even when unemployment has been down below 5%, the actual figures regarding people not employed were much higher than that. That doesn't mean that the economy wasn't humming during those periods.

The contention that the 'real' unemployment rate is nearly double the listed rate, therefore, isn't at all relevant. If it is true that a calculated unemployment rate of 5% is good on this scale, and we are heading back in that direction from a 10%, then this is recovery. The fact that the 10% is actually indicative of 17% is no more relevant than the fact that the 5% is actually indicative of 12%.

Not offended by the truth. Simply acknowledging that we cannot change the scale because it says something we don't like: namely, that not all Democrats or Democratic ideas are destructive to the economy. Sometimes they are necessary.

A second comment by Dan E has been removed. He has been informed on multiple occasions that because he stole my Gather icon photo (not to mention everything else he posts) he would not be allowed to comment on my posts. His attempts to comment on my posts are clearly stalking behavior as he knows that I will delete anything he posts, as he has been informed. His stalking behavior has been reported to Gather.

I welcome differing opinions, but I can not, and will not, condone theft and dishonesty.

Good for you, David.

don't confuse people with reality, David. It makes their heads hurt :)

I was referring to the economy there. It also applies to Dan's behaviors, I suppose.

Dan's comments will be deleted as soon as I see them. As he has been told.

I've been saying that the White House needs to put out the data in charts like this where the trends are easily understood by the public. I'm glad that someone has actually done it.

Needless to say, there are a lot of people still without jobs (5 million of them before Obama even took office), so there is still work to be done. But the trends are in the right direction.

I apologize for Dan E's comment. It has been deleted.

Sorry Chris. Dan e been a real ass lately (even more than usual), harassing me and harassing others whose posts I comment on. I would comment further on others posts but he follows me and annoys the other commenters. Which is why I simply delete him when he comments on my posts. I wish I could do the same elsewhere but that's up to the authors of the posts.

I should comment with more seriousness. Your points regarding the economy are well taken, David. Those who accuse the curent president of taking the economy over a cliff need to admit that it was already flying over the cliff. GWB and Hank Paulson had tried to lasso it and arrest the fall with mixed results when they handed the rope to Obama, with a "Good luck and make sure the economy does not pull your presidency over the cliff with it".

Is Obama's deficit spending dwarfing previous budgets? In absolute numerical terms yes, but it is also true that Ronald Reagan tripled the US deficit in his 8 years, also starting out with a bad financial picture but dealing with it by piling up debt. Why criticize Obama for following Reagan's example if Reagan was supposedly the greatest american president according to many here on Gather?

Well stated, Chris.

For clarity, this article should not be misinterpreted (intentionally, by some) to mean that we're out of the woods. Going back to the policies that started this mess in 2007 would kill all the hard work that has been put into getting us out of it. Also, there are still millions of people out of work that want to be working. Even though the economy is recovering, that doesn't mean a whole lot to someone struggling to keep afloat without a job.

So companies need to get hiring people. Those with jobs need to be out there contributing to the economy so companies feel comfortable hiring people. And if you are in a position to hire, start doing it. There are a lot of people out there who want to work.

BTW, I should add that this post was inspired by a post by Helen Shaw called:

Jobs lost under Bush v. Obama

You have once again done the detailed work necessary for an intelligent article and I thank you for brightening my day with something hopeful, David.

Awww, shucks, Gerry. [Thanks!]

Obviously, there are many here and in the Nation with "Belief perseverance" or closed mindedness which fits the noise makers who refuse to see facts for beliefs.

Unfortunately so.

Intelligent people know that you can fault Obama for a lot of things, not the job losses. The financial markets are stable, the BAILOUT INITIATED BY BUSH, YES BUSH, WORKED. The money is coming back with interest. BOTH presidential candidates BACKED BUSH. And it provided them with the political backing to do so.

You can blame Obama for under projecting the unemployment by promising people to keep it around 8.5% with the stimulus. That did not happen, you know why? Because NOBEL prize economist Paul Krugman actually warned them that this problem was more severe and a MUCH BIGGER STIMULUS was needed. The stimulus is only a dent and will keep unemployment to 10% for a while. Had we made it bigger who knows (Krugman arguably does because he was right)? Maybe it would have been at 8.5%.

What was the GOP solution? Cut taxes to businesses and they won't layoff anybody?

Migraine? Cut taxes.

Need to lose weight? Cut taxes.

These people are simply too dumb to provide solutions for the economy. Any time the topic comes up - CUT TAXES.

Please.

Intelligent people know that you can fault Obama for a lot of things, not the job losses.

Agreed. The job losses were Niagara Falls when Obama took office, and immediately started slowing. Now they are on the cusp of being job gains again (we already had one).

You can blame Obama for under projecting the unemployment by promising people to keep it around 8.5% with the stimulus. That did not happen, you know why? Because NOBEL prize economist Paul Krugman actually warned them that this problem was more severe and a MUCH BIGGER STIMULUS was needed.

