Obama vs. Bush: public sector jobs and private sector jobs
Linkedin

Obama vs. Bush: public sector jobs and private sector jobs

Washington : DC : USA | Jun 03, 2012 at 7:46 AM PDT
XX XX
Views: Pending
 
Obama Private Sector 'Gaffe' - The Real Story

Political ads are flying on television, the Internet and in print. Some of the figures and information can be very confusing and can also be intentionally deceiving. The United States has experienced an economic crisis that almost led to a complete economic crash. So what do the numbers actually mean, and how might they affect the future?

There are two types of jobs that are reported: public sector jobs and private sector jobs. Dictionary.com defines private sector jobs as “the area of the nation's economy under private rather than governmental control” and public sector jobs as “the area of the nation's affairs under governmental rather than private control.” A lot of political ads talk about “smaller government." When this terminology is used, it is referencing public sector jobs.

So, how does President Obama compare to former President Bush when it comes to public sector jobs? After all, Republicans are a party that stands strong on “smaller government." The chart shows job creation under both presidencies. It is extremely clear that under President Obama, the number of public sector jobs is significantly lower than it was under Bush during the same time period of his presidency.

President Obama has stood strong on his belief that true economic growth comes from private sector jobs, not public sector jobs. The job growth in private sector jobs tells a tale of its own. During the first 10 months of Obama’s presidency, he experienced significant private sector job loss following the burst of the housing bubble. However, since that time, private sector job growth has steadily increased. In addition, comparing private sector jobs under the Bush administration, more private sector jobs exist under President Obama.

According to ABC News, “More private-sector jobs were created in 2011 than any year since 2005,” Obama said, taking credit for the gains. “After losing more than 8 million jobs in the recession, obviously we have a lot more work to do. But it is important for the American people to recognize that we’ve now added 3.2 million new private sector jobs over the last 22 months.”

So why are the numbers so confusing? Why are they so misleading in the political ads? Most people hear something that fits into their mindset and they believe it to be true. They don’t stop to research the data or question the validity of the facts. The next time you see facts and figures, take a moment to look a little deeper and make sure you understand the whole picture, not a snippet of data that is intended to confuse and mislead your decision making. The future of our country is going to be determined in November. The greatest hope would be that voters go to the polls with accurate information when they cast their ballot.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/job-killer-obama-guilty-or-innocent/

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/01/493849/obama-bush-jobs-record/

If you like to write about U.S. politics and Campaign 2012, enter "The American Pundit" competition. Allvoices is awarding four $250 prizes each month between now and November. These monthly winners earn eligibility for the $5,000 grand prize, to be awarded after the November election.

Back
1 of 6
Next
Obama vs Bus private and public sector jobs
Amee Ellsworth is based in Bennett, Colorado, United States of America, and is an Anchor for Allvoices.
Report Credibility
 
  • Clear
  • Share:
  • Share
  • Clear
  • Clear
  • Clear
  • Clear
 
 
Advertisement
 
Posted By Adebanjos Adebanjos | 12 months ago
Well written report - rated up.
Posted By VoiceforHope Amee Ellsworth | 12 months ago
Thank you very much!
Posted By itobin53 itobin53 | 12 months ago
we dont want or need smaller govt. We need more efficient govt. smaller govt is a great sound bite but what it really means is less revenue from the wealthy and more cuts for programs and services.

Yes, the political ads are deliberately meant to deceive - which is a polite word for lie.
Posted By mhatter99 Martin Kloess | 12 months ago
well written - thank you
Posted By agb100 agb100 | 12 months ago
UTTER nonsense. Under Bush we had a deficit of 9 trillion dollars. Under Obama we are reaching $16 trillion. There are now 1.3 million fewer workers in the workforce than there were when Bush left.

The problem with the graph is that the plots are not measured against GDP.

Government jobs don't add significantly to GDP, government produces no wealth, only expense, or debt; therefore the public sector losses go along with private sector losses. Most of the public sector losses are due to attrition. Most of the private sector losses were due to layoffs and job changes (no longer needed function, efficiency gains and such.)

Moreover, if one read the same chart over a significantly longer period of time (if Obama won another term for example) one would see that job growth in both sectors began earlier for Bush and later for Obama.

We can't see the end result because Obama's re-election is very much in question, especially after Wisconsin.
Reply By derek2234 derek2234 | 9 months ago
Utter nonsense? You are nonsense.

