Hannity falsely claimed that under Bush, "We created 10 million new jobs"
SUMMARY: On Hannity & Colmes, Sean Hannity stated that under President George W. Bush, "We created 10 million new jobs, lower unemployment than in the last four decades' average." In fact, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the United States has gained 2,866,000 net private-sector jobs between 2001, when Bush took office, and the first quarter of 2008.
On the December 8 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity stated, "We had a good six and a half years with the economy." He later added: "We created 10 million new jobs, lower unemployment than in the last four decades' average." However, Hannity's claim that "10 million new jobs" have been created during the Bush administration is false. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the United States has gained 2,866,000 net private-sector jobs between 2001, when President George W. Bush took office, and the first quarter of 2008. (According to the BLS, the United States has experienced a net loss of private-sector jobs each month since the first quarter of 2008 ended in March.) In contrast with Bush, the United States gained 10,749,000 net private-sector jobs during President Clinton's first term in office, from 1993 through 1996. The U.S. gained 10,270,000 net private-sector jobs during his second term, from 1997 through 2000.
Additionally, Hannity's suggestion that the unemployment rate represents an accomplishment for Bush ignores the fact that the unemployment rate that Bush inherited from Clinton is lower than the average unemployment rate during the Bush years. According to the BLS, the average seasonally adjusted unemployment rate since 2001 is 5.2 percent, which is lower than the average rate for the 1990s, but higher than in 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 -- the last four years before Bush took office. According to the BLS, the unemployment rate was 6.7 percent in November, and the lowest annual unemployment rate under Bush was 4.6 percent in 2006 and 2007, all of which are higher than the unemployment rates in 1998, 1999, and 2000 (4.5 percent, 4.2 percent, and 4.0 percent, respectively).
Indeed, as Media Matters for America has documented, the BLS reports that the annual average unemployment rate rose to 7.5 percent in 1992, the last full year of President George H.W. Bush's term. The unemployment rate declined every year during Clinton's presidency, falling to 4.5 percent in 1998 and 4.2 percent in 1999 -- both lower than current unemployment.
As Media Matters has also noted, in 2006 Hannity similarly claimed that the unemployment rate at the time was "literally ... lower than the '70s, '80s, and '90s."
From the December 8 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: Dick, if we -- anywhere we look in the world, whenever you have government-controlled economic systems --
DICK MORRIS (Fox News political analyst and syndicated columnist): Yes.
HANNITY: -- you have economic stagnation and you have poverty.
MORRIS: Absolutely. Absolutely.
HANNITY: Is that what America's headed towards?
MORRIS: We're headed toward that. But before we get there we're gonna have massive, unbelievable inflation, because, basically, they're just printing this money, and any semblance of fiscal discipline has completely gone out the window.
Not under Obama's presidency, under Bush's, and a Republican Congress --
HANNITY: Well.
MORRIS: -- or Democratic, but with Republicans in it.
HANNITY: Well, I --
MORRIS: And -- and so that we're headed --
HANNITY: We had -- we had good --
MORRIS: -- for massive inflation and stagnation.
HANNITY: We had a good six and a half years with the economy. Let's be honest. He inherited a recession, meaning President Bush.
ALAN COLMES (co-host): No, he didn't.
HANNITY: He -- he inherited a recession.
COLMES: He didn't.
HANNITY: He had the negative impact on the economy on 9-11. We created 10 million new jobs, lower unemployment than in the last four decades' average. We had a lot of good years. There is an ebb and flow to the economy.
It isn't false. He talked about job creation, not net job gain. Same thing when Obama talks about creating 20 million "green" jobs...he probably will, but that figure won't take into account all the oil and coal workers who will lose theirs.
We know for a fact that Bush created twice that . . . Uh, terrorists do consider themselves employed--don't they?
No, wait, I got it. Bush didn't take the initiative in creating the jobs, he invented them.
And can you parse the umemployment stats too?
Hey man, I could parse all day and not nearly parse at the level of MMfA's parsing.
I believe that, if by "parse" you mean "misunderstand."
