As political propaganda, was this purposely meant to be deceptive? I don’t know. However, we were able to successfully find the data sources and recreate the data.

What Does the Obama Job Chart Really Mean?
http://soquelbythecreek.blogsp.....-mean.html

As they say, “correlation does not imply causation.” The timing is indeed interesting, but the fact there there was so much uncertainty between the end of Bush’s term and the start of the Obama Presidency, I’m not surprised that ANY government acknowledgement of the problem might have stopped or slowed the job losses.

The fact that the Stimulus spending is spread out over such a long period does not correlate well. Most of the Stimulus money is still to be spent, a year after passage.

http://www.investopedia.com/ar.....eturns.asp

http://www.perrspectives.com/b.....001656.htm

http://slate.msn.com/default.aspx?id=2071929

What’s your ideology/religion and what facts and data are you misusing? Maybe the generalization about Fox News “followers” living in a cult-like alternate reality?

Riveting.

Rather, the chart should say “Bush Years” and “Obama Years” thus divorcing policies from economic movements, which move only in part due to policies reacting more to things like demographic shifts (e.g. Boomers passing peak spending years), major events (e.g. 9/11), and global economic developments (e.g. the rise of China as a manufacturing powerhouse).

Not true. Even if you exclude the 58,000 temporary census workers, or exclude ALL government workers, the private sector still added over 100,000 jobs in the last few months.

http://www.kiplinger.com/busin.....times.html

Their graph only includes private-sector jobs (No temporary bump from the 58,000 Census workers), and they attempt to smooth out the graph over several months, to account for the seasonal increase in construction workers.

This graph also goes back to early 2007, to show some numbers from before the recession.

We also must remember that the important issue is POLICY, not PARTY. Following the election of a Democrat Congress in 2006 (off the graph to the left), Bush adopted the Keynesian and corporate socialist policies of the Democrats (as Richard Nixon “We are all Keynesians now” did, creating the Nixon Carter recession).

Keynesians borrow money from the private sector and spend it on politically favored economic activity. The overwhelming body of peer reviewed economic scholarship shows that this loses jobs (tax cuts cause job increases). The first Keynesian “stimulus” bill was under Bush in early 2008 (jobs dropped). The second is under Obama. Jobs dropped horribly.

In short, the policies still being advocated by the Democrats, implemented by a Democrat congress with the complicity of both Republicans and Democrat presidents, have lost nearly 7 million jobs, an average wait of 27 months for reemployment, and a 20% underemployment. Now, the job loss has stopped, for a moment, if we include census employees.

Of course, the jobs loss HAD to stop somewhere; everyone can be unemployed. But this is not a vindication of the policies.

Admittedly, any Republican who does NOT run on “Repeal and Replace” will NOT have an effective message against the misgovernment that Democrat policies constitute. They MUST run as Reaganites, recognizing that “government is the problem”. restoring the rule of law to economic transactions (no more taxpayer money to unions who supported Obama), and lowering the burden of government on people who create jobs.

The Democrats could ALSO be successful if they also support such sensible policies. If they do not, they will need to lie with statistics, as in this plot.