Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Business Insider)   If you throw out the two bad years, under Bush the economy created 130K jobs per month. If you throw out Obama's first year, the economy created 131K jobs per month. It's almost as if the president has no real control over job creation   (articles.businessinsider.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

1587 clicks; posted to Business » on 07 May 2012 at 12:23 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



112 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-05-07 12:43:06 PM  

MindStalker: historycat: Point 1: A-DOY! Presidents and governments can't control their own. The economy is like a huge ship, takes a long time to steer and even longer to get moving.

Point 2: The jobs under those 2 presidents have been horrible jobs. Lots of under-employment.


Yep, Bush inherited an economy that had run aground. He got it steered out to sea and ran it full throttle right into an iceberg. Obama spent his first 2 years repairing the boat and putting it back out to sea. We're still not at full throttle yet, but honestly given the last few times we went full throttle we crashed, I'd rather we take it easy this time.


If you ignore the first sentence of your reply, it reflected reality.
 
2012-05-07 12:47:12 PM  
Yep, Bush inherited an economy that had run aground. He got it steered out to sea and ran it full throttle right into an iceberg. Obama spent his first 2 years repairing the boat and putting it back out to sea. We're still not at full throttle yet, but honestly given the last few times we went full throttle we crashed, I'd rather we take it easy this time.

You forgot the portion of your analogy that includes a Tea Party Congress that has been paddling us in circles.
 
2012-05-07 12:47:17 PM  
If you ignore the billion or so more handsome and successful men I could fark Keira Knightley.
 
2012-05-07 12:47:24 PM  
Yes, but other than that, Mrs. Kennedy, how was your visit to Dallas?
 
2012-05-07 12:52:08 PM  
Everyone should watch Veep on HBO. It's a hilarious look at Game of Thrones' Varys' axiom "power resides where men believe it resides." The President doesn't DO anything. He's more like a cop - cops don't prevent crime, they respond to it.
 
2012-05-07 12:55:20 PM  
If my team is in power and things look good, it's all because of their great policies. If things look bad, it's because the other team stopped my team from doing all the things that would have fixed the problem. If the other team is in power and things look good, it's despite their incompetent leadership, not because of it, and if my team hadn't held them in check things would have gone to hell. If the other side is in power and things look bad, it's all their fault.

I hope that simplifies things for you.
 
2012-05-07 12:55:59 PM  
"It's almost as if the president has no real control over job creation" unless you begin counting the massive federal initiatives both undertook; Bush TSA and Homeland security, Fartbongo and his stimulus projects (aka sidewalks to nowhere)
 
2012-05-07 12:58:03 PM  
if you ignore the time I spent not creating the universe, I am God.
 
2012-05-07 12:58:47 PM  
If you throw out 2002 for that being Clinton then don't you also have to throw out everything up to that point as well?
 
2012-05-07 01:00:52 PM  
Why are we throwing out years, other than to reach the conclusion we set out to prove?
 
2012-05-07 01:01:25 PM  

monoski: "It's almost as if the president has no real control over job creation" unless you begin counting the massive federal initiatives both undertook; Bush TSA and Homeland security, Fartbongo and his stimulus projects (aka sidewalks to nowhere)


WHOA WHOA WHOA... whoa. I was told that Gov't positions aren't jobs.
 
2012-05-07 01:02:59 PM  

Citrate1007: You forgot the portion of your analogy that includes a Tea Party Congress that has been paddling us in circles.


The baggers have been slamming the oars into the bottom of the boat trying to break open a hole and take us all down.
 
2012-05-07 01:03:49 PM  

Sock Ruh Tease: If you ignore William Henry Harrison's pesky pneumonia, he was a successful two-term President.


On the other hand, I find he was perhaps our best one-term president. If all of our politicians could follow his lead our country would be in much better shape.
 
2012-05-07 01:04:27 PM  

lennavan: MindStalker: historycat: Point 1: A-DOY! Presidents and governments can't control their own. The economy is like a huge ship, takes a long time to steer and even longer to get moving.