In your first use. I hate not having previews.
Is it parsing to say that someone lost as much money at the horse tracks as they won?
It is false. If there were in fact 10 million jobs created, then the net gain would be larger than 3 million.
I'll look up the job losses and if you're right, great, and I'm wrong for saying it wasn't false. just not for the reason mmfa made up.
Let me see, we lost half a million jobs in November of this year and according to you that number shouldn't be included in Bush's job creation numbers. I'd sure like to see you explain that one.
Your assertion is pointless, nonsense and has nothing to do with what I said, at all.
It has everything to do with what you said. You are claiming that MMFA is making up stuff, yet what they did was show that net job gain says Hannity is lying. You are basically saying jobs lost don't count. Are you now changing your story?
Oops, this'll put a dent in your claims...
Worsening Spending Slump Paces ‘Scary’ U.S. Recession (Update2)
By Shobhana Chandra and Andy BurtDec. 10 (Bloomberg) -- The biggest slump in U.S. consumer spending since 1942 will extend the recession and push the jobless rate to the highest level in a quarter century, according to economists surveyed by Bloomberg News.
Since when does job creation not equal total jobs created - jobs lost? And you totally left out the 2nd half - unemployment is now what - 6.2% and climbing?
But if you want to say he's correct, I'll admit you're right if you admit that the 10 million jobs and lower unemployment were accomplished in China thanks to Bush.
forcasted unemployment: http://www.forecasts.org/unemploy.htm
actual unemployment: http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp
6.5% in october vs. average for the last 40 years of 5.95%.
Interesting that the highest unemployment numbers were all under republicans, and that double digit unemployment occured under Reagan. Most interesting that Hannity chose a huge period too - and that unemployment under democrats actually lowered the average! Oops!
Job Watch takes you up through 2005, they say Bush created 4.6 million jobs since the decline ended in 2003. Even if you don't want to subtract jobs lost, to say he created another 5.4 million jobs to date is doubtful considering we've been in a recession since 2007.
http://www.jobwatch.org/
Let's say you are correct; Hannity only meant to count the jobs that were created, not the net number when you factor in all the jobs lost.
Isn't that HIGHLY misleading to his audience?
I'll use an NFL analogy. What if Rod Marinelli, the coach of the Detroit Lions, did an interview saying how amazing it was that his offense has created 219 points this season? Would you take him seriously? What if some analysts on ESPN were going on about those 219 points ("But they've scored 219 points Boomer! 219 points!!!!") while neglecting to mention they've also given up 413 points and are currently 0-13? That's essentially what Hannity is doing.
Michigan is not a good place for either jobs or football.
I dunno, Sparty and the Chips could make a good argument against that.
Yeah I'll give you those two plus Western--I think they are the only team from Michigan to win a game at Ford Field this year.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, since they keep giving me so many opportunities to say it:you can't spell LOSING without L-I-O-N-S. It works even better if you don't pronounce your "g"s.
So it works better when Palin says it?
It may be the only thing in the universe that statement applies to, but yes.
please provide evidence for this assertion. in the context used, i feel pretty certain that mr. hannity meant net job creation, absent clear evidence to the contrary.
i've seen obama talk about creating an additional 2.5 million new jobs during his term, but i haven't seen him make referrence to " creating 20 million "green" jobs". again, please provide a cite for this.
Didn't we find a cure for cancer and stem global warming under Bush, too?
I don't think we found a cure for cancer, but I keep hearing right wing hate talkers telling me there's no global warming. Therefore, it must be true--they are of the highest credibility.
Didn't we find a cure for cancer and stem global warming under Bush, too?
Michael Savage found the cure for autism, if that counts ;)
Of course BushCo created 10 million jobs. Doesn't say anything about the jobs being overseas as part of outsourcing though....
Clinton created 22 million net jobs while enacting huge tax hikes. Modern conservatism had no business surviving his presidency.
Conservatism will thrive as long as there are greedy jackasses willing to make huge $$$ off the backs of people who can hardly afford to live. Not to mention, the tax hikes weren't all that huge--only those who grip the tennents of pure greed mind paying a little more when earning a lot more.
Good things happen when businesses swell their assets buying bad mortgage securities.
Agreed. Instead of actually having to earn the $700 billion, they just have the government give it to them. And that's a good thing...
exagerating is a form of lying. Those tax hikes were not huge. Otherwise companies would have shipped out jobs a long time ago.
On his radio show, Hannity has claimed that under Carter, the U.S. lost 10 million jobs.
Hannity's schtick: All things Democrat--bad. All things Republican--good. There's nothing else to say (by me or him)
THERICK, Truer words were never spoken, Nothing fair and balanced about ol' SHEAR INSANNITY.
next thing you know the conservatives are going to be claiming that roosevelt merely inherited a recession from hoover and then turned it into a depression. wait a minute, that's what they're claiming...completely falsely, of course.
shyawn also says that bush inherited a recession from Clinton.
10,000,000 jobs?
Would you like fries with that?
Paper or plastic?
I'm your server, Worrier. What can I get you guys?
An ambulance, shaken not stirred.
send shyawn a brain sandwich. It could double his IQ
it ends with job and starts with b... ;)
Blackwater job? Cuz a lot of those were created. Of course, they were mostly paid for by us taxpayers, and didn't produce anything of value.
I think Oscar and Worrierking are right, many of those jobs were multiple jobs needed to survive and really bad jobs.I'm wondering if the military jobs that involved doing nothing because they were replaced with private contractors, and the contractor jobs, are all included in Hannity's count.
That would be pretty funny coming from a private sector fluffer like Hannity, bragging about the bloated bureacracy of the military/disaster industry that will be sending a bill to people not even born yet.
You are looking on the brite side. Factor in no nutrition (primarily minerals that are bio-available) in the food supply, drugs and 60,000 other chemicals in the water supply and skyrocketing medical costs and getting a "disease" then getting prescribed a pharmaceutical to mitigate the symptom, then you really have a problem
I'm self employed and I hired and fired myself at least 10 million times today alone! That's 10 million new jobs created with me alone.
Hannity is so FOS that he leaves even his conservative commentators speechless. Bush inherited a recession? I think this goes along with the logic of "our current problems were all inherited from Clinton". Just like his "Clinton started the Mortgage crisis" spiel.
According to data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis this is the U.S. is in the first recession since 1991 when Bush, Sr. was president.
That information rather "debunks" the Bush II recession of 2001. What happened?
bushes cause recessions and free radicals cause cancer. Free radicals are incomplete hydrogen atoms missing an electron. Bushes are incomplete people missing neurons. This should have been obvious from the getgo
they just keep lowering the bottom. It will be fun/sad to see how low they go in the coming 8 years. inshannity has already talked his lips into non-existence. I am starting to notice a large pus pocket forming on top of his head also.
Bush's Presidential term is simply disastrous! You can not spin it. He is the president and all that occurs under his presidency is his legacy....that is how it works...PERIOD!
Boy it sure is a good thing Alan Colmes is there to counterbalance Sean's diatribes...
With this kind of verbal dexterity, I feel so well represented on the left:
HANNITY: We had a good six and a half years with the economy. Let's be honest. He inherited a recession, meaning President Bush.
ALAN COLMES (co-host): No, he didn't.
HANNITY: He -- he inherited a recession.
COLMES: He didn't.
HANNITY: He had the negative impact on the economy on 9-11. We created 10 million new jobs, lower unemployment than in the last four decades' average. We had a lot of good years. There is an ebb and flow to the economy.
No wonder Alan is going to be leaving the show. After that interchange, he must be exhausted
HANNITY is just a mouthpiece for BUSH . His 10 million number is a smokescrean. I know for a fact that in BOY GEORGE'S first term 4.5 million people fell below the poverty line, I'd love to know what the figures for his second term are.
I'm sure Hannity meant to say Bush created 10 million jobs in China.
plus the 11,000,000 jobs a faucks snews
Ah averages...... such an obviously weak defense for the rightwing to use when convincing the flock that their lies are in fact the truth they want them to hear...
The average temp for today is 60 degrees... but the temp today is 30... but since the average is 60 today... go ahead and wear shorts....
War is peace.....
Ignorance is strength.....
Up is really down.....
We don't torture...... we enhanced the interrogation of prisoners..... excuse me... enemy combatants....
blah.... blah.... blah....
I really don't understand what he hopes to accomplish other than shouting. People are in trouble. They're losing their jobs--or they've got friends and neighbord who are losing theirs. The auto industry is bankrupt. The Chicago Tribune just declared bankruptcy. Big box stores are going dark.
The last thing people want to hear is that 'things have actually gone well! WE actualy did a good job!"
And we're a nation of whiners.
I think it's because Hannity thinks he can spin anything. He can't. Not people's everyday experiences.
It's the old story: when you're in trouble, go to a Democrat. Don't go to a Republican, because he'll tell you how you really don't need to be helped.
You lost me at "I think it's because Hannity thinks...".
pbg, You are so right . That is the REPUBLICAN PARTY philosophy in a nutshell.
You're lying again, Sean.
HANNITY: He -- he inherited a recession.
That's my favorite part. Apparently the recession was brought by Michael J Fox and Christopher Lloyd in a Delorean
"Hannity falsely..." Isn't that redundant?
I think this is the 2nd time i've ever posted. But I have to tell you that just made me laugh for a good 3 minutes.
As usual, spin trumps facts. Since when has the truth been an issue for Hannity and his ilk? Sell, sell, sell....A culture whose adds indicate that the loseness of their bowels is the most important concern will welcome this kind of report coming out of any aperture, including Hannity's mouth.
Bob Sauerbrey
Indiana
PC -
You are flat out wrong to report this on so many different levels. I'm going to type this slow, you can understand:
1. As a percentage of the population, jobs were down. So even though increased approximately 20 million, the number of people employed went down from 67.1 percent to 66%.
2. Those NOT in the labor force increased by approximately 9 million (last column). Does that mean 9 million jobs were lost?
3. Those not employed increased by 1.4 million.
4. Lastly, the people in the potential labor force increase by approximately by the same 10 million that Hannity referenced.
5. I also understand comprehension isn't your strong point, but if you read the bottom of the table, there is a little footnote that says "Not strictly comparable with data for prior years. For an explanation, see "Historical Comparability..."
I realize math isn't everybody's strong suit, but does seam to you that jobs increased by 10 million? I'll help you with that answer - NO!
Next time do a little research before shooting off your mouth.
Oh, be quiet. Everybody knows that facts -- including math -- have a left-wing bias.
stevebeenwuped,
Oh contraire my synapitic challenged friend.
1. 66% of 231 million is significantly higher than 67.1% of 215 million.
2. The last column is the # of people not in the work force, ie. the elderly, ill, imfirmed or your typical democrat slug not looking for work. That is an estimation of the whole population. Add the last and second columns.
3. The column under 'number of unemployed' and then % unemployed are what you need to look at. How is it that the number of unemployed goes up by @200,000 yet the unemployment rate stays at just 4.6%? It is because the number of employed has increased by 10 million (column 4) over the decade to present.....And the general pool of potential employees has increased by 20 million!
4. Yes and they were employed! The 10 million more people filling 10 million more jobs!
5. Errors in stats often relate to how data compiled. It doesn't mean that it's wrong, maybe gathered differently in subsequent years .... and who's to say that the data is wrong and actually 20 million jobs were created!
Thanks for the valiant effort to interpret data but I guess this means I can continue to 'shot my mouth off!" Toodles!
PC Yes you can continue to shoot your mouth off and prove to the rest of us what a fool you really are for the RIGHT WING SPIN MACHINE.
You're not good at interpreting statistics. If you were, you would understand it's not always accurate to compare numbers on an absolute basis. To do so introduces error into the analysis. For example, you don't account for the change in the size of the population - to do so would be intellectually disengenious.
Now run along little boy, it's time for the adults to speak.