Would Romney-nomics differ from Bush-nomics?

2004 AP file photo

2004 AP file photo

Let’s chat, shall we? Let’s have a serious discussion of how we got in this rough economy, and what our approach should be going forward. And let’s begin with this, a chart compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics documenting job loss or gain since 2008:

jobsloss

As the chart documents, when President Obama took office in late January of 2009, he did so at the peak of a historic collapse in the U.S. job market that had begun a year earlier. In just four months — November and December of 2008 and January and February of 2009 — 3 million Americans lost their jobs, which is more than had been lost in the entire 1981-83 recession. All told, before things could be turned around, 8.7 million Americans were put out of work in the largest economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Here’s another way to look at it, also from BLS:

jobs

Now: Here’s the question that ought to dominate the political discussion in the next six months:

What would lead you to believe that returning to the policies that were in effect under President Bush — lower taxes, particularly on the wealthy (the “producers,” if you choose); more defense spending; a loose regulatory rein on Wall Street — will produce a better outcome than it did the first time around?

What evidence — and blind ideological faith is not evidence — can you cite to justify an argument that this time it would be different?

UPDATE: In comments below, Jack mentions the collapse of the construction industry. Because it’s a point of particular concern here in the Atlanta area, I’ll post the following chart. Note that the upsurge in construction related work begins in 2003 and peaks in early 2006.

construct.

– Jay Bookman

535 comments Add your comment

kayaker 71

June 11th, 2012
10:11 am

There has never been a major recovery in this country that involved raising taxes, spending huge amounts of taxpayer money and creating jobs. The three don’t mix. Reagan proved that when he engineered the biggest and most effective economic boom that this country has ever seen and he did it by lowering taxes, letting the private sector solve it’s own problems and getting out of the way.

Doggone/GA

June 11th, 2012
10:13 am

“There has never been a major recovery in this country that involved raising taxes, spending huge amounts of taxpayer money and creating jobs”

Has there ever been a major recovery in this country that involved lowering taxes, cutting huge amounts of taxpayer money and not creating jobs?

the cat

June 11th, 2012
10:13 am

That picture almost caused me to lose breakfast.

Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!

June 11th, 2012
10:13 am

Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time….

Romney=Insanity

godless heathen

June 11th, 2012
10:14 am

doggone, (from below) Coerce was the wrong word. Entice would be better.

You would think that the FBI would have enough crimes to solve without having to go and an entice people to commit crimes.

Bullseye

June 11th, 2012
10:15 am

Regan raised the debt ceiling and taxes. He was supply sider and used Voodoo.

Common Sense isn't very Common- UFA

June 11th, 2012
10:15 am

Kayaker -

Reagan has been dead for a while and during his presidency we still had manufacturing jobs in this country.

So what would Reagan do if he had inherited this mess that started in 2001?

Doggone/GA

June 11th, 2012
10:15 am

“doggone, (from below) Coerce was the wrong word. Entice would be better”

Nope. Enticement is the name of the game. That’s what ANY briber does. There’s no way to have a sting operation WITHOUT mimicing that behavior.

carlosgvv

June 11th, 2012
10:15 am

There are two main factors at work here that make having to justify this arguement to Republican voters a non-issue:

1. The Party’s electorate is controlled by “born again Christians” who, by this very definition, demonstrate little or no ability to do any sort of critical thinking.
2. These same people are determined to get that n***r out of the White House and will vote for any Republican as long as he/she is white.

JOE COOL~DoWnToWn THUG

June 11th, 2012
10:16 am

Jay, stop posting those “Obama Lies, Propaganda, Made up charts”…snark

Brosephus™

June 11th, 2012
10:17 am

kayaker

Reagan raised taxes, increased the size of government, and tripled the national debt. The fact that you use Reagan as an example of saying something doesn’t work when he did those very things shows how much of a disconnect you have with reality.

Smoke&Mirrors

June 11th, 2012
10:17 am

Let me see if I get this right…
At first, to stimulate the short run economy, Reagan promoted a tax cut. Then, after the economy got going, he raised taxes (wasn’t it 11 times?)
We have short term problems, and long term problems. Solving the short term problem (current economy) with long term solutions (debt reduction) can cause stagnation (see Japan).