Yet as you saw, the stimulus package was the biggest thing that could possibly have passed through Congress.

What was the GOP solution? Cut taxes to businesses and they won't layoff anybody?

That's just it. History has shown that cutting taxes does NOT work at all. Companies just horde the extra they get to keep and put it on the CEO compensation package. Which is why CEO to worker compensation ratios have skyrocketed from what used to be 17 to 1 up to 300 to 1. And these same companies are shipping American jobs overseas.

Maybe the tea partiers should take a closer look at who is throwing away American jobs and who is creating them.

Migraine? Cut taxes. Need to lose weight? Cut taxes.

Makes it easier not to have to make any tough decisions. Just rattle off the bumper sticker and hope nobody realizes its on an Edsel.

Why would anyone want to be President? You are blame for everything. On an interesting note, check out President Ronald Reagan's first couple of years. All the naysayers were saying that he would be a one term President. But everyone forgets that it takes time to come out of a recession. By 2012 the economy will be on the rise and President Obama will be looking good.

Hi Chick - You make a good point about Reagan. His administration was in a shambles at this point of his presidency, with Watt and Gorsuch and the like. But he seems to have ended up okay in the public eye.

My husband recently got a job. He was laid off back in October of 2008. So I've definitely seen an upswing personally.

Congrats to your husband, Carla. It's been rough for a lot of people. The unemployment rate was 10% in November and December but dropped down to 9.7% in January. That's a good sign but obviously only one sign. Hopefully it will continue to improve, but in all honesty I think we'll level off at a higher rate than where we were before.

And that rate is for the country as a whole. The rate for minorities tends to be significantly higher than for whites, so the hurt is disproportional.

Still, you have to start somewhere.

Good news, Carla!

Since someone in the White House must be reading my Gather posts, their next assignment is to do another graphic that shows how much Obama has been successful in getting through spending cuts. Don't take my word for it, take the word of the very conservative, right-leaning Washington Times.

EXCLUSIVE: Obama wins more spending cuts than Bush

David, He did cut more things, but added back trillions more. You will get me to agree he won this battle, but the war is going badly.

Char - Perhaps the war would go a lot better if the Republicans would work for Americans instead of just playing the political calculus that they think will get them reelected.

Perfect example, Obama sets up a bipartisan health insurance meeting to get everyone sitting at the table to work out the details of a health bill, and the Republicans immediately say they won't attend unless the current bills - which were passed by the majorities of both houses of Congress - are completely scrapped in favor of starting from scratch.

Why do they refuse to participate?

Because it will be televised live on CSPAN. And just like the House Republican conference in which Obama insisted on transparency with TV coverage of the Q&A, the Republicans look foolish when they show they don't actually have anything to offer other than bumper sticker slogans and ridiculous assertions of socialism.

Sorry, but the Republicans have become the epitome of the dishonesty in politics. And meanwhile, they help destroy American jobs, send American jobs overseas, and let China and India benefit from our lack of innovation. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Char this economic crisis didn't happen over night. So many have selective memories. When the last President took office he blamed his problems on the previous administration for 3 years. People get upset with the current president because he is unable wave a magic wand and fix what took years to create..............and so many buy in to this nonsense!

Precisely.

Agreed.

Preaching to the choir here, Kevin.

Even this wonderful post won't convince the naysayers-they just prefer to keep rolling around in the mud!

Oh, & sorry to hear about your nemesis-unreal!

Yes, they simply have chosen their platform and don't care if its built on good wood or bad. But they are committed to it and no amount of fact is going to sway them.

Thanks for commenting. It is very much appreciated.

Some want America to fail just so they can mock Obama.

Glad to see we are going in the right direction but he still has a long way to go. But it is refreshing to see real information exposing the teabaggers mis-information and lies on jobs.

"While the president is showing signs of vulnerability on his handling of the economy — a majority of respondents say he has yet to offer a clear plan for creating jobs — Americans blame former President George W. Bush, Wall Street and Congress much more than they do Mr. Obama for the nation’s economic problems and the budget deficit, the poll found." (my emphasis added)

And well they should. As my article shows, the recession started well over a year before Obama even took office, and the jobs lost numbers started getting better almost immediately.

The above is from a NYT story on a New York Times/CBS News poll.

A net increase of 151,000 jobs added to the economy last month.

Please note that the recommendation above listed as 0000-ruthmacgill-0000 was from Ruth Macgill, a delightful woman and long-time member of Gather who passed away recently. My thoughts go out to her family and friends, both here on Gather and out in the real world.

Thank you for letting us know that, David. I was not aware that Ruth had died. Very sad - such a wonderful woman.

Facts....we need more of them, David. Unfortunately, there are so many Americans who, even when confronted with facts, refuse to change their biases and prejudices. It's called 'intelligence' - either you have it or you don't. Either you have the capability of looking at facts and processing what they mean, or you don't.

