Myth Obama Created More Jobs Than Bush: ‘The Big Lie’ Becomes ‘The Big Excuse’

Hitler called it “the Big Lie.”  And it worked pretty well for him, for a while.

“All this was inspired by the principle–which is quite true within itself–that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.” —Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X

That “big lie” success is why the world has seen so many monsters who continue to gain and hold power all over the planet to this very day.

These days we’ve got a whole new crop of socialist plying the same strategy right here in America.  Just lie outrageously and keep lying outrageously.  Lie until your political party and the nation that you so terribly mislead are both in total chaotic shambles.  And then lie some more.  Because there will always be Democrats who are so pathologically morally stupid that they will believe anything their fuhrer tells them.

Particularly rabid Dumbocrat Debbie Wasserman Schultz expressed Big Lie 2.0 this way:

“On the pace that we’re on with job creation in the last four months — if we continue on that pace — all the leading economists say it is likely that we will — we will have created more jobs in this year than in the entire Bush Presidency,” Wasserman Schultz, a Democrat from Weston, said on FOX News.

The actual facts?  George Bush’s policies helped create an unprecedented 52 consecutive months of job growth.

Is she stupid?  A liar?  Or – my own personal pick – a stupid liar?

Thursday, October 21, 2010
MythBuster: Has Obama Created More Jobs Than Bush?

Hmmm!Rational or Ridiculous 

by: Larry Walker, Jr.

So the latest spin by the left-wing media and the White House is to repeat the following mantra, “Obama created more jobs in 2010 than Bush did in eight years.” However, how much sense does it make to compare an arbitrary nine-month period for Obama to a full eight-year term? Well none, none at all, at least not within the realm of rational human thought. For those of us who are rationally-minded, we will begin with the month that Obama took office, and compare his full term to-date with whomever.

Turning to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), when we added up the total number of private sector jobs created during Obama’s short twenty one month tenure, we found that a total of 2,991,000 had been lost (110,961,000 – 107,970,000). Oops!

Private Sector Jobs 2009/2010Total Private Sector Employment (BLS)

Private Sector Job Growth (Loss)


Although I too could cherry-pick and find periods where private sector job growth was up by 4 or 5 million under Bush, I choose to remain among the rational. Needless to say, private sector job growth was at least slightly positive over Bush’s eight-year term, while under Obama, the words – worst track record in history – come to mind.

Is there no shame?

Democrats with shame?

That’s not just an oxymoron; it’s a category fallacy.  The modern Democrat Party is the party is the party of shameless liars.

The party of 52 million abortions has as much shame as your typical cockroach – which is zero-point-zero-zero-zero.

Two years after Barack Obama took power, and now four years after Democrats took over Congress, the Democrat message is still “blame Bush” and “blame Republicans.”  Because they literally have no other message.  Your supposed to believe that Democrats bear – to again use the math – zero-point-zero-zero responsibility for the last two years when they were in complete control of the government, or the last four years when they were in complete control of both branches of Congress.

The fact of the matter is that – by the very same standard that Democrats used to demonize George Bush in 2004Barack Hussein Obama is THE WORST PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICA.

The big lie is alive and well and residing in the Democrat Party.  Only it might better be called “the big excuse.”  Whatever you want to call it, please vote it out of power these next seven days.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

13 Responses to “Myth Obama Created More Jobs Than Bush: ‘The Big Lie’ Becomes ‘The Big Excuse’”

  1. HL Says:

    Amen and amen!

  2. Dave Paulson Says:

    You really are an ignorant moron who cherry picks facts and then assaults others for doing far less — pathetic! FYI — when Obama took office the economy was losing jobs at a rate of 600,000 per month. To charge those losses on Obama and not Bush is either incredibly dishonest, unbelievably stupid or both.

  3. Michael Eden Says:

    “You really are an ignorant moron who cherry picks facts”

    At least I bother to actually PROVIDE FACTS, you stupid jackass. What do you provide? One idiotic claim, followed by a sweeping assertion.

    You are the kind of tool who just waves his hand in dismissal at all the FACTS that you yourself acknowledge are FACTS. And then assert one thing that’s just supposed to somehow bury all those FACTS under the rug???

    You are the worst kind of ideologue imaginable. When the Dotcom recession landed right on Bush’s lap, and the Nasdaq lost 78% of its value and trillions of dollars in wealth were just vaporized from the last days of the Clinton administration, you certainly weren’t out there saying, “Blame Clinton! Blame Clinton!” Were you then, you vile, dishonest little rodent? At the very WORST, I’m merely doing what you maggot-brained liberal morons have been doing for decades.