Don't Forget

June 11th, 2012
10:18 am

Kayaker- There has never been a major recovery in this country that involved raising taxes, spending huge amounts of taxpayer money and creating jobs

What about WWII?

Jack

June 11th, 2012
10:19 am

My blind ideological faith tells me that the job market went to hell when the building trades tanked. And no need to talk about why the building trades tanked, that’d be some more ideological thinking according to libs.

HDB

June 11th, 2012
10:19 am

kayaker 71

June 11th, 2012
10:11 am

Actually, the greatest economic expansion was during the CLINTON Years when he RAISED TAXES and reduced the growth of governmental spending!! History has also shown that in major economic crises, it’s governmental spending that has been the driving force to get the economy back in order!! In economic DOWNTURNS, the government is the financial source of last resort!! You cut back government spending in economic UP SWINGS!!

JOE COOL~DoWnToWn THUG

June 11th, 2012
10:19 am

“Bush told reporters at the breakfast that even Ronald Reagan would have a tough time winning the Republican presidential nomination in today’s partisan climate, in which working with members of the other party is seen as a weakness. He called the current partisanship “disturbing,”

kayaker 71

June 11th, 2012
10:20 am

A good definition of Bozo and the gang and how they view this country. This country should be called an …….. INEPTOCRACY.

Definition:….. A system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed are rewarded with goods and serves paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Jay

June 11th, 2012
10:21 am

Kayaker, three points:

– Reaganomics also included a huge stimulus in the form of massive, deficit-funded increases in defense spending. “Shovel-ready” jobs, in other words.

– As part of his recovery plan, Obama has pushed for and signed significant tax cuts, most recently the payroll tax cuts that Republicans initially tried to oppose.

– Most importantly, by this point in his presidency Ronald Reagan had already signed into law several major tax HIKES, including the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, the largest peacetime tax hike in U.S. history. It alone increased federal revenue by more than 1 percent of GDP.

Those are the facts.

Aquagirl

June 11th, 2012
10:22 am

kayaker
Reagan raised taxes, increased the size of government, and tripled the national debt.

Bro, your comment is invalid….kayaker isn’t talking about the real Reagan, he means the fantasy cult figure created by the GOP. Apples and oranges.

Ahem

June 11th, 2012
10:22 am

A moment of silence is due to reflect on the passing of carlosgvv’s mind.

Jm-pass TSPLOST unless you really love congestion

June 11th, 2012
10:22 am

Would they differ? Yep

Jm-pass TSPLOST unless you really love congestion

June 11th, 2012
10:24 am

Banking crises are a regular fixture of capitalism

They cannot be averted, only mitigated

Socialism isn’t the answer

Brosephus™

June 11th, 2012
10:25 am

Aquagirl

My bad… I always get confused between the real Reagan and the action-figure Reagan™ *now with the Kung Fu grip. You would think that I would be able to differentiate between the two by now. :)

Jm-pass TSPLOST unless you really love congestion

June 11th, 2012
10:26 am

“What would lead you to believe that returning to the policies that were in effect under President Bush ”

Wrong premise

Common Sense isn't very Common- UFA

June 11th, 2012
10:26 am

OMG

I agree with Jm’s 10:24

The world is coming to an end :-)

Smoke&Mirrors

June 11th, 2012
10:28 am

… and what good are jobs/goods producers when you have absolutely no demand for those goods (they can’t be afforded)?

‘Pumping up’ the economic stability of the larger group of the population (the middle class) does far more good than lining the pockets of just a few of the fabled job creators. It gives a large portion of the population the ability to purchase goods and services.

That’s why cutting the payroll taxes can help – but giving extra bucks to the mega-yacht owner only allows him/her to hire another deck hand.

MiltonMan

June 11th, 2012
10:28 am

We do not need Romney. Obama summed it up perfectly: “The economy is fine”

Brosephus™

June 11th, 2012
10:29 am

Banking crises are a regular fixture of capitalism

So why allow banking to take on such a huge part of the economy like we have in the US? If the banks go down now, so do we.