The most ironic thing about these past two years? The Republicans who keep harping on the 'smaller government', 'bad government', 'do anything to support free market' group is the very same group of people who have been screaming about Obama not doing anything about jobs. The fact that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans have been in place during this entire unemployment tsunami doesn't strike them as the least little bit strange, even when they scream about not reinstating the original tax levels (up by 3 percentage points - big deal), claiming that the lower tax rates means more jobs.

I don't understand in what universe their logic actually holds. Lower taxes/more jobs? No, look at the data. Free Market/expect the government to reduce unemployment? No, completely opposite ideologies.

I've given up. I'm basically at the point of resigning myself to the fact that most Americans are not very bright. And are lazy and easily manipulated. And that's just a fact.

Facts would be nice. Seems we've lost sight of actual fact (as evidence, just look at the recent $200 million a day fabrication pushed for 3 days by a certain propaganda organization even though they knew is had no basis in fact).

The most ironic thing about these past two years? The Republicans who keep harping on the 'smaller government', 'bad government', 'do anything to support free market' group is the very same group of people who have been screaming about Obama not doing anything about jobs.

Exactly!! And yet they see no contadiction. (And Rand Paul of "kill all earmarks" is already saying "earmarks are okay, as long as we just call them something else."

The fact that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans have been in place during this entire unemployment tsunami doesn't strike them as the least little bit strange, even when they scream about not reinstating the original tax levels (up by 3 percentage points - big deal), claiming that the lower tax rates means more jobs.

Again, exactly! But here's the kicker - the very rich will get tax breaks anyway even if they are only extended for those making less than the threshold. Yep, every single dollar the very wealthy make will continue to be taxed at the lower rates right up until that $250,000 threshold (or whatever it ends up being). They would only pay the previous rate on the income OVER the threshold (i.e., the "excess" income).

But wait, they won't even get taxed on that at the higher rate because most of that is in the form of capital gains anyway. Which right now is only taxed at 15% - less than most of us pay in taxes. Seriously, the super wealthy actually get taxed at a lower percent on most of their income than middle class Americans.

But wait, there's even more. The super wealthy also are able to "shelter" (i.e., "hide") much of their income in offshore accounts and other vehicles not accessible to taxes.

All of which explains why only a few percent of the superwealthy hold nearly a quarter of all the wealth held by all Americans in total. It also is why CEOs now make somewhere between 300 and 500 times more than the average American worker, whereas not long ago the ratio was only 17 times more.

Oh, and then there is the money that the superwealthy and corporations make by sending all the American jobs overseas.

My heart bleeds for them.

I've given up. I'm basically at the point of resigning myself to the fact that most Americans are not very bright. And are lazy and easily manipulated. And that's just a fact.

I'm embarrassed for my country. It's time to start learning Chinese, because the Republicans and their tea party/moral majority/fake movement name of the decade while still being just lobbyist suckers are making China the new USA.

非常感謝你

Let's hear it for the "bikini graph."

Bikini graph...I like it. This one needs to be updated to get the latest trends. The economy is actually doing quite well, with the exception of jobs still lagging. Businesses (and CEOs) are pocketing the increased profit right now.

Further information on the Bush vs Obama comparison:

Obama's and Bush's effects on the deficit - in one easy graphic

But hey, the tea party is fine with doing more of the same Bush while working to kill jobs and put more money in the pockets of the top 1% richest Americans (which comes out of the pockets of the middle class).

UPDATE: 220K jobs added in December, UR down to 8.5

Here's an update.

Obama is still creating the jobs that Bush lost.

Adding to the deficit: Bush vs Obama

Bush: Added $5.1 Trillion

Obama: Added $983 Billion (i.e., less than $1 Trillion)

+243,000 jobs created in January; unemployment rate down again to 8.3

Full article in Washington Post

CNN: Unemployment rate tumbles

U.S. jobless rate falls to 7.8%, nears 4-year low

If the Koch-owned tea party held Republican party hadn't been intentionally trying to hold back the recovery (from the crisis they caused), the 7.8% unemployment rate would have been down to 6.8% already

I think there are a few things that should be accurately noted.

1. Bush did not cause the recession. Many years of oversaturating the housing markets with people who could not afford houses did. The bubble just happened to burst during the Bush Administration, but was bound to burst. It could have burst during Clinton or Obama's Administration.

2. Obama's figures on job creation look fine, but are misleading. the workforce shrunk. The Bureau of Labor cuts people out of the stats once they have quit looking/given up. This creates a falsely inflated job market increase.

3. Obama did not create 4.5 million new jobs. These Keynesian lies. The real unemployment rate at the moment is over 10%. However, creating jobs with inflated and overprinted money leads to disaster.

6 Republican Talking Points That Economists Say Are Totally Bogus

In short, the vast majority of economists say that everything the Republicans are pushing would hurt the economy.

Meanwhile, the trend of job creation since Obama took office continues.