I'll let Walrus hand you that L.
Feel free to try. Lying and hiding behind tailored statistics being spoonfed to you guys doesn't phase me a bit. I see the amount of applications that come into my company of people will to take 1/2 of what they made before. And these aren't low level accountants or technicians. These are senior level positions.
Periods without jobs just on this stack I'm looking at (This is for an electrical engineer)
6 months
2 years
9 months
1 and 1/2 years
3 YEARS
Christ, it breaks my heart. Now I realize a lot of states are doing better than Ohio and Wisconsin, but I can remember when finding a job you wanted to precedence over finding anything you could.
What are you talking about?
- There have been around 14 million private sector jobs created since Jan. 2010
- 2014 and 2015 have been the two highest years of job growth since 1999.
- Obama has presided over 6 million more private sector jobs than Dubya did (and he still has a year left, which would mean another 2-3 million jobs if trends keep up).
- On net private sector job growth, Obama has 9 times more jobs than Dubya did.
- If trends continue, Obama will able to match the total number of private sector jobs that even the great RONALDUS MAGNUS presided over!
- If you count ONLY the positive job growth that Bush had, and compare it to do NET job growth (meaning we allow Obama to keep the job losses on the record as well) Obama still comes out ahead by over a million.
- Not only that, but Obama's been able to do all this with more regulations (including the biggest regulation the world has ever seen, Obamacare), more spending (stimulus), and more tax hikes on the job creators than Dubya did. If nothing else, the Obama years prove (once again) that the pro-trickle-down crowd has been horrendously off with their predictions that anything other than Grover Norquist approved economic policies would wreck the economy.
There's no cherry-picking going on here. Obama has at the very least done better than Bush on almost every economic measure. (And even the ones where he didn't, like the participation rate, are not due to his policies, but things like more people retiring and such)