Regarding the jobs issue, its such an easy identifier of integrity.
I remember when, eight years ago, John Kerry ran against the incumbent Bush, time and time again Bush's numbers were disparaged because his net numbers were the worst in decades.
| Year | Qtr1 | Qtr2 | Qtr3 | Qtr4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2001 | 8491(1) | 7991(1) | 7630(1) | 7547(1) |
| 2002 | 8071(1) | 7868(1) | 7630(1) | 7483(1) |
| 2003 | 7467(1) | 7398(1) | 7392(1) | 7521(1) |
| 2004 | 7715(1) | 7754(1) | 7633(1) | 7844(1) |
| 2005 | 7620(1) | 7774(1) | 7965(1) | 7807(1) |
| 2006 | 7797(1) | 7758(1) | 7499(1) | 7740(1) |
| 2007 | 7723(1) | 7630(1) | 7333(1) | 7642(1) |
| 2008 | 7234(1) | 7255(1) | 6893(1) | 6698(1) |
| 2009 | 5830(1) | 6395(1) | 6345(1) | 6634(1) |
| 2010 | 6246(1) | 6969(1) | 6685(1) | 7009(1) |
| 2011 | 6338(1) | 6892(1) | 7058(1) | 6854(1) |
But you see from this data, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, (
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bd ) that Obamanomics hasn't created as many jobs as his predecessor over the first term.
I bring up Kerry of course, because if I were paying attention then, and I was, then I would of been lectured day in and day out of how bad Bush was, and how much better that we could do.
I was a good student, I learned a lot.
We aren't even doing a Bush now.
History repeats itself. So why should I treat this re-election effort any different? Why shouldn't I expect more?
No comments:
Post a Comment