Jay

June 11th, 2012
10:29 am

Jack, note update above.

Peter

June 11th, 2012
10:30 am

Has the GOP changed since Nixon…..or is corruption at any cost, been the theme ?

Aquagirl

June 11th, 2012
10:31 am

I always get confused between the real Reagan and the action-figure Reagan™ *now with the Kung Fu grip. You would think that I would be able to differentiate between the two by now.

Don’t feel bad, Jay made the same mistake. :)

MiltonMan

June 11th, 2012
10:31 am

“2. These same people are determined to get that n***r out of the White House and will vote for any Republican as long as he/she is white.”

How unique – playing the race card.

Jm-pass TSPLOST unless you really love congestion

June 11th, 2012
10:31 am

Romney: we have to fix the deficit
Cheney (as you guys love to cite): deficits don’t matter

:)

ITS ALL BUSHS FAULT

June 11th, 2012
10:32 am

To all of you voting Rep . if you have less than a miilion dollars in the bank and you vote for Romney you are an idiot.. Republicans hate America…………

Jefferson

June 11th, 2012
10:32 am

Romney is a preppy president Bush.

ByteMe - Political thug

June 11th, 2012
10:32 am

I think Jack’s ideologically inclined head concerning “libs” just exploded.

What a mess.

Jay

June 11th, 2012
10:32 am

And so far, not even a token effort to explain why that same approach would be better this time out.

HDB

June 11th, 2012
10:33 am

An interesting sidenote from AJC:

http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/georgia-tech-receives-transformational-1455775.html

“A Georgia Tech alumnus donated $50 million to the business college — the largest single cash gift in the institute’s history, officials announced Monday.

The donor, Ernest “Ernie” Scheller Jr., graduated from Tech in 1952 with a degree in industrial management. Officials renamed the business school the Ernest Scheller Jr. College of Business in his honor.

Georgia Tech President Bud Peterson said the donation had “an unprecedented impact” on the business school. The gift, when combined with other donations through a corresponding dollar-for-dollar challenge, will more than double the business school’s endowment.

The college has used the money to add nine endowed faculty chairs and professorships, six graduate fellowships and 37 undergraduate scholarships, Dean Steve Salbu said.

Scheller is chairman emeritus of the Pennsylvania-based Silberline Manufacturing Inc., a global supplier of high-quality pigments that enhance the visual appeal of coatings, paints, inks, plastics, and textiles. The product is primarily used in the automobile industry.”

Imagine if Obama didn’t ask for an automotive industry BAILOUT….this company could’ve gone out of business…..and GT wouldn’t have a larger endowment!!!

Peter

June 11th, 2012
10:33 am

Has the GOP changed since Nixon…..or is corruption at any cost, been the theme ?

No……… Deficits don’t matter……….. Cost Plus Contracts are good !

Steve

June 11th, 2012
10:33 am

How would Romney help anything but funnel more money out of the middle class to the rich? Seriously, people, USE YOUR BRAINS!

Jm-pass TSPLOST unless you really love congestion

June 11th, 2012
10:35 am

Bro

Banking isn’t as big as you might think relative to historic norms. It has already significantly shrunk as a % of GDP

Banking has averaged 5% of GDP and got to 7.3% at the peak

Now it’s smaller than 5%

Not sure about the need to kick a man that’s already down for the count

josef

June 11th, 2012
10:35 am

MiltonMan

Yeah, that one and the Christian bash…Carlos can get those two in no matter the subject/topic at hand..

BTW
I just saw a hairy woodpecker in the trees outside…

Peter

June 11th, 2012
10:35 am

Romney would have let the automotive industry die in America ? Most think so……

ByteMe - Political thug

June 11th, 2012
10:35 am

And so far, not even a token effort to explain why that same approach would be better this time out.

Carlos did, in his own way: “Because it’s not a black guy/Democrat in the White House”. That really does seem to answer the question pretty well for them.

Oh, you wanted them to use “facts” to support their argument? Facts are outlawed in Rightwingnutistan. Get used to Trump’s “I’m entitled to my (nonsensical/completely unsupported by facts) opinion.”

