The Blogging of the PresidentSunday, April 09, 2006 4:04:30 AM GMT-6
The Bureau of Labor
Statistics reported yesterday:

Nonfarm payroll employment increased by 211,000 in March, and the
unemployment rate was little changed at 4.7 percent, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Over the month, job
growth was widespread in the service-providing sector.

http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/006867.html ” rel=”nofollow”>Bush made the
following statement to promote this number:

This morning’s economic report shows that America’s growing economy
added 211,000 jobs in the month of March. The American economy has now added
jobs for 31 months in a row, created more than 5.1 million new jobs for American
workers. The unemployment rate is now down to 4.7 percent — that’s below the
average rate of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.

Bush s record of job creation is still the worst of the last 40 years.

According to the http://www.nber.org/cycles.html ” rel=”nofollow”>National Bureau
of Economic Research the last recession ended in November 2001. That means
we have had 54 months of an economic recovery. First, notice how Bush uses May
2003 as the starting point of his comparison? Why is he doing this? Because May
2003 is the lowest point of establishment job creation in his administration.
Since the actual trough in November 2001 Bush s economy has created
4,083,000 jobs. At the same point (54 months) all other expansions of the
last 40 years had created more jobs.

At 54 months,

The expansion starting in February 1961 created 6,550,000 jobs

The expansion starting in November 1970 created 6,240,000 jobs

The expansion starting in March 1975 created 13,565,000 jobs

The expansion starting in November 1982 created 12,366,000 jobs

The expansion starting in March 1991 created 8,718,000 jobs.

Therefore, Bush s economy would have to create 2,157,000 jobs to be
second to last on this list.

There is no way that Bush can create enough jobs to increase his rank to 4th
on the list. At this point, he will go down as presiding over the weakest
records of job creation of the second half to the 20th century.

Shameless Plug: If you are interested and economically inclined, My Left Wing has a podcast of my
presentation of the  6 Fundamental Problems of the US Economy.

The economy has created 22.2 million new jobs since January 1993…And 19.9 million of the new jobs were created in the private sector

For my own personal curiosity, I’ll spend a little time when I’m free comparing the stats in your links to the ones provided by Forbes and MSNBC. It’d be nice if the BLS made it a little easier to find overall data.

And if you look at the current data (unrevised as of yet) you’ll see that the unemployed labor force is currently at 4.7 percent. So the rise in the number of the employable labor force has been absorbed by the rise in the number of new jobs despite the recession in the first year of the first term of the this President.

Could any of the economic policies of the current administration be credited for that turnaround? How about the turnaround in economic growth?

Meanwhile, someone asked about the “kinds of jobs” being created (obviously they had in mind to minimize Bush’s laudatory job creation / unemployment stats by some reference to the “lowly task” of burger flipping which, of course, is not a lowly task, but, rather, the firat employment for many HS students and recent grads):

Unemployment declined to 4.7 percent last month, approaching a five-year low, as the economy churned out 211,000 new jobs — a sign of steady economic growth and good news for cash-strapped consumers.
Nearly all the job gains were in services and professions such as health care, hospitality, retail, architecture and engineering, with manufacturing posting a decline of 5,000 jobs, the Labor Department reported yesterday. Average wage gains fell off slightly to a 3.4 percent pace over last year, but remained near five-year highs.
Many signs have emerged of a strengthening labor market this year. Joblessness is falling among all the main worker groups, from blacks and Hispanics to adult white men and women, and the number of discouraged workers and people working part-time because they must is dwindling. The number of workers on unemployment rolls is dropping by the week.
“The job market is good, and there is no danger of a sudden end to the economic expansion,” despite a sharp slowdown in the housing market, high energy prices, and threats of bankruptcy in Detroit, said Roger M. Kubarych, an economist with HVB Group.

http://tinyurl.com/o2ppx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms#Methodology

Clinton AVERAGED 250k through the 8 years of his Presidency

Do you have a source for this “fact,” Factcheck?
That would be 24 million jobs. The best I can find is 18 million jobs over his 8 years (which is excellent).

after inheriting Bush seniors bad economy

Yeah, the recession which ended 2 years before he took office. Clinton “inherited” a rising economy.

So did they stop including the price of food, real estate, cars, gasoline and health care in the inflation rate?

Buma, inflation is based on the Consumer Price Index. Please feel free to go to any economic source and dispute my claim of 11% inflation (more acurately it’s closer to 11.3%) from 2000-2005.

That’s funny. I could swear the number of people of employable age must have growm by at least that ….

Oh, there are more unemployed under Bush (up to 2005 inclusive), approximately 8,500
Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population, 1940 to date
It is from the same site you reference, Marty!

So, if the number of jobs created is 7,750, but the number of unemployed “not in labor force” has grown, and the number of unemployed over all has grown, then try to pawn off stats as showing increased employment numbers is a con job, is it not?

The number of unemplayed has grown, and the percent of unemployed has grown – after dramatic decreases under Clinton.

Get your facts straight, all of them, not selectively like all the con admin.

April 7th, 2006 at 7:21 pm
inflation since 2000 (probably 15-20%)

11%

Two words. Robert Rubin.

Two more words. Deficit reduction.

