Facts show Dems are job creators

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by AK Forty Seven, May 20, 2012.

  1. Facts show Dems are job creators

    By: Jennifer Granholm
    May 15, 2012 09:24 PM EDT

    I delivered the faculty graduation address last weekend at the University of California, Berkeley’s Goldman School of Public Policy. It’s one of the nation’s best and the reason is its emphasis on rigorous data analysis. Any public policy wonk worth her salt must be focused on data in order to replicate policy successes.

    So if we all agree that the nation’s biggest problem is a lack of jobs, we should entrust a respected nonpartisan policy source to examine the economic data, right? The policy analysis should review which laboratory was most successful in creating jobs over a sustained period.

    And then we should emulate those policies, right?

    If Republican tax cuts create more jobs than Democratic investment, by all means let’s cut taxes! If Republican financial deregulation creates more jobs than Democratic consumer protection, then go ahead, deregulate away!

    Which is exactly why the data from Bloomberg’s BGOV Barometer last week will shock many people. Bloomberg studied the past 50 years of U.S. job creation, under Democratic and Republican presidents. The facts: For the near half-century following the Kennedy administration, Democrats created nearly twice as many private-sector jobs as Republicans. Even though Democrats held the presidency for only 23 years compared with 28 years of Republican rule.

    Private-sector payrolls increased by 42 million jobs under Democratic administrations, and 24 million under Republican ones. That’s an average of 150,000 new paychecks a month under Democrats and 71,000 per month under Republicans.

    Let’s look at some other indicators. How about investing in the stock market? Again, Bloomberg analyzed the data. Investing $1,000 in a hypothetical fund that tracks the Standard & Poor’s 500 index over the past 50 years would have returned $10,920 when Democrats held the White House. The return when Republicans were in power? $2,087.

    Annualized returns were 11 percent for the Democrats, 2.7 percent for the Republicans.

    What about gross domestic product growth? Through 2008, real GDP grew faster under Democratic administrations — 4.1 percent to 2.7 percent for the GOP.

    Income growth? Under Democrats, the real median income over the past 50 years grew at 2.2 percent. Republicans? 0.6 percent.

    Number of Americans in poverty? By now you see the pattern. The poverty rate declined under President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society programs from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent by 1970.

    A more recent example compares Bill Clinton with George W. Bush. Under Clinton, Americans living in poverty decreased by nearly 20 percent. Under Bush, this number rose by 21 percent.

    When President Barack Obama took office, he inherited an economy that was losing an average of 750,000 jobs a month. As of April, private-sector jobs have now recovered to the number we had when he started. That’s 4.2 million jobs in the past 26 months.

    So why the high unemployment rate? Largely because of public-sector job cuts — most in states that saw new GOP governors and legislatures elected in 2010 slash budgets for teachers, public safety and other service functions. Without these cuts, the Labor Department estimates our unemployment rate would be at 7.1 percent. Not the 8.1 percent it’s at now.

    Under Bush, we experienced the most tepid job growth in eight decades — a dismal 2 percent over his two terms. When Mitt Romney says that Obama “isn’t working,” he neglects to mention that the Romney economic policies — more tax cuts, more deregulation, more cuts to government, the typical policy positions of the GOP for the past 50 years — have been described as “Bush on steroids.” What part of that suggests that Romney’s solutions would fare any better?

    I can hear the right’s reaction now: The Bloomberg studies are too broad! Or the Labor Department numbers are too narrow! Bloomberg needs to account for geopolitical events! Whatever.

    Believe me, I understand one’s gut desire to defend one’s party — even in the face of bad facts. Been guilty of it myself.

    Eventually, however, individual excuses wear thin when you put together all the objective evidence. Concentrating wealth in the hands of the few and deregulating financial institutions and practices lead to speculative bubbles that eventually burst — and that brings the whole country down.

    “In God we trust,” one often repeated maxim says, “all others bring data.” It’s too bad data often have no bearing on which policies get proposed or adopted. I hope that future public policy students don’t throw their hands up in dismay as they witness reflexive dismissal of jobs data from many on the far right.