    You’re like Braindead Biden: “We misjudged the economy, and it’s all Republican’s fault.” Bull crap.

    How about if we just apply the Democrat Party’s OWN 2004 standard and apply it to Obama? By your own damn previous standard, Obama is the WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY.

    But you won’t ever use your own standards, will you, you loathsome hypocrite?

    And just how long are you idiots going to keep blaming Bush? Two years? Four? Twenty? A hundred? Obama’s policies have failed. They have not only failed by any reasonable and objective measure; they have in fact completely failed by Obama’s own measurements (e.g., the stimulus would keep unemployment from going over 8%; e.g., the stimulus would create “shovel-ready jobs).

    This “blame Bush” crap has just got to end. And now that 48% of Americans now say Bush was a better president than Obama, versus only 43% who say Obama was a better president than Bush, it appears it’s finally happening.

    We could end up like North Korea, where the country is literally as dark as the stone ages at night and where each citizen is required to dig so much dung out of the ground for fuel, and morons like you would still support the regime.

  4. Colton Says:

    First of all, [Deleted by moderator], did you forget to take your xanax today or something? Calm down.

    Secondly, a large part of the jobs lost during the Bush administration can be traced back to the fallacies of supply-side economics (you know, the school of thought who George Bush’s own economic adviser called a bunch of charlatans and cranks []). As far as I know, there is no reasonable way to claim that Obama’s policies have lead to lost jobs, as can be said of Bush.

  5. Michael Eden Says:

    First of all, don’t take the Lord’s name in vain. You might be godless, but show respect to those who aren’t.

    Second, of all, why do you make your primary point a personal attack, other than the fact that you don’t have any other point to make? You don’t say anything about the article you comment upon because you can’t. Slime like you offer personal attacks in lieu of rational arguments.

    Let me get this straight: you cite a RINO who used to work for Republicans but turned on them as “proof” that supply-side economics don’t work? Well, the entire Democrat Party has just been thrown out the window by your “logic”; after all, Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat. And lots of other people used to be Democrats along with him.

    I wrote an article on taxes increasing revenues that is worth reading to anyone who actually wants to hear a case for something beyond rhetorical garbage: Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues. John F. Kennedy was a “supply-sider.” Some of his quotes are in there, as is the link to many other of his statements.

    I wrote this recently as a response to another comment. Much of it fits here:

    For the historical record, Clinton left George Bush with the Dot-com bubble bursting. It began on March 11, 2000 – more than 10 months before Bush assumed office on Jan 20, 2001. Unemployment was going up as Clinton left office, and really took a nosedive shortly after Bush took office. The Nasdaq lost 78% of its value due to this Clinton-era bubble. $7.1 TRILLION in wealth was vaporized (43% of the the Market Capitalization of the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Full Cap between 2000 Q1 and Q1 2003).

    It was a massive, massive hit that Clinton passed on to Bush.

    Then add to that the 9/11 attack eight months into Bush’s presidency.

    And maybe you can understand why unemployment went up dramatically in the early months of the Bush administration.

    Now go back and read this very article – particularly the section on George W. Bush. And you get a chance to see what he had to overcome – and how well he actually did overcoming a HUGE hit.

    Not only was Bush able to increase tax revenue (as my article demonstrates), but the Bush tax cuts set into motion the longest consecutive job growth of any president ever. 52 consecutive moths, beginning in August 2003 (as a direct result of his tax cuts) and continuing until December 2007.

    Another thing to realize is that both Clinton and Bush had the same upper limit to unemployment (7.8%). And both had very nearly an identical eight year average unemployment rate (Clinton 5.19%; Bush 5.22%).

    Think about it: the streets were paved with gold during the Clinton years because unemployment was at a low 5.19%. But Bush was the worst president in history because unemployment was 3/100ths of a percent higher. And that’s AFTER Bush overcame two of the most devastating economic events in American history during the first year of his term. That’s Democrat rhetoric for you.

    [It was those “supply-side economics” you claim don’t work, btw].

    It’s rather funny how Democrats invariably insist that we must continue to blame Bush for Obama’s high unemployment two full years into Obama’s presidency (and probably years into the future as well), while at the same time refusing to assign Clinton ANY blame whatsoever for Bush’s high unemployment following the Dot-com crash.

