Bush-Obama-Jobs-Chart

    Newer Older

    aka Kath, millerium arkay, tige70, and 20 other people added this photo to their favorites.

    View 20 more comments

    1. muddmike 32 months ago | reply

      Dismayed and perplexed

      How much do the rethugs pay you to spread their talking points.

      It sure is an easy job, all you need to do is copy and paste the talking points they email to you.

    2. The Bobs1 32 months ago | reply

      Wow Newbie, you're daft. This is JOB CREATION, not the unemployment rate. Stop letting Fox News do your thinking for you.

    3. arampey 32 months ago | reply

      retarded because the total percent unemployed is still like 9 PERCENT....

    4. Miss Melodius 32 months ago | reply

      Really?! You put "All Rights Reserved" on a graph created by the federal government that gives away the graph for free?

    5. stevenashers82 31 months ago | reply

      What are you talking about? The jobless rate has gone down since Bush left office. You're incredibly uneducated or you deny the obvious. If Obama wasn't strapped with Bush's wars for oil and his poor decisions regarding the economy... we'd be booming right now. The damn stock market went up 45% within 2 years of Obama taking office... Google it fool boy.

    6. hyphenv8 27 months ago | reply

      I voted for "W" and the truth is the truth, we lost the bulk of those jobs under his watch... period. The stimulus did work (atleast in part) and we would have lost more without it. If you don't like the truth then so be it. That's how life is people.

    7. CR1966 27 months ago | reply

      Obama's Administration didn't change unemployment calculations. The numbers have always been adjusted for people who have stopped looking for work. I learned that in High School economics.

    8. lia lee1 27 months ago | reply

      This is really silly. The President can do almost nothing for the economy-- he's the executive head, not the Treasury. The chart may be accurate but notice that Bush had a Democratic congress and Obama has had a Republican one, and Congress has far more to do with how the economy is going than the President does.

      Also, bear in mind that the downturn was caused by speculation on sub-prime loans, which practice stopped after the crash. That speculation caused the loss of many jobs, and the economy has recently started to adjust and correct. Anything the government has done has had a very minor impact compared to the stock market itself.

    9. konfuzed26 27 months ago | reply

      Fact is alot of you people that comment against Obama up here are ignorant. Its obvious that he has had a rough time in the office trying to fix what someone else messed up...Thats like putting together a transmission that someone else took apart....And to be honest he is doing a good job bringing this country back....

    10. cuttyshark62 27 months ago | reply

      What you people don't understand is we live in a one party system with the illusion of a two party system just to confuse the foolish sheeple.

    11. Max_ZYX 27 months ago | reply

      The Obama labor department changed the definition of "labor force" to suit its needs. What this administration has done is shrink the definition of the "labor force" by pretending that hundreds of thousands of non-working adults are no longer in existence for all intents and purposes. The "non-working" adults that have evaporated include the underemployed and the millions not actively looking anymore because their search for employment for the last year or so has turned up nothing.
      In the universe Obama took over from George W. Bush, the unemployment rate would still be over 11% if the calulation parameters had not been manipulated.

    12. ilyse kazar 26 months ago | reply

      great chart. but please pay attention to your claims to ownership. This chart does not belong to you and hence should not be "all rights reserved" with your copyright on it. The chart was produced by Nancy Pelosi's office democraticleader.gov and is in the public domain. Since you like to repost this sort of chart, visuals that are actually created by other people or organizations, you might consider (1) attributing the source so it doesn't look like your own creation, and (2) refraining from claiming copyright on these materials.

      Just the same, thanks for a good collection.

    13. farrahsmiles 26 months ago | reply

      What a load of crap. Amazing how it only goes back one year into Bush. How a bout some context by showing us the enormous prosperity of the first 7 years under Bush before the financial meltdown? To afraid to show the truth, that's why. It was 5 percent unemployment! Oh, and feel free to show a similar chart showing each of the budget deficit trends while you're at it!