Point 2: The jobs under those 2 presidents have been horrible jobs. Lots of under-employment.


Yep, Bush inherited an economy that had run aground. He got it steered out to sea and ran it full throttle right into an iceberg. Obama spent his first 2 years repairing the boat and putting it back out to sea. We're still not at full throttle yet, but honestly given the last few times we went full throttle we crashed, I'd rather we take it easy this time.

If you ignore the first sentence of your reply, it reflected reality.


You must have forgotten about the dotcom bust of 2000. Though by the time Bush took office, it had been pretty much been pulled out of the sand and was waiting at dock for him.
 
2012-05-07 01:05:09 PM  
Also going by the idea that the first 2 years of the current presidents administration are affected by the previous president than Obama gets a pass for his first 2 years and Bush is entirely to blame for 2008.
 
2012-05-07 01:08:34 PM  
If you throw out just a single day after Sep 10, 2011 and before Sep 12, 2011, under Bush's watch there was not a single massive terrorist attack in the U.S.
 
2012-05-07 01:09:31 PM  

Jairzinho: If you throw out just a single day after Sep 10, 2001 and before Sep 12, 2001, under Bush's watch there was not a single massive terrorist attack in the U.S.


Damn it! FTFM
 
2012-05-07 01:11:41 PM  
It's almost as though it's easier to add new jobs after a serious recession!

Oh, wait, that can't be it, because that wouldn't look good for President Goldman Sachs.
 
2012-05-07 01:13:50 PM  

Jairzinho: Jairzinho: If you throw out just a single day after Sep 10, 2001 and before Sep 12, 2001, under Bush's watch there was not a single massive terrorist attack in the U.S.

Damn it! FTFM


Oh, I just assumed it was so traumatic that we all blocked it out from our collective memory.
 
2012-05-07 01:14:56 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Why are we throwing out years, other than to reach the conclusion we set out to prove?


Well, in fairness, because we're not taking the labor participation rate into account, we're also throwing out actual unemployed people, so at least we're being consistent.

/If the participation rate were what it was at the end of Bush's second term, unemployment would be 11.1% today
//Bears repeating: 11.1%
 
2012-05-07 01:15:05 PM  

Garet Garrett: It's almost as though it's easier to add new jobs after a serious recession!


I know, right? If GWB hadn't thoughtfully set Obama up for success by crashing the world's economy, we'd all see the Kenyan usurper for the fraud he is.
 
2012-05-07 01:22:27 PM  

Flappyhead: If you ignore the billion or so more handsome and successful men I could fark Keira Knightley.


So you're saying theres a chance?
 
2012-05-07 01:24:34 PM  

wildsnowllama: monoski: "It's almost as if the president has no real control over job creation" unless you begin counting the massive federal initiatives both undertook; Bush TSA and Homeland security, Fartbongo and his stimulus projects (aka sidewalks to nowhere)

WHOA WHOA WHOA... whoa. I was told that Gov't positions aren't jobs.


This is where it gets interesting; most of the Homeland Security jobs are outsourced to Northrop Grumman et al. and the stimulus gigs went to private contractors also and I am sure there is a strong correlation to political support for one party or the other.

//See kids, you can point out flaws in both parties/candidates
 
2012-05-07 01:26:56 PM  

Garet Garrett: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Why are we throwing out years, other than to reach the conclusion we set out to prove?

Well, in fairness, because we're not taking the labor participation rate into account, we're also throwing out actual unemployed people, so at least we're being consistent.

/If the participation rate were what it was at the end of Bush's second term, unemployment would be 11.1% today
//Bears repeating: 11.1%


It's a good thing we calculate things using the same method every time, otherwise we'd be very confused about what numbers meant.
 
2012-05-07 01:30:58 PM  
Or gas prices. Or the economy.

