Obama Is Now a Net Job Creator?

In the latest bad news for Romney, CNN Money is reporting that Obama may be a net job creator.

I think it can be successfully argued that Obama shouldn’t be blamed for the massive job losses during his first year in office. Thus a net increase in jobs since he’s been in office could be a strong point for Obama to make on the campaign trail. He could argue that this job creation is the outcome of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. He could even bring up the auto bailout as further evidence of the efficacy legislation he has signed into law. Is this another (possible) nail in Romney’s coffin?

No need for the question mark, it is a fact.

Obama’s general tactic has been to count jobs added since the nadir of the Recession in spring of 2009, on the (reasonable IMHO) theory that the losses in the first couple months or so of his Presidency shouldn’t count against him. I suspect he’ll keep doing that, as even now that he’s in positive territory, job growth since Jan 1 2009 looks pretty anaemic (a couple of thousand a month, on average), while if you start from summer of 09, he gets to say he added millions of jobs.

I suspect the main consequence of the positive growth numbers will be that they rob Romney of a talking point, rather then giving Obama one.

Yeah, I just meant to echo the fact that that was how the article posed the idea.

I thought about it in these terms also, but the fact that he is now a net creator would add greatly to how he’s been able to characterize things up to now. Gives it a bit more “zing.”

Also keep in mind that the Federal budget would not take effect until October 2009 at the start of the fiscal year.

When you take into account that Obama was not responsible for the hundreds of thousands of state-level public sector jobs eliminated by Republican governors across the country, Obama was technically a net job creator long before this.

Also, when you look strictly at private sector jobs even from Day One of his presidency, there have been more private sector jobs than the day he took office for a long time now.

Also also, there are more private sector jobs created when Democrats are in charge than when Republicans are in general.

Face it, even during and after Recessions, Democrats are simply much better at handling the economy than Republicans are. And we make people a lot more money than they do, too.

I suspect that most people who aren’t already in Obama’s pocket are going to say meh! about this. The number most Americans are going to be looking at is the unemployment figures, and on that score Obama doesn’t look very good. This? To me it’s basically a way to try and find a silver lining and play with the numbers to demonstrate it.

Not that it’s going to really matter in the end, since even with a lot of Americans unhappy about the current state of the economy and unemployment Obama seems to be walking away with this re-election and it’s practically a done deal at this point. Unless something majorly drastic happens, Obama is going to win by a comfortable margin and there isn’t much Romney et al can do about it.

I think all it does is make it impossible to say the economy lost jobs. Like others said, it takes away a negative talking point. But Romney et al will just point to the unemployment number instead - and rightfully so, it’s still a weakly recovering economy.

I think we’re getting very close to the point where economic data alone won’t move the numbers very much. Undecided’s are shrinking, preferences are firming up, and Obama is nearing 50% in most national polls and quite a few swing state polls. Romney needs something bigger than a bad round of economic numbers at this point…

When George Bush was creating jobs, the left was still calling him a job loser because the jobs weren’t being created fast enough to keep up with population growth. Remember the ‘jobless recovery’? Jobs were created all through that - just not enough.

Shouldn’t Obama be held to the same standard?

Both the 2001 recovery and this one are anomalies in modern history in that usually jobs recovered very robustly after a recession, and the speed of the recovery was proportional to the size of the recession. This recovery has been very anemic, both in terms of GDP growth and jobs. Much more so than the historical average. So I’m not sure that Obama deserves a lot of credit for ‘job creation’. In this case, saying "The recession was much worse than we thought’ is not a reasonable response, since usually the strength of recovery is proportional to the size of the downturn. This time it’s not.

Whether he should or shouldn’t is moot, IMHO…he’s not being held to the same standards by people, at least not in any of the polls I’ve seen. This election is a-typical, since despite the fairly sad economic and unemployment data AND general pessimism in the polls, Obama is still extremely popular and is basically walking away with this election. Whether it’s because of years of perceived Republican misrule, Obama himself and his charisma, or Romney and his lack of same, it’s the way things are right now. This talking point isn’t going to make any difference at all…it’s merely another nail in Romney’s bid for the presidency.

