Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Personally I was all for bailing out the American public and letting the people who caused the financial meltdown to be sitting a long time in a federal prison. I think that would of been a much better solution.
But one we did not pursue. Granted, the choices we had with the two major parties would all have done this but those of us that point out that even Obama did this and we need other choices from somewhere outside of the two major parties get called kooks because abortion and giving billions to Israel is more important than addressing what is wrong here.
In your case, the story the graph doesn't tell is that on the private sector front the recession occurred during Bush's term and bottomed out as Obama was starting his term. The economy was rebounding as it has done after every recession in history. It's similar to how Democrats try to hail Clinton as a genius when he simply happened to be sitting in the White House when the tech industry exploded. He had nothing to do with it. It would have happened no matter who was President. On the public sector front you'll notice that beyond the census effects, the public sector was relatively stable for the first half of his term and then started to trend downward in the second half of his term. Now, let's see here...what happened halfway through Obama's term. Oh, that's right. He lost control of the House.
No one is disputing any of this, and neither is the graph.
Quote:
The cutbacks you're trying to give him credit for didn't happen until the "obstructionist" Republicans came around. The cutbacks you're trying to give him credit for were forced on him. They weren't his idea. When Democrats were in complete power, the public sector line was steady.
So, just as with Obama's disingenuous job creation claims, when you look at the context in which your graph occurs you see that the claims you and ThinkProgress are making with it don't hold water.
You obviously don't realize it, but you're doing a great job proving my point.
Obama had better private sector job growth than Bush, and significantly WORSE public sector job growth. Do you not realize that jobs are jobs, money is money, regardless if the person paying you is public or private. When you complain Obama's job growth isn't as good as Bush's then point out that Obama had steady then declining public job growth, while Bush had growing public sector job growth... do you really not see how that creates a better recovery for one than the other?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
I don't know about a graph but here are some REAL numbers:
"Publication: Business Wire
Date: Friday, January 4 2008
More Than 8.3 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003 In Longest Continuous Run Of Job Growth On Record
WASHINGTON -- Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released new jobs figures - 18,000 jobs created in December. Since August 2003, more than 8.3 million jobs have been created, with more than 1.3 million jobs created throughout 2007. Our economy has now added jobs for 52 straight months - the longest period of uninterrupted job growth on record. The unemployment rate remains low at 5 percent. The U.S. economy benefits from a solid foundation, but we cannot take economic growth for granted and economic indicators have become increasingly mixed. President Bush will continue working with Congress to address the challenges our economy faces and help facilitate long-term economic growth, job growth, and better standards of living for all Americans.
* Real GDP grew at a strong 4.9 percent annual rate in the third quarter of 2007. The economy has now experienced six years of uninterrupted growth, averaging 2.8 percent a year since 2001.
* Real after-tax per capita personal income has risen by 11.7 percent - an average of more than $3,550 per person - since President Bush took office.
* Over the course of this Administration, productivity growth has averaged 2.6 percent per year. This growth is well above average productivity growth in the 1990s, 1980s, and 1970s.
By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.
But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.â€
That's all well and good and probably all accurate. Now did you realize that public sector jobs are also included in ALL OF THOSE STATS?
Why are you Conservatives having a hard time understanding that public jobs are real jobs, not some fancy math that politicians are using to make themselves feel better?
Most of the profit, and virtually all of the jobs created under Bush's reign, were gone long ago. We don't seem to need as many bankers, hucksters, government employees and mortgage writers as we once did. Many auto workers that used to make $25 or more an hour, are lucky if they can be re-hired for $13 an hour, without the burden of benefits.
People for years went out and borrowed against their homes to buy boats, cars, planes, jewelry, you name it. Home Depot was flourishing, so were Countrywide and Wells Fargo. It was fun, it was fake, and it was short term. By early 2009, the number of jobs lost was larger than those gained in 8 years. That's before the public sector layoffs began.
It's always been about the middle class. If they are hurting, the nation probably is too. Without a strong middle class, we'll limp along like this forever.
The fact is with taxes we are all going to have to pay for **** we don't like. I really am not keen on paying off the trillion + interest W spent on his personal vendetta with Saddam, but I think the benefits outweigh the costs given the alternatives.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