Not one GOP vote for Clinton’s 93′ Economic Plan. Not one. They all predicted doom and gloom, because Bill Clinton DARED raise taxes on the top 5% income earners. What happened? Unprecedented peace, and prosperity. I’m sorry you had to pay an extra 3 cents at the pump, Mar-tee.

The result? Reagan’s monsterous deficits were turned into surplus. I guess Stockman was right about Reagan.

Sound fiscal policy at the right time makes a difference. Robert Rubin knew that the only way to right the ship was to get those nasty deficits under control–the same deficits that crowd out private investment.

Bush has us pushing huge deficits again.

You clowns have NO credibility on the economy. The last 4 Presidents have created in the following order:

Reagan Massive deficits and unemployment. Credit card economy.

Bush I Recession

Clinton Deficits turned into surplus, low inflation and unemployment

Bush II Return of massive debt, sputtering economy

Why do you think that nearly EVERY polll taken in the past 5 years has the American public squarely on the side of the Democratic party, when it comes to managing the economy. It’s because they have seen what 3 Republican Presidents have done, and compared that to 8 years under a moderate Democrat, who happened to have more intelligence, and a gut instinct to do the right thing on the economy, than the 2 GOP leaders who preceded him, and the ABSOLUTE unfit for office moron that came after him.

You can throw your bls crap at us all you want. The proof, is in the years we have all lived under Reagan, Bush I (a good man), Clinton, and Bush II (a shell of his Father).

JK

And ever heard of a housing bubble?

The 1993 budget which began in earnest in 1994 actually slowed the rate of growth, although we never were in any danger of going back into recession.

Your “Clinton Economy” really didn’t get going until after the “Government Shutdown” that ended in January 1995 when Clinton was forced to agree to a series of tax cuts (although not as large as some of us wanted at the time), and the Fed began a series of interest rate cuts, and the Internet boom really started to take off. (And that boom had nothing to do with anybody’s policies as much as it had to do with the innovation of some very smart people.)

The rate cuts combined with the tax cuts were a boon to us in the banking and mortgage industries as mortgage rates dropped for the first of several waves of refinancing booms, and the housing sector really began to grow and remained hot up until this last year when it has finally gone back to normal (somewhat.) In fact it was the housing sector along with the wild technology boom in the stock markets that created most of the new jobs and economic growth in the mid to late 90s.

And it was that series of tax cuts, interest rate cuts, and huge gains in the stock market combined with about $450 billion in cuts to medicare, medicaid, and other domestic programs agreed to by Clinton and Congress that contributed to the budget surplusses.

Stick to what you know Oliver. Economics isn’t it. (But I did get a really good laugh at the “Reagan-Bush” recession line. Perhaps you’d like to know what it was like in this country economically during the first few years of your life. Malaise anyone?)

Absolutely! To which I’ll add that the boom came to end largely because it wasn’t based on actual profits from companies such as Yahoo and Amazon, but rather, as Alan Greenspan termed it… “irrational exhuberance.”

Did ever see that on TV or read it in your Weekly Reader Oliver?

Leading up to the election, Bush as the first president since Hoover with a net job loss since he became president. I don t know what the current number is but I believe he s still below what he came in with or just slightly above it. No great achievement.

Way to word that very carefully, Oliver, because you know that talking point was wiped out prior the President taking his oath of office for the second time. Fact is, there was a net gain of jobs between his first and second oaths of office, despite the the inherited downturn, a major attack on the U.S. and a two front war.

To answer your second nonsensical point, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we are currently at a net gain of 7,642,000 jobs during the Bush Presidency, the vast majority of them since the beginning of his second term. (I’m sure that’s something you didn’t hear at work or read in the Washington Post, eh Oliver.)

We’ve gone from 135,999,000 to 143,641,00 jobs since January 2001. That after a brief recession after a certain even that rocked the economy of most of the world.

Look it up yourself- http://www.bls.gov/ces/home.htm#overview.

BLAMMO!

If Oliver were a cartoon character, he would just now be staggering back to his feet with a huge knot popping out of his head and twittering birds flying around.

I’m glad you mentioned real estate. I bought my first home in 1993 for $42,000. We sold it three years ago for $78,000. Pretty nice return on investment, I’d say.

And one more thing: the NASDAQ took its first nosedive in March 2000. That’s the event that really precipitated the collapse of the “Internet Bubble.”

Shocking I say. And how exactly did the ‘93 Clinton budget usher in the the greatest decade of economic prosperity known to man? Specifics please.

So you were reading and watching TV at the tender age of 15? Good for you. That explains how you’ve come to know just about everything there is to know.

You really have no clue, do you junior? You were still a pimply faced teenager through most of Clinton’s tenure. You spew this nonsense every month or so and yet I never read about what the specifics of his Master Plan really were. We ask you to specify which particular policies singlehandedly handed down by the Great and Powerful Oz led to the 90’s utopia for which you swoon and all we hear is crickets. Maybe this time we’ll get lucky and actually hear your well-reasoned and insightful economic prognostications. I know I can’t wait.

The recession began in 2000 before Bush even took office. It wasn’t Clinton’s fault. Admit it wasn’t Bush’s either. Your chart, as well as your knowledge of economics is really quite a joke.