Bush turned a CBO projected 200 billion deficit for his first year into a CBO projected 1.2 trillion deficit to Obama for his last year. Those are facts, care to dispute them? CBO FACTS.

1.2 trillion x 3.5 + stimulus and increased safety net spending = your deficit. The only way to compare Obama is to BASELINE, which is negative 1.2 trillion. Yes, every single year can be pinned to Bush because he is having to dig out of what is basically Great Depression 2 on top of the deficit. This year he is running a deficit that is lower than the CBO projection of his first year which means

BUSH RAISED ANNUAL DEFICIT BY 1.4 TRILLION
OBAMA HAS LOWERED ANNUAL DEFICIT THIS YEAR WHILE BEING BLOCKED FROM ADDING REVENUES

There I just DESTROYED everything you said.

The wall street journal disagrees that Government Spending does not increase GDP
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444840104577553551718500764.html
Reply By agb100 agb100 | 9 months ago
@derek. Under Bush we had seven out of eight years of economic growth and joblessness just north of 5%. I append the charts from the NON PARTISAN Congressional Budget Office that will make it clear to anyone who doesn't have his head stuck up somewhere and a rage that can break mirrors:

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

As you can see, right after the elections - DESIGNED that way - Obama's deficits will SKYROCKET. These figures, again, I didn't make up. They are the numbers from the Congressional Budget Office.

To put it into greater perspective, from REAGAN through OBAMA, HERE: http://obrlnews.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/deficitgraph.jpg

Copy and PASTE into your browser bar.

It is said that the difference between intelligence and stupidity is that stupidity has no limits.


There I just DESTROYED everything you said.
Posted By VoiceforHope Amee Ellsworth | 12 months ago
Wisconsin has no bearing on Obama's re-election. The numbers are what the numbers are, but it is not nonsense and that is a rude thing to say.
Posted By derek2234 derek2234 | 9 months ago
Utter nonsense? You are nonsense.

Bush turned a CBO projected 200 billion surplus for his first year into a CBO projected 1.2 trillion deficit to Obama for his last year. Those are facts, care to dispute them? CBO FACTS.

1.2 trillion x 3.5 + stimulus and increased safety net spending = your deficit. The only way to compare Obama is to BASELINE, which is negative 1.2 trillion. Yes, every single year can be pinned to Bush because he is having to dig out of what is basically Great Depression 2 on top of the deficit. This year he is running a deficit that is lower than the CBO projection of his first year which means

BUSH RAISED ANNUAL DEFICIT BY 1.4 TRILLION
OBAMA HAS LOWERED ANNUAL DEFICIT THIS YEAR WHILE BEING BLOCKED FROM ADDING REVENUES

There I just DESTROYED everything you said.

The wall street journal disagrees that Government Spending does not increase GDP
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444840104577553551718500764.html

And government does not create wealth? So the Interstate Highway System is not wealth? What bunk, where are your sources?
Reply By agb100 agb100 | 9 months ago
@derek. Under Bush we had seven out of eight years of economic growth and joblessness just north of 5%. I append the charts from the NON PARTISAN Congressional Budget Office that will make it clear to anyone who doesn't have his head stuck up somewhere and a rage that can break mirrors:

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

As you can see, right after the elections - DESIGNED that way - Obama's deficits will SKYROCKET. These figures, again, I didn't make up. They are the numbers from the Congressional Budget Office.

To put it into greater perspective, from REAGAN through OBAMA,

HERE: http://obrlnews.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/deficitgraph.jpg

Copy and PASTE into your browser bar.

It is said that the difference between intelligence and stupidity is that stupidity has no limits.


There I just DESTROYED everything you said.
Advertisement
 

News Stories

 
  • Obama's Hands Tied on Weak Economy

    The New York Times
    Luke Sharrett for The New York Times President Obama at a Honeywell International plant near Minneapolis on Friday. He recorded his weekly address there, blaming Republicans, and also Europe, for the lagging American economy. The bleak jobs report on...

Images

 >
 

More From Allvoices

Report Your News Got a similar story?
Add it to the network!

Or add related content to this report

 
Tap_logo_330_110_event
 


Use of this site is governed by our Terms of Use Agreement and Privacy Policy.

© Allvoices, Inc 2008-2013. All rights reserved.