ITS ALL BUSHS FAULT

June 11th, 2012
10:36 am

Romney is a vulture capitalist, you care about your childerns future? …….Obama ………………2012

DawgDad

June 11th, 2012
10:37 am

Sorry Jay, and most of the posters. I don’t see anything but blind ideology on display.

Brosephus™

June 11th, 2012
10:37 am

And so far, not even a token effort to explain why that same approach would be better this time out.

And if you really, really, honestly expected ANY effort put into an explanation of such, I have some fabulous beachfront property in Casper, WY that you and your family would love to purchase. Think of how close you’d be to those trout streams then. :)

ITS ALL BUSHS FAULT

June 11th, 2012
10:37 am

You care about your future ……..Vote …………Obama……..

killerj

June 11th, 2012
10:37 am

So what are you trying to say Jay?,we need to downsize government and let the private sector flourish instead of being regulated to death while the rest of the world kicks our ass?…..Dam Right.

Smoke&Mirrors

June 11th, 2012
10:37 am

If you keep the vast majority of the electorate in the ‘truly uninformed’ category (this could be construed as uneducated), then they will vote against their self interests, and the interest of their progeny.

ITS ALL BUSHS FAULT

June 11th, 2012
10:38 am

You love your country…………Vote ………..Obama

Steve

June 11th, 2012
10:38 am

Are conservative brains wired in such a way that they can’t grasp facts that go against their deeply engrained world views?

ByteMe - Political thug

June 11th, 2012
10:38 am

Jay, it really is an article of their faith that cutting taxes, increasing defense spending, and cutting social programs for the poor is a recipe for this country to “return to greatness”. Just because facts contradict their fath doesn’t mean their faith is misplaced. It just means that the Devil is in the details… so to speak.

ByteMe - Political thug

June 11th, 2012
10:39 am

we need to downsize government and let the private sector flourish

Government employment has been steadily dropping since Obama took office. How’s the private sector flourshing for ya?

Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!

June 11th, 2012
10:39 am

Remember Reagan’s 600 Navy ship plan? He was a good friend to the Military Industrial Complex and didn’t care about deficits…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/600-ship_Navy

But…get this…it took Congress to put the stop to it…

“Eventually political pressure to reduce the national budget deficit resulted in Congress reversing itself and passing a series of declining defense budgets beginning in 1986. ”

I wonder why this Congress doesn’t see the example and follow it…

Jm-pass TSPLOST unless you really love congestion

June 11th, 2012
10:39 am

“And so far, not even a token effort to explain why that same approach would be better this time out.”

What evidence, and blind ideological faith isn’t evidence, do you have that Romney would execute the EXACT SAME POLICIES?

Are we going to re-invade Iraq? Nope

Are we going to invade Iran? Nope

Are we going to cut personal income taxes from where they are? Nope

Are we going to raise tax revenue? Yep

Are we going to cut spending as a % of GDP? Yep

Is Obama? Nope

Next

Brosephus™

June 11th, 2012
10:40 am

jm

I’m not talking about GDP production. I’m speaking more of everyday living. There are multiple kinds of banks, and they have all weaved their ways into the economy to the point that we have to ensure their collective success, or we all suffer. From 401(k)’s to financing, there are not very many people who don’t have some major economic tie-in to banks.

I’m not trying to kick anything. I’m merely asking the question of how much effect should banks have on our economy, and not just GDP?

MiltonMan

June 11th, 2012
10:40 am

“To all of you voting Rep . if you have less than a miilion dollars in the bank and you vote for Romney you are an idiot.. Republicans hate America…………”

Just ignore that Michelle stated that she was never proud of America until her husband was nominated; Obama’s refusal to wear the American flag lapel pin; etc., etc.

