More jobs were created during the Clinton Administration than

[Winterblues]

During Reagan's and both Bush's combined.. More jobs created in the first year of the Obama Administration than the entire Bush* eight years. Just a couple of interesting tib bits to mention to any undecideds you may know..

[salvorhardin]

1. Ah, but what kind of jobs were they?

1) Lots of dot-com bubble jobs that no longer exist (or which were outsourced)
2) Lots of low wage service sector jobs
3) Lots of temp jobs

Job creation statistics alone are not the sole predictor of a healthy economy.

I'm not saying that Reagan and the Bushes did any better. Not by a long shot. Nor am I encouraging people to not vote Democratic or stay home this time around. I just don't think quoting job creation stats is a particularly accurate barometer of how any one presidential administration is doing.

[Winterblues]

2. Name one economic indicater that that was worse under Clinton than under either Reagan or Bush*.

Right now jobs is what has the nation's attention so we use job creation as an indicater. Sorry you don't understand it..

[L0oniX]

3. Yea ...jobs teaching workers from other countries to take over our jobs.

[Cant trust em]

4. A lot of those "dot-com bubble jobs" still exist.

I don't even know how many of my friends are employed by Google, Yahoo, Adobe.

[louis-t]

6. Every factory near me had help wanted signs

from 1995 until 1999. Everyone had money, including me. Employers were dipping into the pool of people who really didn't want to work. You could see it in the low wage jobs. You could see it in the attitude of low wage workers. The turnover was ridiculous. Anyone willing to work hard was making good money. NAFTA killed all of it.

[joeybee12]

8. And wages went up during Clinton...the only time since the 1970's that it has...

face it, economically, it's always better to vote democratic.

[dmallind]

9. Well some facts may help

IT in its entirety never accounted for more jobs than 1/5 of those gained under Clinton

The median wage increased in both real and nominal terms under Clinton so there weren't an unusually high percentage of low paying jobs.

Poverty rate went down under Clinton (and yes the dollar level considered poverty went up too)

Deficit was turned into a Surplus for first time in over 30 years.

There are indeed all kinds of other factors but we must use accurate data, especially when it is so clear, to demonstrate that Democratic admins are neither job killers nor budget busters as often portrayed

[Populist_Prole]

10. I hold him in very low regard jobs-wise

If there's anything about him that infuriated me, it was his fervant push for globalization and de-industrialization every chance he got. I can never forgive him for pushing GATT and NAFTA so hard...and I mean hard...like his life depended on it.

[HughMoran]

13. Damn good jobs

Companies were competing for workers and wages were rising.

[seattleblue]

5. You don't provide a link for these claims.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics does not agree with you. They have Reagan with 16.1 million created, Bush 1 with 2.6 million created, Clinton with 22.7 million created, Bush 2 with 4.0 million created and Obama with a 3.1 million loss. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms and http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=CES0000000001

[HughBeaumont]

7. About that Bewsh II stat, is that NET?

I'm hearing a 1.1 million NET figure also for the Failure Fratster.

And it's also inaccurate to pin the 3.1 million loss on Obama. That's more like fallout from the Reaganomics Part II Debacle. Much of those losses occurred during Obama's first year in office . . . you can't pin the Bush mess on him.

[seattleblue]

11. It is not me it is the Bureau of Labor Statistics

a agency of the Department of Labor which uses the same methodology for every president. They start with the number of people employed at the beginning of the term and look at the number employed at the end. They don't make judgments about who caused the "mess" or if someone is getting credit for what the last guy did. That said I checked the chart at the link and I think you are right about Bush 2. They show 132,469,000 at the beginning of Bush 2 first term and 132,453,000 at the end. That would be a loss of about 16,000 jobs in term 1. But the chart showed a gain of 2.9 million. They show 132,453,000 at the beginning of term 2 and 133,549,000 at the end. That would be a gain of 1.1 million. So yes the Bush 2 gain appears to be about 1.1 million. Now take up your complaints about who gets the blame with the BLS.

[HughMoran]

12. K&R

[applegrove]

14. Thanks for posting these facts. How do we get the message out there?