How Obama Created 4.6M Jobs

September 23, 2012  6:25 AM by Leave a comment (2) Go to comments

The reasons “Obama created a net 4.6M jobs under his watch” as Democrats like to say, is twofold:

A) While the monthly jobs reports do include the ups and downs of Government Jobs, Obama simply ignores it. So this puts the number at 4.6M jobs instead of 4.0 million.

B) The 4.6M number holds true after ignoring the lost government jobs, only if you count Obama’s time in office from March 2010 (“Over the last thirty months” as Obama keeps saying). In other words, the Democrats totally ignore the first fourteen months of The Obama Administration and lay it on the previous administration. This is fine with me. But if we do this, we have to do use the same math on other Presidents too

In Eisenhower’s first fourteen months we lost 783,000 jobs. That’s the fault of Democrat Truman.

In JFK’s first fourteen months we gained 1,444,000 jobs. That’s the credit of Republican Eisenhower.

In Nixon’s first fourteen months we gained 2,060,000 jobs. That’s the credit of Democrat LBJ.

In Carter’s first fourteen months we gained 4,390,000 jobs. That’s the credit of Republican Ford.

In Reagan’s first fourteen months we lost 385,000 jobs. That’s the fault of Democrat Carter.

In Clinton’s first fourteen months we gained 3,259,000 Jobs. That’s the credit of Republican Bush 41.

In Bush’s First Fourteen Months we lost 2,036,000 Jobs. That’s the fault of Democrat Clinton.

So 9,093,000 (Nine Million!) jobs gained under Democrats since JFK were gained in their first fourteen months in office that they inherited from Republicans, and millions of jobs lost under Republican President took place in the first fourteen months of inheriting an economy from a Democrat. Bill Clinton’s “23 Million Jobs” actually drops by 5.29M due to first fourteen month switch of what he inherited from Bush 41 and what he gave for Bush 43.

Opinion, Original Content, , ,
  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Uillecc-MacUillecc-Dubh/100000046593161 Uillecc MacUillecc Dubh

    Too simplistic by far— when you cherry pick data to reinforce your opinions you invariably leave out too many variables.

    Your first example Truman to Eisenhower leaves out the Korean war which ended as Eisenhower took office. Returning soldiers and downturn in military manufacturing.

    You also fail to consider that job loss and job growth do not share dynamics– job loss tends to be much more sudden and reactive. Growth tends to be more exponential.

    In comparing Eisenhower and JFK, both were steady and sober leaders. Continuing growth shared between them.

    Between LBJ and Nixon, war again– much of the job growth was due the escalation of the disastrous Viet Nam conflict.

    Between Ford (who was only in Office 2.5 years, following Nixon’s resignation in shame) and Carter, we had recession, Which Carter turned around and returning soldiers.

    Reagan pushed us back into recession and had a Jobless rate of over 10% by his second year in office. As jobs returned they tended to be minimum wage.

    Bush 41 does deserve some credit for the job growth during Clinton’s first months because he raised taxes and stimulated the economy. It is also why the GOP abandoned him, for Ross Perot.

    Bush 43′s job loss followed a downturn in the market, loss of confidence and unrest due to the 2000 election and the first ever judicial appointment of a President. Bush also continued his job loss – even while adding over 400,000 new government jobs.

    The collapse of the market in 2008 was far more severe than any downturn in the economy in over 70 years. It cascaded.

    An economy must be looked at in the context it occurs… you have made a list comparing apples to oranges to bananas and rocks.

    • http://twitter.com/YossiGestetner Yossi Gestetner

      Bottem line is if Obama gets the 14-month excuse and spin, then it needs to be used on all Presidents of the last 50-60 years.