Link

That is, of course, unless he is a sekret socialist Muslin ("black").
 
2012-05-07 01:33:16 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: It's a good thing we calculate things using the same method every time


Do we? Explain "seasonal adjustment," then.

BMulligan: Garet Garrett: It's almost as though it's easier to add new jobs after a serious recession!

I know, right? If GWB hadn't thoughtfully set Obama up for success by crashing the world's economy, we'd all see the Kenyan usurper for the fraud he is.


At the risk of feeding the troll, I would merely observe that getting 130k new jobs/month is less impressive when unemployment is at 8-10% (or 11.1) than doing so at 5-6%.

Still, there are FEWER employed people today than at the beginning of Obama's term, so he's got that going for him.
 
2012-05-07 01:33:58 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: Or gas prices. Or the economy.

Link

That is, of course, unless he is a sekret socialist Muslin ("black").


You know who hears dogwhistles? Dogs.
 
2012-05-07 01:34:56 PM  
i48.tinypic.com
 
2012-05-07 01:35:21 PM  

Garet Garrett: Lenny_da_Hog: It's a good thing we calculate things using the same method every time

Do we? Explain "seasonal adjustment," then.


You don't think the "seasonal adjustment" is used every year?
 
2012-05-07 01:41:08 PM  

Anenu: Also going by the idea that the first 2 years of the current presidents administrationCongress are affected by the previous presidentCongress than Obamathe current Congress gets a pass for hisit's first 2 years and Bushthe previous Congress is entirely to blame for 2008.


Fixed that for reality.

/Congress controls the purse strings.
//The President is just a figurehead.
///Democrats and Republicans both fark us over without lube, it's just a matter of where they do it.
////Vote them all out and abolish the parties. Run on your own ideas, not a party.

//Also, repeal the 17th amendment, a lot of our current problems started then. Yeah, I opened that can of worms.
 
2012-05-07 01:42:10 PM  

Garet Garrett: At the risk of feeding the troll, I would merely observe that getting 130k new jobs/month is less impressive when unemployment is at 8-10% (or 11.1) than doing so at 5-6%.


I would counter that adding new jobs is easier for businesses during good times when they have surplus cash to splurge with than it is during bad times when they have to cut to the bone to stay afloat. It probably either evens out and just adds further proof that government control of employment rate is at best minimal.
 
2012-05-07 01:44:49 PM  

Nightsweat: So Obama, having inherited a near depression is doing about as well as Bush who inherited a gigantic boom?

Forget the Nobel Prize for Peace, Obama ought to get one for Economics.


Hurpa dur? Whar dot com bubble, whar?

We were in a recession in 1999-2002.
 
2012-05-07 01:45:17 PM  

Garet Garrett: You know who hears dogwhistles? Dogs.


And cats.

Not really sure where your going with this, though.
 
2012-05-07 01:46:45 PM  
Obama hasn't gotten rid of the Bush tax cuts yet, has he?


Shocking I know, but when you leave all Bush's economic policies in place for four years, you get the same level of job creation.
 
2012-05-07 01:47:10 PM  

Bullseyed: Nightsweat: So Obama, having inherited a near depression is doing about as well as Bush who inherited a gigantic boom?

Forget the Nobel Prize for Peace, Obama ought to get one for Economics.

Hurpa dur? Whar dot com bubble, whar?

We were in a recession in 1999-2002.


Try March 2001- November 2001
 
2012-05-07 01:47:35 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Well, they are, but in the "outright lying" sense. This is basically like describing how successful your business is by listing its gross income instead of net profit. If 9.4 million jobs are created and 13 million positions are eliminated, using the "created" number is not a lie, just misleading.


Actually typically the jobs created number, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, typically is a net number, not a gross. But that 130,000 jobs per month isn't great -- I keep hearing that the US economy needs about 150,000 to 180,000 jobs added per month so that we can keep up with the increase in population, so Obama definitely should not be satisfied with this level of job growth.
 