zeke

June 11th, 2012
10:41 am

First, military spending is ONE OF VERY FEW Constitutional duties of the feds! Not welfare, not healthcare, not medicaid, not wic, not adc, and all the other wealth redistribution giveaway entitlements!
And if not for September 11, 2001, the Bush years would have been extremely successful in reducing spending, keeping unemployment low, expanding the economy for everyone! As it was, even with the events of that day and following, unemployment was low, almost at what is considered full employment levels. Obozo and the democrats have changed all that. Yes, I know he was not put in office until January 2009, but, from January 2007 the democrats controlling Congress insured that none of the policies of W. Bush would be enacted or successful! THEY MY FRIEND HAVE BEEN THE PARTY OF NO, NOT THE REPUBLICANS! Yes I am sure that returning to the policies of Reagan and W. Bush will be more successful and beneficial to everyone that the scum left wing socialist policies of Obama, Pelosi and Reid!

kayaker 71

June 11th, 2012
10:43 am

From 1982 to 1989, this country had the greatest burst of economic growth in US history…. even the greatest that the world has ever seen, in any country at any time. Over 18.7M jobs were created during that time to a total employment of American citizens of 119.5M people employed. The unemployment rate was consistently at 5% after Reagan’s policies kicked in. In seven years, this country produced over 30T dollars in goods and services and in January, 1990, we had experienced a statistic that may well never be repeated……. we had experienced 89 months of consistent upward economic growth. Clinton had a legacy of Reagan economic success that propelled whatever growth he produced and laid the ground work for Clinton’s success.
Compare that with Bozo. After nearly four years, we are still at 1.6% economic growth, we still have a contrived 8.2% unemployed, more houses under water than at anytime in our history, gas prices in the stratosphere, more people on food stamps than at any time in our history, entitlement spending up by 41% since January of 2009……. which one would you choose?

TaxPayer

June 11th, 2012
10:44 am

Referring to the historical B tables at bls.gov and in particular the total private employment, I noted that the employment rate under Bush from July 2003 to Jan 2008 was 1.6 million jobs per year while the employment rate under Obama from Feb 2010 to Mar 2012 was 1.9 million jobs per year. I have glanced at the total government jobs over those time frames and government grew under Bush and shrank under Obama however I have not calculated the average rates.

President Obama's Jobs Plan

June 11th, 2012
10:44 am

What are Mitt Romney’s plans?

President Obama has a clear message for Congress: It’s time to put country ahead of politics and create one million new jobs.
President Obama proposed the American Jobs Act, but Republicans in Congress have refused to act on many of the common-sense ideas that would help our country continue to recover from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

1 Prevent teachers and first responders from being laid off
Congress should pass President Obama’s proposals to prevent layoffs of teachers, firefighters, police, and other first responders, keeping hundreds of thousands of needed workers on the job.

2 Put construction workers back on the job
Congress should pass President Obama’s proposal to put hundreds of thousands of construction workers back to work making needed repairs to our roads, bridges, airports, and schools.

3 Reward American jobs, not outsourcing
Congress should pass President Obama’s proposal to keep good jobs here at home, giving new tax breaks to companies that insource and taking away tax breaks from companies that ship jobs overseas.

4 Expand refinancing for responsible homeowners
Congress should pass President Obama’s proposal to cut red tape and help responsible homeowners refinance their mortgages at today’s lower rates.

5 Provide tax credits for small businesses that hire new workers
Congress should pass President Obama’s proposal to help small business owners who create jobs by hiring new workers and making new investments—including tax incentives that would benefit as many as 2 million small businesses.

6 Create a Veterans Job Corps
Congress should pass President Obama’s proposal to help our veterans find good jobs, and continue to serve in their communities.

And last but not least…..

This week, the Senate voted on the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would help women, who currently make 77 cents on every dollar a man earns, receive equal pay for equal work. It’s a bill that gives women more tools to fight pay discrimination and helps close that gap by making it easier for them to learn whether they’re being discriminated against, and protecting workers who share information about their wages from being fired.

Astoundingly, all 47 Republican senators voted to filibuster the bill. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney was asked several times in the past few weeks about his stance on the bill, and he dodged the question each and every time.

Steve

June 11th, 2012
10:44 am

zeke – if not for REPUBLICANS being in power during 2011…

Why decided to invade Iraq because of 911? CONSERVATIVES. Don’t forget Medicare Part B. Don’t forget tax cuts DURING a time of war.

Stupid, bad, awful policy.

Mark in mid-town

June 11th, 2012
10:45 am

I see Jay is in full hack mode this morning. Tax cuts in and of themselves do not promote growth. Supply-side tax cuts promote growth. What’s the difference? A payroll tax cut adds no incentive for a person to produce more. A supply-side tax cut does offer incentive to produce more. Bush’s supply-side tax cuts, while no panacea, did help the country quickly recover from the 2001 recession and from 9/11/2001 when it was feared the attacks could trigger a complete economic melt-down. How quickly we forget.

Bush’s tax policies were doing quite well. After full implementation, budget deficits were well within Post World War II norms and trending down, even though we were fighting 2 wars.

The housing collapse is what sent the economy into the dumps, and that had nothing to do with Bush’s supply-side tax cuts. To the extent that anyone was trying to warn about Fannie and Freddie, it was Bush and other Republicans. Their warnings may not have prevented the meltdown if fully heeded. Nonetheless it was Democrats who ensured that nothing was done.

And to those who blame Bush for deregulation that caused the problems, just what deregulation did Bush engage in. It was Clinton who signed into law all of the deregulation that many blame Bush for, and it was Bush who signed the onerous Sarbanes-Oxley which added more regulation to the economy than had been done in decades.

With regard to Clinton — for all intents and purposes, Clinton operated under more supply-side economics than did Reagan for most of Reagan’s 8 years. While Clinton signed an income tax rate increase where marginal tax rates were still greatly lower than for most of Reagan’s 8 years, Clinton also signed a large capital gains tax rate cut and most of the explosion in government revenues under Clinton were the result of a massive increase in the amount of capital gains taxes being generated.

Goldie

June 11th, 2012
10:45 am

I believe I can sum up the Repubs’ complaint with President Obama like this: “You just haven’t cleaned up the GOP’s mess fast enough, Dude!” :)

ByteMe - Political thug

June 11th, 2012
10:45 am

What evidence, and blind ideological faith isn’t evidence, do you have that Romney would execute the EXACT SAME POLICIES?

Same neo-con advisors on foreign policy. Same economic advisors with the same advice as before. Same comments from Romney about lowering taxes on the wealthy, raising it on the poor, and cutting social programs while increasing defense spending. What evidence are you missing that he would do anything differently than Bush? Seems pretty clear that if you get the same advice from the same people, you end up with the same outcome.

Steve

June 11th, 2012
10:45 am

Kayaker, and under Raygun, how much did our debt and defecit go up during his reign of spending?

EJ Moosa

June 11th, 2012
10:46 am

“What would lead you to believe that returning to the policies that were in effect under President Bush — lower taxes, particularly on the wealthy (the “producers,” if you choose); more defense spending; a loose regulatory rein on Wall Street — will produce a better outcome than it did the first time around?”

The evidence of those policies can be seen in the change in employment from trough to peak under Bush.

8/2003 127.82 miliion
1/2008 138.02 million

An increase during the Bush years of 8.2 million.

But feel free to ignore that incredible period of job growth in the US.

Jefferson

June 11th, 2012
10:46 am

The poor and working middle class will fare better under D presidents, always have.

Smoke&Mirrors

June 11th, 2012
10:47 am

If you want to compare presidential administrations and their economic effectiveness – maybe look at where they started, and where they ended.
This a rather coarse way to look at history, as there were ups and downs inside each administration.

Also, as a caveat, you also have to take into account what congress does/doesn’t do.

Brosephus™

June 11th, 2012
10:48 am

So what are you trying to say Jay?,we need to downsize government and let the private sector flourish instead of being regulated to death while the rest of the world kicks our ass?…..Dam Right.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/obamas-press-conference-the-public-sector-isnt-fine/2012/06/08/gJQAp5rxNV_blog.html

Since Obama was elected, the public sector has lost about 600,000 jobs. If you put those jobs back, the unemployment rate would be 7.8 percent.

But what if we did more than that? At this point in George W. Bush’s administration, public-sector employment had grown by 3.7 percent. That would be equal to a bit over 800,000 jobs today. If you add those hypothetical jobs, the unemployment rate falls to 7.3 percent.

Both of those numbers, it should be said, are holding all else equal: If more workers had reentered the labor force, the unemployment rate could be higher. And if there were 1.4 million more Americans with jobs, they’d be spending money and creating jobs for other people. So private-sector employment could be higher, too.

Speaking of private-sector jobs, at this point the Obama presidency is net positive on private-sector jobs. Since February of 2009 — remember, Obama wasn’t president for most of January — the economy has added, on net, 780,000 private-sector jobs. Hence the president’s comments: The private sector’s job creation machine is basically working, even if it would be nice to see it working faster. The public sector, conversely, has been losing jobs.

Already tried your idea, so how do you like the results so far?

Steve

June 11th, 2012
10:48 am

Again, incredible job growth = incredible spending.

Yet the current Congress won’t let Obama do anything.

Goldie

June 11th, 2012
10:48 am

I’m hoping ole Mitt will select Jeb as his running mate — can’t wait to see those bumper stickers driving around town! :)

ByteMe - Political thug

June 11th, 2012
10:48 am

The evidence of those policies can be seen in the change in employment from trough to peak under Bush.

Cherry pickin’.

JOE COOL~DoWnToWn THUG

June 11th, 2012
10:49 am

Now Jay lets be fair….. “Self-Deportation” is not something Bush pursued.

TaxPayer

June 11th, 2012
10:50 am

Compare that with Bozo.

Reagan is dead however the movie he co-starred in was Bedtime for Bonzo–not Bozo. Bonzo clearly earned top billing so get over it, kayaker.

ByteMe - Political thug

June 11th, 2012
10:50 am

Now Jay lets be fair….. “Self-Deportation” is not something Bush pursued

I forgot that one! Of course, Hispanics are unlikely to forget that one….

EJ Moosa

June 11th, 2012
10:50 am

” I have glanced at the total government jobs over those time frames and government grew under Bush and shrank under Obama however I have not calculated the average rates.”

Are you really going to blame Bush for larger state and local governments, and give Obama credit for shrinking state and local governments?

They BOTH suck

June 11th, 2012
10:52 am

Kayaker

If jobs is your “benchmark”, you need to look on past Reagan and start stargazing on Clinton

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

Personally, I think there are many variables out of the control of the President. Pres gets too much blame and too much credit for jobs

But since you brought up Reagan, just sayn

Jefferson

June 11th, 2012
10:52 am

Jobs during the Bush presidentcy did not keep pace with population growth.

EJ Moosa

June 11th, 2012
10:52 am

“Cherry pickin’.”

That’s because there is fruit in that tree.

Now you should be fair. Boomman’s entire data set was cherry picked as well.

TaxPayer

June 11th, 2012
10:52 am

EJ Moosa,

I calculated those trough to peak rates for total private sector employment in my 10:44.

They BOTH suck

June 11th, 2012
10:53 am

Kayaker

You do know that several tax increases by Reagan and Bush Sr were signed into law before Clinton ever took office, right?

Adam

June 11th, 2012
10:53 am

Romney thinks we don’t need teachers or firefighters of policemen. Well, I suppose except for making all those jobs private sector, i.e. you get the police, fire protection and education that you can afford and no more than that. Meaning poor people don’t get any of that. Sounds like a fast way to create an underclass that feeds the private prisons.

Brosephus™

June 11th, 2012
10:54 am

8/2003 127.82 miliion
1/2008 138.02 million

An increase during the Bush years of 8.2 million.

But feel free to ignore that incredible period of job growth in the US.

The presidency of George W. Bush began on January 20, 2001 and ended on January 20, 2009 when his successor was sworn in. Cherrypicking stats from 2003-2008 does not prove your point. It does, however, show that anybody can manipulate statistics to prove themselves correct, even when they are wrong.

Goldie

June 11th, 2012
10:54 am

“Bush’s tax policies were doing quite well.”

LOL — Mark @ 10:45… and I also remember your guy Cheney stating that “deficits do not matter!”
Wow. The budget surplus from Pres. Clinton’s administration quickly became the GOP’s deficit spending within the first year or two. And 2 GOP wars that were not paid for did not help either!

