So, the economy is still ADDING jobs but that's bad news??

[Kyle Ricky]

Below are some links to check out concerning the DUmps thoughts on the economy and those terrible unemployment numbers under President Bush between 2001 and 2007. The last link is a Google search.

DUmp explanations on unemployment numbers under Bush

More DUmp explaining of unemployment under Bush

The economy under Bush about the time the dems started "helping" it

Terrible jobs under Bush. The economy sucks.

Look for yourself for more examples: Google DU search from 2001 to 2007

They were saying the same things about Bush as we are saying about Obama now, but since Obama is in office, it is not true. That do hate it when the shoe is on the other foot, don't they?

[JohnnyReb]

But were those 80,000 added jobs some of those that Mexicans do because Americans refuse to do them ...or more accurately, don't have to do?

[thundley4]

They were saying the same things about Bush as we are saying about Obama now, but since Obama is in office, it is not true. That do hate it when the shoe is on the other foot, don't they?

But, the big difference is the actual unemployment rate was lower under President Bush, and the big job losses didn't start happening until the DemonRats took congress.

[BEG]

LINK

‘DON’T READ TOO MUCH INTO IT’: JUNE JOBS REPORT MARKS 31ST TIME THE WHITE HOUSE ADVISES VOTERS TO IGNORE DATA

After the Labor Department announced on Friday that only 80,000 jobs were added in June, the Obama administration was quick to assure voters that this is somehow a “step in the right direction” and that we shouldn’t read too much into the data.

..snip..


June 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is informative to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.”
May 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.”
April 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.”
March 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.”
February 2012: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign.”
January 2012: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign.”
December 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
November 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
October 2011: “The monthly employment and unemployment numbers are volatile and employment estimates are subject to substantial revision. There is no better example than August’s jobs figure, which was initially reported at zero and in the latest revision increased to 104,000. This illustrates why the Administration always stresses it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
September 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
August 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
July 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
June 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
May 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
April 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
March 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
February 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
January 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
December 2010: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
November 2010: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
October 2010: “Given the volatility in monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
September 2010: “Given the volatility in the monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
July 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.  It is essential that we continue our efforts to move in the right direction and replace job losses with robust job gains.”
August 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”
June 2010: “As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”
May 2010: “As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”
April 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”
March 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”
January 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”
November 2009: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”

[thundley4]

LINK

At least they're consistent about one thing, even if they are lying about it.

[BEG]

LINK

After the economy added 310,000 jobs in May 2004 and the unemployment rate was 5.6%, then-candidate Barack Obama used the Democrat weekly radio address to attack the Bush administration for citing good economic numbers.

According to affirmative action DUmmies, 80,000 jobs created with 8.2% unemployment is better than 310,000 jobs created with 5.6% unemployment.

[Chris_]

According to affirmative action DUmmies, 80,000 jobs created with 8.2% unemployment is better than 310,000 jobs created with 5.6% unemployment.

Wait until they revise it downward in August.  Again.

US economic growth revised down as jobs data disappoint

[Texacon]

LOL. Y'all have done an outstanding job as usual!

Ok Atman, bring your bad self on over here and 'splain to us knuckle dragging' mouth breathing 'Muricans why we're wrong. Heh

KC

[jtyangel]

FYI...a bugg..more people got on disability this month then jobs were created. Just an fyi though..dumb ass

[98ZJUSMC]

Not to mention those "saved".

Has got to be the most ambiguous, impossible to quantify, non-statistic ever created.  Then again, .....it's been awhile since I read "1984".

God help and forgive me, I so hate these people.

[98ZJUSMC]

LINK


According to affirmative action DUmmies, 80,000 jobs created with 8.2% unemployment is better than 310,000 jobs created with 5.6% unemployment.

Yeah, I can see where they would come up with that. 

*Head ---------> Desk*

[Bad Dog]

Has got to be the most ambiguous, impossible to quantify, non-statistic ever created.  Then again, .....it's been awhile since I read "1984".

God help and forgive me, I so hate these people.

Have ya checked out Benny Parrish?

[Kyle Ricky]

Not to mention those "saved".

That is a false number that Obama invented to make himself look good. Only the liberal retards and DUmp douchebags fall for that crap.

But, the big difference is the actual unemployment rate was lower under President Bush, and the big job losses didn't start happening until the DemonRats took congress.

This is true, none of this trouble started until we had a Dem controlled congress and senate. At which point they started to push things through (Like Dodd and Frank with the house loans being given to people who can't afford them) - Example: A buddy of mine had a minimum wage job at McDonalds. He was the only one working as his wife was pregnant and on bed rest - Side story is that he as also going to college - He applied for a house loan to see what he can get because him and his wife were living in little one bedroom studio apartment. The bank told him that because of his income he was eligible for $100,000.00. Explain that to me? He didn't take it because he knew working at McDonalds and making minimum wage, he would never be able to afford the payment. The bank, of course, tried to pressure him into taking it.
 

FYI...a bugg..more people got on disability this month then jobs were created. Just an fyi though..dumb ass

You will see that the rate of Disability claims has skyrocketed since Obama took office. People can't find a job, so they are trying to do whatever they can to get that guaranteed paycheck.