    Or maybe they should just become accountants — at least numbers don’t lie.
  2. 377OHMS


  3. jem


    Specious article
    data mining
    that was the old non leftist democrat party
    we got a bunch old school socialists on the left now ( who incidently were responsible for the problems with republicans as well. Since neo cons were socialists who became republicans.0
  4. Indeed. Call in the short bus. Some folks need a ride.
  5. Democrats created nearly twice as many private-sector jobs as Republicans. Even though Democrats held the presidency for only 23 years compared with 28 years of Republican rule.

    Excellent news.

    Now tell me...exactly what were those Dem policies (be specific).
  6. And they made sure to exclude the make up of the Senate and Congress so as not to inconvenience its readers with useless facts.
  7. Tom B

    Tom B

  8. [​IMG]
  9. I'm so confused about this Dem vs Rep thing.

    What specific actions has Obama taken to create jobs. I think we've had some job growth during his term, what did he do?
  10. Did President Obama Create More Jobs in 3 years then Bush did in 8? or is this a numbers game?
    March 23, 2012

    During President Barack Obama's State of the Union address on January 24, 2012, He stated …In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs…

    Lets do the Math from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)

    The SOTU was 1/24/2012. Now assuming that the jobs numbers have not been published yet for January 2012 since it’s was mid month, I think he used December 2011 numbers

    December 2011 = 140,681,000 go back 22 months to February 2010 = 137,203,000 Ok so He’s telling the truth 3.4 Million Jobs in 22 months. But why skew the numbers not including “Since I took office” Line?

    That’s Easy; the number would not be so impressive. January 2009 = 140,436,000 the Jobs created would be 245,000. So he goes back until he finds a month that’s lower than the Dec 11 and writes in 22 months. That’sdeceiving

    There are a lot of people posting about Obama has created more jobs in 3 years than Bush’s 8 years . Again take the BLS Website Jobs Numbers. And put this claim to the test.

    Let’s first look at President Bush; According to the BLS, when President Bush took office in January in 2001 the number of people age 16 or older employed in our nation was 136,181,000. Over the next year, that number dropped to 134,177,000 (Jan 02). By January of 2007 the number climbed to 144,275,000. Democrats took over control of the House and Senate at this time. The number of employed though continued to climb, hitting 146,867,000 in July of 2008. It is at this point that the ‘crash’ occurred, and on leaving office the number of people employed had dropped to 143,350,000 Dec 2008.

    There is a couple ways to look at this data. Overall, 7,169,000 jobs were created during Bush’s time as President. If you want to say that ‘the first year doesn’t count’, then Bush created 3,776,000 jobs. If you want to say that ‘the first year doesn’t count for Obama but it does for Bush - in other words, from Jan 01 to Dec 09, count as ‘Bush’ the years, then Bush created 1,772,000 jobs.

    Now let’s look at President Obama. According to the BLS, when President Obama took office in January of 2009 the number of people age 16 or older employed in our nation was 140,436,000. Over the next year, that number dropped to 136,809,000 (Jan 10). By January of 2011, the number climbed to 137,599,000. Republicans took back control of the House at this time, the Senate was held by Democrats. The number employed continued to climb, hitting 140,684,000 Feb 2012.

    There is a couple ways to look at this data. Overall, 248,000 jobs have been created during Obama’s time as President. If you want to say that ‘the first year doesn’t count,’ then Obama created 3,875,000 but what he did not tell you is that his numbers did not include bush having the same offset.

    The Score Board shows if you use the January Start to December End dates Obama Created 248,000 Jobs since he took office; That entire Stimulus spent for a quarter of a million jobs. (Let’s hope the Employment numbers raise up by December 2012) or that 3.27 Trillion spent on the Stimulus would have been a waste of money.

    To be Fair, Use the “First Year don’t count” and Obama’s numbers are still higher than Bush’s “First Year don’t count” by a TOTAL 99,000 Jobs Created over bush’s 8 years.

    Now use ‘the first year doesn’t count’ for Obama’s but it does for Bush numbers, and it shows that Obama created 2,103,000 jobs over Bush's 9 years. This is the one Liberal blogs use.
    #10     May 20, 2012