    So we have Clinton Dot-com crash, w/ 78% of the Nasdaq value wiped out, and $7.1 TRILLION in wealth vaporized, and then we have the 9/11 attacks which further slammed the economy. And then we have the Bush tax cuts [supply-side economics], and then we have the longest consecutive job growth expansion ever. But let’s throw facts out the window, and go with demagogic assertions and insinuations instead.

    You say there is no reasonable claim that “Obama’s policies have lead [sic] to lost jobs.” Because the fact that unemployment was 7.6% when Obama took over, but 9.6% now, is apparently “not reasonable” to mention. Which is to say that the biggest FACT in America right now is not “reasonable” to you. It’s not “reasonable” to hold Obama accountable for what’s happened under his watch. You can only do that to Republicans.

    You tell me that there’s no way to claim that Obama’s policies have led to lost jobs? I mean, Obama spent $111 MILLION to “save” 55 jobs. And that’s clearly a record of success. No “reasonable” person can criticize that, I guess.

    Obama’s legacy is the highest poverty rate increase in fifty years. But let’s not think about that. It’s more “reasonable” to blame a guy who has been out of office now for two years.

    You say that there’s no “reasonable claim” that Obama’s policies have led to lost jobs. The only problem is that there’s abundant evidence. Because as much as you hate capitalism and free markets and allowing the people who work hard to earn their money to actually be allowed to keep it, Obama pursued a “stimulus” strategy that completely failed, just as Keynesian stimulus programs have ALWAYS failed.

    The massive Obama stimulus can be shown to be the reason why our unemployment is so high. The countries that did NOT follow Obama in huge stimulus (like Germany and Canada) are doing far better than we are.

    And I didn’t even mention ObamaCare, which NOBODY wants now – even the unions who pushed so hard for it are begging for waivers from it now. We knew for a while that it was increasing the cost to employers to hire workers, which killed jobs. It’s also going to destroy any economic recovery by increasing premium costs, and thereby reducing Americans’ spending money.

  6. ed Says:

    [profanity deleted by moderator] you idiot, your facts like all wrong, right wingers are wrong all the time, keep excusing Bush, the legacy of an absolute loser.

  7. Michael Eden Says:

    My response, ed, is that you are a vulgar fool who can’t utter a sentence without vile language, and an idiot who tells me my facts are all wrong and yet can’t point to so much as a single fact that I have wrong.

    Keep excusing Bush? Excuse me? Two years into the worst presidential record in the history of presidential records, and you’re still blaming Bush? Because you’re pathologically incapable of holding Obama responsible for ANYTHING even after half of his presidency is over? Just how many more years of near 10% unemployment do you want?

    Fortunately, most of the country just said Obama and the Democrat Party sucks, and voted accordingly. But there will always be true Stalinists like you who would vote for liberals even if they brought us to North Korea-like conditions.

  8. liberaldude Says:

    You are a stupid hitler spewing, racist lying [profanity deleted].

  9. Michael Eden Says:


    Thank you for revealing your true nature as a representative of liberalism.

    The difference is clear: I offer facts and arguments; you offer insanity and mindless hate. I wrote an article filled with facts and supporting links. You can’t refute the truth; all you can do is show what a vindictive and venemous human being you are.

    It might come as a suprise, but I don’t have time for you or your vicious drivel.

  10. jper Says:

    True nature? Just above you responded by calling someone a “jack-*ss”. Your responses and hostility ruin any credence I could have given you.
    I mean this honestly and without sarcasm; I truly hope you develop some semblance of not being so overtly hostile and partisan. I kind of pity you.
    And saying “they started it” doesn’t really matter, as you are the moderator, not the instigator.
    ps. Don’t worry about retorting, I won’t ever be back.

  11. Michael Eden Says:

    I see, jper. If your doctor looks at your scans and says you have a terribly invasive form of cancer, you can disregard it if he doesn’t say it politely enough for you.

    You omit the fact that I get plenty of comments such as, “You are a stupid hitler spewing, racist lying [profanity deleted].”

    I find it remarkable that someone who wants to be so “objective” as you claim doesn’t find hateful remarks like that from liberals to be a problem, but only the fact that a conservative would use the term “jackass” to respond to such people. You vile hypocrite.

    A “jackass” is an obnoxious, braying creature lacking in basic intelligence. I don’t find that to be in any way, shape or form to be beyond the pale given what I routinely put up with.

    I kind of pity you for you rigid determination to look for any possible straw man whatsoever to not listen to the truth. In your utterly pathetic worldview, it doesn’t matter if I have every fact on my side; I said “jackass,” so my arguments can’t possibly be true.

