Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Not for his entire term, it's not. Zimmy, it's easy to say there is job growth when you ignore the months in which there was no job growth, and only consider months when there was job growth.
The last few months have seen job growth, I get that. But you don't get to ignore the bad months. If we ignore the last 3 months of Bush's presidency, the economy look spretty damn awesome.
Some good points in that post, though, seriously...
|
The comments prior to it were about today compared to "4 years ago". It isn't about ignoring bad months, it is about what things were like then and what they are like now. Then, the economy was dumping 800,000 jobs a month. The net difference today is about a million jobs a month better. The whole thing is sort of ridiculous. For example, ignoring Bush's last three months tells less of the story than attributing at least the first 6 months or so of 2009 to him. In that case, he should also get credit for some of the improvement in the jobs numbers because of TARP and some of the other things he did.