Obama is now seen as being better on the economy than Romney, despite all the problems. (Better at everything except deficit reduction, in fact.) Romney would have done much better if he had ever given a clear way in which he would create jobs. Cutting taxes on the rich is just not making it anymore. His aversion to the details is definitely hurting him.

His repetition of “I have a plan to create jobs and get the economy roaring again” without actually offering said plan is begging to sound like Nixon’s secret plan to end the war in Vietnam.

I can’t tell if he just doesn’t want to get bogged down in the details or if he knows that the details of his plan (which he does have - they’re all on his web-site) are politically unpopular.

I agree. Though, honestly, even if he went into the fine details I don’t think it would help him that much. He’s just the wrong guy to even attempt to wrest the White House from Obama at this time, IMHO anyway.

I seem to recall something about the global economy crashing in 2008-09. Does that perhaps make this an unreasonable comparison?

Governor Romney’s campaign has steadfastly refused to substantially define what he will do to boost employment. That is what people want to hear from the GOP. They have failed to deliver that message. Instead, they have decided to run an almost completely negative campaign against a sitting president who is very likable. The candidate of choice this cycle is decidedly not likable and (like it or not) that is what the populace decides upon. We are in a post-American Idol phase now and Governor Romney is quite likely to be voted off the stage this November.

And that is a shame. We need balance in our choices. We need to have real ideas brought into the arena to be debated and considered and voted upon. Instead we get this mishmosh of grade-school playground antics. Sometimes it makes me ashamed.

But, as my hero Ben Franklin once famously said, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”

Apparently, this is the best we can do here in the 21st century.

The dot com bubble bursting wasn’t Bush’s fault either.

I think the point he was making is that the global financial crash of 2008 was much worse than the dot com bubble burst. So it isn’t really fair to compare them and the resulting recoveries as if it was a 1:1 situation with the occupant of the White House being the only difference.

As far as I know everyone including Democrats are saying jobs haven’t been created fast enough this time, either.

However, I posted a link to an article that compares President Obama’s recovery to the Bush recovery and there is no question but that factually, in spite of its slowness, Obama’s recovery has been better than Bush’s was. Not to mention there’d be hundreds of thousands—if not millions—more jobs had Congress not obstructed every jobs bill that’s been introduced so they could artificially keep the jobs picture from improving so as not to give President Obama any kind of legislative or economic victory. It’s craven and unAmerican, but it’s what we’ve come to expect from Republicans these days.

President Obama gave us plenty of balance over the past four years. He introduced and passed more Republican ideas than Republicans themselves have.
[ul]
[li]Individual mandate in insurance reform? Republican idea.[/li][li]The DREAM Act? Republican legislation (Orrin Hatch introduced it in 1993).[/li][li]Cap & Trade? Republican idea they’re suddenly against.[/li][li]Bi-partisan Commission on Debt Reduction? Republican idea (repudiated once Obama wanted to implement it).[/li][/ul]

At least Democrats are trying.

No, the point I was making was that generally job creation is faster after a worse recession than after a milder one. This makes sense, because a deep recession puts a lot more people out of a job, and companies run inventories lower and delay projects to a greater extent and all the rest. So when the economy picks up again, you get a triple effect - there’s a larger shortfall between supply and demand, there’s a bigger hole in the workforce, and there’s a larger labor pool to draw from. The result is usually rapid job creation.

For example, the 1981-1982 recession was quite severe - worse than any others since until the current one. But that recession was followed by GDP growth over 7% and within 2.5 years over 8 million jobs were created.

The 1991 recession was much milder, and in the two years after that, about 2.5 million jobs were created.

The recession in 1975 was fairly steep, and in the two years after that one, about 6 million jobs were created.

Bear in mind that those job numbers were out of a population 1/3 smaller than the current one.

So Obama’s got nothing to crow about when it comes to job creation. Given the number of people who were laid off and the number available for work, it’s really quite pathetic. Whether it’s his fault or not is debatable, but then he’s president and presidents always take the blame.