    P.S. I’ll try really hard not to worry about you posting back.

  12. Anonymous Says:

    And you said you were not cherry picking numbers on job creation between Bush and Obama? In Obama’s 1st 5 months of office, we lost over 3 million jobs. Are you really going to try and insinuate that those lost jobs were because of Obama’s policies? The last two months of the Bush presidency we lost over 1.5 million jobs. Was Obama supposed to immediately be able to halt that type of job loss? Come on guys, if you want to have serious honest conversations, certainly you can do better than that!

  13. Michael Eden Says:

    Golly gee, Anonymous,

    I just got through doing a copy and paste to answer a liberal, and what are the odds that the same copy and paste will work for you, too?

    As you accuse me of “cherry picking,” ask yourself if you “weeded out” these “cherries” you didn’t like about what George Bush was forced to deal with thanks to Slick Willie Clinton:

    Bill Clinton left George Bush with the massive Dotcom bubble collapse. That collapse that happened on Clinton’s watch wiped out 78% of the Nasdaq portfolio, and in fact vaporized more than 7.1 TRILLION DOLLARS in American wealth. And the ONLY reason we don’t talk about that – aside that too many in the media are just as biased and as stupid as you are, Smith – is that Clinton had also GUTTED the Pentegon and intelligence budget, leaving America both weak (Osama bin Laden called Clinton’s America “a paper tiger”) and blind. Clinton did to the CIA budget what he did to the Nasdaq – just wiped it out – and left us exposed to the 9/11 attack.

    Osama bin Laden’s words in 1998 following the Clinton fiasco in Somalia where the US pulled out with its tail between its legs: “Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. … As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press…”

    Here’s a little more about how we have Bill Clinton to thank for the massive 9/11 attack to go on top of his massive DotCom bubble collapse:

    Author James Risen won the Pulitzer Prize on Tuesday for his much ballyhooed New York Times report last December that revealed President Bush’s previously secret terrorist surveillance program – a revelation he uncovered while researching his book “State of War.”

    In the same book, however, Risen makes an equally explosive claim about President Clinton’s relationship with the CIA – which his editors at the Times have so far declined to cover.

    Upon taking power in 1993, Risen reports, the Clinton administration “began slashing the intelligence budget in search of a peace dividend, and Bill Clinton showed almost no interest in intelligence matters.”

    The agency cutbacks combined with presidential disinterest took their toll almost immediately.

    “Over a three-or-four-year period in the early-to-mid 1990s,” reports Risen, “virtually an entire generation of CIA officers – the people who had won the Cold War – quit or retired. One CIA veteran compared the agency to an airline that had lost all of is senior pilots . . . “

    After Clinton CIA Director John Deutch cashiered several senior officers over a scandal in Guatamala, the situation got even worse.

    “Morale [at the CIA] plunged to new lows, and the agency became paralyzed by an aversion to high-risk espionage operations for fear they would lead to political flaps. Less willing to take big risks, the CIA was less able to recruit spies in dangerous places such as Iraq.”

    And there’s the blindness that led to the 9/11 attack, combined with the fact that Clinton demonstrated to Osama bin Laden with the “Blackhawk Down” fiasco in Somalia that the U.S. was just “a paper tiger,” and ripe for a massive attack. That attack was planned, funded – and all the terrrorist assets were in the USA and even trained to fly in American pilot schools- during the Clinton misrule.

    So if you want to blame Bush for Obama’s mess, the least you could do would be to have the decency to blame Clinton for Bush’s mess. But you’re not honest enough to do that. Neither you, or your corrupt Democrat Party, or your mainstream media propaganda networks, have any integrity at all. Republicans took responsibility and admitted fault for their overspending. Democrats are like Cain in the Book of Genesis; they refuse to accept responsibility for anything no matter how guilty they are.

    I also notice how you utterly fail to mention the gigantic role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the 2008 collapse:

    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created by Democrats. It was perennially staffed with Democrats. It had the sole power to bundle mortgages into the “mortgage backed securites” and then sell those securities to the private market under the guise that they were government and therefore AAA. It got massively into subprime loans to literally piss into those mortgage backed securities even as it made it impossible to tell a good security from a bad one. It forced banks to make utterly STUPID loans that went belly-up.

    Watch these videos to see that Fannie Mae was responsible, and Democrats were responsible for preventing ANY regulation at ALL on Fannie Mae:

    I guess I can say, “If you hate cherry picking, why did you do it so much and why does your side CONTINUE to do it?”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: