December 04, 2003

Jobs Really Lost Under President Bush?

I'm listening to Sean Hannity's radio show online right now. It's the archived show from today. Sean was giving out stats, debating the claim that jobs have been lost under the Bush administration. I went to the department of labor website, and from there on to to the bureau of labor statistics site- and here are the numbers of jobs from January 2001 (under Clinton) and October 2003 (under Bush):

---------------------------------------------------

SEAN'S POSTED NUMBERS:
January 2001- 136,181,000
October 2003- 138,100,000+

BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS NUMBERS:
January 2001- 136.0 million (source)
October 2003- 138.0 million (source)

---------------------------------------------------

So, if these numbers are correct- it seems that we've been lied to, and the U.S. economy HASN'T lost jobs under President Bush. I'm not sure what other factors are part of these numbers and stats, but on the surface it seems Hannity is correct.

I have to also mention the girl on the radio show from babes against bush...some guy came up with this (he's an idiot, as I saw him on Hannity and Colmes- he called Sean a liar, tho he never lied (I just heard the evidence myself, and he said 'stop smoking crack- genius debater, I know.) Anyhow, the girl who is Miss November in the calendar was asked about why she was against bush, and she said that her only role in the calendar (besides showing her naked body) was to get people out to vote, and to vote for the person they wanted to vote for...Babes AGAINST BUSH doesn't care how you vote, and they have no agenda (yea right.)

She got all pissy and they said goodbye. Sean had Flipper (or maybe someone else?) call her back and ask her..."what's the name of the vice president?" This bimbo asks "the vice president of the people who are doing the calendar?" -- (paraphrased) -- Sean said, no, the vice pres. of the country. The girl put the phone down and started talking to some guy in the same room named David, I think that was his name, saying that Sean was ridiculous and she wasn't going to talk to him about her political beliefs and stuff. She then hung up.

The guy who runs the calendar and puts it together called Hannity a liar earlier tonight on Fox News, saying that the girl DID know the Vice President's name...but, as I said- don't call someone a liar if they never lied. Then they guy went on about the issue, and said that Sean ambushed the poor girl. Note to girl- don't call into a radio show after you pose nude for a calendar BABES AGAINST BUSH and claim that you have no agenda...that you don't want to sway people away from Bush, and that you refuse to talk about your beliefs. You're a fool just like the other two pinheads with the calendar that appeared on the tv show after the radio show.

Posted by Josh at December 4, 2003 09:34 PM | TrackBack
Comments

According to the statistiscs that can be attributed to Clinton, unemployment was 4 percent, while in October of 2003 unemployment was 6 percent. If you compare the total civilian labor force,the unemployment rate, and the employment population ratio of both years, you'll see that the worst that can be said is that things pretty much stayed the same.
Jobs, unepmloyment and the amount of people able to work increased roughly by about 2% Using these statistics I dont think you can say Bush did one thing or another. Apologies if I'm way behind on a conversation, I ran across this and had to reply.

Posted by: John Horton at December 18, 2003 04:55 PM

One more thing. Yes, on the surface it would appear that Hannity is correct.

Posted by: John Horton at December 18, 2003 04:56 PM

im not into all that economic stuff and how they figure the stats, but i just know that the numbers themselves show more people working. even if the unemployment rate is higher, ive read a number of places that the job "loss" is only 300, 000 jobs, not the 3 million that the dems are touting. not sure which is the real statistic.

then again, i think talking about jobs in regards to the president is ridiculous. the mid to late 90's werent booming because of clinton, they were booming because of the internet. the economy in 2003 isnt where it is due to bush or clinton- tho i think the tax cuts did help. i just dont think we can put so much stock into praising or attacking any president for the state of the economy.

my main concern is the nonstop attacks based on inaccurate info. we need less negative comments and more comments on how we can continue to make things better. claiming that the country is in a dire situation and that things are awful, and that this is life or death- and blaming it on bush or any other president...its nonsense.

Posted by: Josh Bozeman at December 19, 2003 02:51 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?