2012-05-07 01:50:11 PM  
And if you throw out all my ugly parts, I'm George Farking Clooney.
 
2012-05-07 02:54:08 PM  
If you throw out the two bad game the Flyers played, and the first game in New Jersey, Philadelphia holds a 1-0 lead in the Eastern Semifinals!

It's almost like Ilya Bryzgalov and Martin Brodeur have no impact on whether or not pucks go in.
 
2012-05-07 02:56:39 PM  

Karac: just adds further proof that government control of employment rate is at best minimal


Then can you stop taking my money to try to change it?
 
2012-05-07 03:17:25 PM  
If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.
 
2012-05-07 03:21:22 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Bullseyed: Nightsweat: So Obama, having inherited a near depression is doing about as well as Bush who inherited a gigantic boom?

Forget the Nobel Prize for Peace, Obama ought to get one for Economics.

Hurpa dur? Whar dot com bubble, whar?

We were in a recession in 1999-2002.

Try March 2001- November 2001


Well. close enough. Bush didn't inherit a boom, he inherited an economy dealing with the implosion of the dot com bubble. Nothing Bush did caused the 2001 recession, nor could anything he have done avoided it.

But if we're forcing ourselves to attribute recessions to Presidents, then the big one that started in '07 is obviously on Bush. Obama has done a fairly decent job. His big test will come when things really turn around in the next couple years.
 
2012-05-07 03:23:46 PM  

Garet Garrett: Karac: just adds further proof that government control of employment rate is at best minimal

Then can you stop taking my money to try to change it?


Of course, the only reason the government levies taxes is to try and change the employment rate. There's nothing else they need to do.
 
2012-05-07 03:54:17 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Well. close enough. Bush didn't inherit a boom, he inherited an economy dealing with the implosion of the dot com bubble.


The dot com bubble was one segment. Unemployment was at 4.2%.
 
2012-05-07 04:24:13 PM  
Yeah, and if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. There's a reason we deal with the actual numbers and not cherry pick our datasets.
 
2012-05-07 04:57:08 PM  
It's almost as if the president has no real control over job creation

Nor should he.
 
2012-05-07 05:19:25 PM  

rnld: Debeo Summa Credo: Well. close enough. Bush didn't inherit a boom, he inherited an economy dealing with the implosion of the dot com bubble.

The dot com bubble was one segment. Unemployment was at 4.2%.


You really think that the recession of 2001 was due to any other factor besides the inevitable bursting of the tech bubble (sorry, dot com was too narrow)? The NASDAQ was a 5100 in March of 2000 and went down from there.

What, exactly, did Bush do to cause the recession of '01?
 
2012-05-07 05:48:35 PM  
That's because the President has no real control over job creation.

I'd like to see the statistic on how many jobs American companies have created overseas. I think that would put shiat into perspective.
 
2012-05-07 05:50:27 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: rnld: Debeo Summa Credo: Well. close enough. Bush didn't inherit a boom, he inherited an economy dealing with the implosion of the dot com bubble.

The dot com bubble was one segment. Unemployment was at 4.2%.

You really think that the recession of 2001 was due to any other factor besides the inevitable bursting of the tech bubble (sorry, dot com was too narrow)? The NASDAQ was a 5100 in March of 2000 and went down from there.

What, exactly, did Bush do to cause the recession of '01?


I didn't claim there wasn't a recession. I pointed out that you only brought up the dot com bubble. That was not the global economy, real estate bubble and bank failures like in 2008.
 
2012-05-07 07:50:18 PM  
Isn't one of the central issues of Romney's platform that job creation will skyrocket if he becomes president because it will get the government out of private business?

/but back where it belongs, like your vaginas and your marriage.
 
2012-05-07 08:29:07 PM  

imontheinternet: I'm always skeptical of theories that start with, "If you throw out the bad data..."


Well, you can't make a bad theory by throwing out the GOOD data!
 
Displayed 50 of 112 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report