Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

Surprise! Obama Is Creating More New Jobs Than George W. Bush

Posted by on Jan. 5, 2013 at 5:44 PM
  • 73 Replies

Surprise! Obama Is Creating More New Jobs Than George W. Bush

Even President Barack Obama acknowledges that the economy is creating jobs too slowly under his stewardship. Yet Obama can now boast that more jobs have been created during his first term than during that of his predecessor George W. Bush.

[PHOTOS: Deliberating the Fiscal Cliff]

When Bush began his first term in January 2001, total nonfarm employment was 132.47 million. When his second term began four years later, it was 132.45 million, or effectively zero job growth.

Obama's first term isn't technically over yet, but so far, employment has risen from 133.56 million in January 2009 to 134.02 million in the latest report, for December 2012. That's a net gain of about 460,000 or 0.3 percent. As paltry as that is, it beats Bush's first-term performance.

Purists might argue that because of the one-month lag in the official job numbers, it would be more appropriate to judge each president's first term from the February figures rather than those for January. But that gives Obama an even bigger edge. From February 2001 to February 2005, the economy created 164,000 jobs, for a 0.1 percent gain during Bush's first term. From February 2009 through December 2012, the economy created nearly 1.2 million jobs, a 0.9 percent improvement.

[READ: Middle-Class Taxes Just Went Up]

Each man can point to extenuating circumstances that harmed the economy during his first term. For Bush, there was a modest recession that ran from March 2001 through November 2001, punctuated by the 9-11 terror attacks in September of that year. The dot-com meltdown, one cause of the recession, took years to subside.

Obama took office during the worst financial crisis since the Depression, as companies were laying off workers by the thousands. His first priority was stabilizing the banking system to prevent another depression. During Obama's first month in office, employers shed 800,000 jobs.

To some extent, Obama has enjoyed luckier timing that Bush. The recession Obama inherited was more than a year old when he took office, and it officially ended five months later. It took considerably longer for the job market to bottom out. Employment hit its low point in February 2010. But since then, about 4.8 million net new jobs have been created, an average of about 140,000 per month. That's weak, but at least it has been fairly consistent.

Job growth has now ticked up to about 150,000 per month. If that pace continues, the economy will end up creating more jobs under Obama in four-and-a-half years than it created under Bush in a full 8 years.

[READ: What Might Cause the Next U.S. Credit Downgrade]

Had Bush left office one year earlier, in January 2008, his performance would have looked quite good, with 5.6 million jobs created during his tenure. But the economy tanked in 2008, hemorrhaging 4.5 million jobs during Bush's last year in office. That left total job growth during his eight years of just 1.1 million jobs--a figure the Obama ought to eclipse by this summer, if the economy keeps growing.

If the economy adds an average of 150,000 jobs per month during Obama's entire second term, which is plausible, then it will have created about 7.7 million jobs by the time Obama leaves office. Many presidents have done better, but not the one Obama replaced.

Rick Newman is the author of Rebounders: How Winners Pivot From Setback to Success. Follow him on Twitter: @rickjnewman.

by on Jan. 5, 2013 at 5:44 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
mikiemom
by Silver Member on Jan. 5, 2013 at 6:16 PM
5 moms liked this

I'm not surprised, I honestly think the economy is going to rebound, I think it would have been further along had the GOP not wasted so much time trying to make Obama look bad.

silver007
by Member on Jan. 5, 2013 at 6:20 PM
1 mom liked this

well then, happy days are right around the corner

imamomzilla
by on Jan. 6, 2013 at 10:34 AM
9 moms liked this

 I thought the President didn't have that kind of control? At least that was the mantra when the country was hemmoraging jobs and unemployment was rising.

It was those evil capitalists, run by rich white guys, shipping jobs overseas.

Did we close up the ports or something?

Stephanie329
by Bronze Member on Jan. 6, 2013 at 10:39 AM
5 moms liked this
Hey does this mean we should post high five and laughing sweatpeas like the repubs do? Lol.

This news will bring out some beasts around here.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
mikiemom
by Silver Member on Jan. 6, 2013 at 10:45 AM
1 mom liked this

It's going to really suck for some of the folks who spend their time bitching about how bad things are, when things start to rebound lol I'm almost giddy to find out what they create next to bitch about.

sweet-a-kins
by Ruby Member on Jan. 6, 2013 at 10:49 AM
1 mom liked this
It was policy and the recession

And that was from the previous administrations failure to act and a global recession


Quoting imamomzilla:

 I thought the President didn't have that kind of control? At least that was the mantra when the country was hemmoraging jobs and unemployment was rising.


It was those evil capitalists, run by rich white guys, shipping jobs overseas.


Did we close up the ports or something?

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
sweet-a-kins
by Ruby Member on Jan. 6, 2013 at 10:51 AM
5 moms liked this
Things have been turning around In a positive way for sometime now. With every positive news that comes out...they post about negative made up crap from the right wing media

It seems they WANT the country to fail so they can be right


Quoting Stephanie329:

Hey does this mean we should post high five and laughing sweatpeas like the repubs do? Lol.



This news will bring out some beasts around here.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Jan. 6, 2013 at 7:25 PM
11 moms liked this

This argument is flawed. The NUMBER of jobs created is really not the issue. The UNEMPLOYMENT RATE is the issue.

When the unemployment rate is higher, you HAVE to create more jobs to put people back to work. Since the unemployment rate was about 5% the majority of Bush's presidency, not as many jobs were needed.

And the population constantly rises. So the number of total jobs needs to constantly grow to keep up with the population. The US population is significantly higher now than in Bush's presidency. So more total jobs are needed than in the Bush years. 

I think the real question is why has Obama pursued policies for 4 years that have made it harder to  create jobs than it would have if different policies had been used. The number of jobs created could be SO MUCH higher than it is, because of the paths taken and not taken. For example, nearly all economists, being conservative say no taxes should be increased in a down economy. Keeping taxes low helps the economy grow. But that's not what has happened under Obama. The economy has grown anemically, with each year 2010, 2011, 2012 being worse than the year before. Creating lots of new regulation and new taxes (eg, Obamacare) has stymied job growth, and in fact has cost boatloads of full-time jobs, as small business try to avoid the Obamacare penalties by having only up to 49 full time workers. Obamacare could have been so much better than it is if the whole Congress had been allowed to work on it together.

I have always wondered why Obama did not really address the economy in any meaningful way his first two years in office, choosing instead to  spend his political capital not on reducing spending, but increasing it through such costly new laws and regulations , such as Obamacare - and not acting in a bipartisan manner by working with legislators across the aisle. Instead of cutting spending by responsibly restructuring Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, Obama spent trillions of dollars of stimulus money speculatively, where now about 80% of those companies given stimulus funds have gone out of business. Obama had both houses of Congress those first two years  - and he may have kept them had he followed different economic policies. He could have helped the economy more by not  hurting it in ways that will reverberate forever going forward.

So I'm glad jobs were created, but it could have and should have been a lot higher. I believe that the unemployment rate could be a steady 5% now, without all the job losses occurring in December and January, had more economically sound policies been followed.

Just some thoughts - I'll get off my soapbox now.  :)

RLT2
by New Member on Jan. 6, 2013 at 7:26 PM

I'm not surprised

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)