- Joined
- Jan 29, 2011
- Messages
- 11,265
- Reaction score
- 2,921
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Hey, nice bait and switch! Anyone else notice I posted the unemployment numbers + discouraged workers numbers (like Conservative did earlier) and when they show how Bush lost 2.7 million jobs during his first 26 months in office, Conservative pulls a fast one and switches to employment numbers.Where do you get that Bush's numbers were far worse, here are the employment numbers for Bush's first term which show more employed at the end of his first term than when he took office. Can you say the same about Obama? Looks to me like you are the one confused, 140.1 million in December 2004 is higher than 137.8 when he took office. Guess math isn't a strong subject for you.
2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
2004 138472 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125
Apparently success in your world is spending over a trillion dollars to get less employment than when a liberal takes office?
Here ya go, Con ...
Unemployed:
Jan 2001: 6,023,000
Mar 2003: 8,588,000
Discouraged:
Jan 2001: 301,000
Mar 2003: 474,000
Unemployed + Discouraged
Jan 2001: 6,324,000
Mar 2003: 9,062,000
Bush Total: -2,738,000
Unemployed:
Jan 2009: 11,984,000
Mar 2011: 13,542,000
Discouraged:
Jan 2009: 734,000
Mar 2011: 921,000
Unemployed + Discouraged
Jan 2009: 12,718,000
Mar 2011: 14,463,000
Obama Total: -1,745,000
Source: BLS.gov: Unemployed, BLS.gov: Discouraged Workers
G'head, Con, this is where you exaplain why it was ok to give Bush 4 more years after losing 2.7 million jobs but not ok to give Obama 4 more years after losing 1.7 million jobs (following the Great Recession, no less).