    14. Obama-New world order 26 months ago | reply

      The truth is that Clinton gave Bush a great economy, Bush still tanked the economy over the course of his presidency that is the fact. Bush was the worst thing to ever happen to america.

    15. Flukeisacarpetmuncher 26 months ago | reply

      The main problem with this chart is that is says "Republican policies", but there was a Democrat Senate and Congressional majority during those years. So those would be Democrat policies.

    16. Dismayed & Perplexed 25 months ago | reply

      How many people posting here realize that mainstream economic theory does not consider private debt? And that mainstream models can not explain the business cycle or involuntary unemployment. Their explanation for the Great Depression is that workers suddenly experienced an increased preference for leisure!

      The boom was debt-fueled, and the aftermath is painful because we're in a balance sheet recession (Richard Koo's term). So how you view the data depends on your theoretical framework. Anyone interested in what an economic theory looks like that includes private debt should look here:

      www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/

    17. stevendunwoody 24 months ago | reply

      The first problem with this chart is that Pelosi and the Dems were in charge of Congress, so instead of Republican policies, it should be Democrats (they controlled the budget, spending, regulations, financial oversight).

    18. EdEKit 22 months ago | reply


      Sort of backwards there BullDozer, the 1992 change raised the reported figures. It did not result in smaller numbers it resulted in larger percentages. A short history of the BLS data system is at tlrii.typepad.com/theliscioreport/2009/01/calculating-the...

    19. ConservativesRule 20 months ago | reply

      Total crock and a lie. By the chart they are taking credit for Bush's stimulus which worked, where as the current Idiots did nothing but raise our debt, and bail out (Pay off) Unions. Pelosi is a pathetic loser. She is trying to make the point that Idiot created more jobs in 2010 than Bush did in all of his terms. She needs to learn real math and not liberal math. In fact according to the bureau of Labor Statistics Bush had a net gain of jobs during his two terms totaling 1,898,000 jobs where as the current Idiot only created 1,027,000. Bush took a beating from the democrats in both ends as he had to deal with the first two years of his first term with the negatives Clinton left, and then got clobbered by the liberal democrats collapsing of the housing market in 2008. The current Idiot so far has only had to deal with 1 year of residual negative effects from the liberal democrats collapsing the housing market which they promptly blame on the republicans because Bushes stimulus started to work. In Bushes two terms he had three years in a row with over 2 million jobs created, one with just under 3 million, where the current Idiot's best so far is only 1.8 million in 2011. Sorry liberal losers, the democrats had control of the congress in Bushes second term and started pushing the fair housing crap threatening banks and coercing them into abandoning their long tried and true rules so more minorities could get a home they could not afford, until the whole house of cards collapsed. In fact Bush is, was and always will be better than the current Idiot.

    20. SHtRO1 20 months ago | reply

      **yawn** Calling people losers is a loser's move. Bush acknowledge the mortgage crisis in January 2007 but "let it drop" at the bequest of the banks. Republicans failed to allow a second stimulus in favor of "assuring Obama would not be reelected". So-called "job creators" have spent enough money on Super PAC's to employ tens of thousands of workers. Ratio of wages to cost of living for middle class continued to diminish throughout Bush's years. Obama has stopped the "bleeding" but his administration did not recognize the gravity of the situation (needless to say, it was recognized more by Obama than the GOP - whose "obstructionism" has essentially stalled what would have been a healthier recovery). Deregulated private sector and record personal debt combined with record low savings created a near catastrophe. By ANY measure except those that are recovering this nation is better off - and if we had followed commision recommendations we'd likely be even better off... "Tax and Spend" doesn't work any better than "Cut and Cut" - but "Tax and Cut" might just do the trick. And your current idiot's "1.8 mil in one year" number comes off the worse recession in 80 years. Go figure. Your partisanship has made you blind to reason - and the blind leading the blind is how we got into this mess in the first place. Duh.

    keyboard shortcuts: previous photo next photo L view in light box F favorite < scroll film strip left > scroll film strip right ? show all shortcuts