Wow. Like America really needs the GOP’s policies to return again… :)

Steve Atl

June 11th, 2012
10:54 am

Obama’s lack of experience now has the poor results to go with it…our country elected a guy who does not know what a P&L are.

Romney in 2012!!

TaxPayer

June 11th, 2012
10:54 am

Are you really going to blame Bush for larger state and local governments, and give Obama credit for shrinking state and local governments?

I simply posted facts–rates under two administrations. I’ll leave it to cons to misinterpret the meaning.

Jm-pass TSPLOST unless you really love congestion

June 11th, 2012
10:55 am

“I’m not trying to kick anything. I’m merely asking the question of how much effect should banks have on our economy, and not just GDP?”

Bro, our banks are international banks. It’s not that simple. And I would suggest the government dictating how big banks become is a silly, very socialist notion.

What matters is how large their capital requirements are and how well regulated they are.

It’s a big world. If banking became 20% of our GDP, I wouldn’t sweat it if they’re adequately capitalized

EJ Moosa

June 11th, 2012
10:55 am

“Jobs during the Bush presidentcy did not keep pace with population growth.”

And they certainly are not today.

But the stubborn fact remains. More people worked under Bush than any other president in US history.

That’s something Obama will never be able to claim.

Dependency on the Government? Obama is certain to secure that title.

EJ Moosa

June 11th, 2012
10:56 am

Then in fairness you would have pointed that out Taxpayer.

Instead, you tried to manipulate how folks might interpret things.

This time you failed.

Jefferson

June 11th, 2012
10:56 am

You GOP lovers didn’t even like Romney until he was forced down your throat.

Duper

June 11th, 2012
10:57 am

Thanks for splainin’ doo doo economics Book

They BOTH suck

June 11th, 2012
10:57 am

HDB

June 11th, 2012
10:58 am

EJ Moosa

June 11th, 2012
10:46 am

“The evidence of those policies can be seen in the change in employment from trough to peak under Bush.”

OK….lob losses of over 750K/monthly which made Bush’s net job gain equal ZERO; periods of job stagnation where jobs weren’t created – ask the 25,000 people who LOST jobs at United Airlines because of 9/11; ask the 20,000 people who were laid off from American Airlines because of 9/11; ask those who couldn’t/can’t find work for upwards of TWO or MORE years because of Bush’s policies!!!

Peter

June 11th, 2012
10:58 am

An increase during the Bush years of 8.2 million.

But feel free to ignore that incredible period of job growth in the US.

Please tell us what happened at the end of the Bush 8 years ? The US was in wonderful shape ? Really what are you bragging about ?

USMC

June 11th, 2012
10:58 am

“Would Romney-nomics differ from Bush-nomics?”–Jay Bookman

They BOTH work Far better than OBAMANOMICS/Socialism (excuse the redundancy). :-)

Goldie

June 11th, 2012
10:59 am

“Obama’s lack of experience now has the poor results to go with it…”

BWAAAAA — y’all are just hilarious today! I can’t stop laughing at the right-wingnuts going berserk with “The Math” (a la Karl Rover)! :)

What WAR on women?

June 11th, 2012
10:59 am

This week, the Senate voted on the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would help women, who currently make 77 cents on every dollar a man earns, receive equal pay for equal work. It’s a bill that gives women more tools to fight pay discrimination and helps close that gap by making it easier for them to learn whether they’re being discriminated against, and protecting workers who share information about their wages from being fired.

Astoundingly, all 47 Republican senators voted to filibuster the bill. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney was asked several times in the past few weeks about his stance on the bill, and he dodged the question each and every time.

EJ Moosa

June 11th, 2012
11:00 am

“OK….lob losses of over 750K/monthly which made Bush’s net job gain equal ZERO; periods of job stagnation where jobs weren’t created – ask the 25,000 people who LOST jobs at United Airlines because of 9/11; ask the 20,000 people who were laid off from American Airlines because of 9/11; ask those who couldn’t/can’t find work for upwards of TWO or MORE years because of Bush’s policies!!!”

Is the Obama term over? No.

So then your argument says it would be wrong to use his data to date then as well, right?