Your comments about job growth are grossly dishonest. Clearly, you were hoping nobody actually clicks thru to the job figures.

First, the sample period (start of a large employment run up compared to what we hope is the depth of a recession) is highly selective.

Second, yes, the growth from 1999 (129.9M) to 2009 (131.3M) is anemic. But in 2008, the job figures were 137M, in 2007, they were 138M, so the job growth was about 7%. Not great, but not horrendous either.

It really isn't the Chamber's fault that Obama has lost the most jobs in history (I remember liberals used to level that charge from 2001-2003 to Bush after he had inherited a recession not of his making...how's that taste now Libs?).

You have an ok point on the job numbers (but even if you shift the dates, as you note, it's still nothing to write home about), but the point's relevance is overshadowed by wage stagnation and increased income inequality over the last 10 years. Then you do disservice to your whole argument by rendering the impossible opinion that the jobless rate is Obama's doing and, in the same breath, defend Bush. Maybe it's time to move on, eh?

my last point was tounge in cheek. Obama has as much blame for the current state as Bush did for the recession that took place early in his term, but that of course didn't stop Dems from beating him over the head with the "Most jobs lost since Herbert Hoover" meme.

And, wage stagnation isn't necessarily bad (although not desirable of course) if you have non-existent inflation (which was the case in many market sectors, energy and housing not withstanding).

"It really isn't the Chamber's fault that Obama has lost the most jobs in history (I remember liberals used to level that charge from 2001-2003 to Bush after he had inherited a recession not of his making...how's that taste now Libs?)."

I am glad you later admitted that Obama had no control over the situation that led to his job loss numbers but remind you that Bush's problems hit early (compounded by 9/11) and that he had YEARS to address things. During the Republican majority years he didnt look to protect us from the problems but rather with the support of McCain and Gramm managed to deregulate everything including removal of key safety oversights placed on the financial markets after the Great Depression. Ask any semi-intelligent economist and they will admit that had these safety measures been in place we would have never had the massive collapses of 08.

There are indeed many causes for the current crisis--but to the point the other poster made here, wages were STAGNANT for all ten years, eight of them under Bush and counting two years of a lame duck Clinton, most of them under a majority Republican congress. I would say a decade is a fairly reasonable time to examine what happens with conservatives in power over things....we saw three wars, a financial collapse, massive unemployment, stagnant wages, major rises in cose of living including energy, food, and housing, and of course a 50% plus rise in health care costs. I dont see how Obama could do any worse.

Being that those key oversites on the financial administration were largely signed into law in 1999 by Bill clinton and you represented them as being the work of Bush, I don't really need to fool with the rest of your post.

The problem with the housing market was one of both too little regulation and not enough. We told the banks they needed to make capital available to high risk borrowers, but then failed to regulate the resulting bond instruments created. The failure occured on the right and the left, in the government and in the private markets.

The stock market was far higher when Clinton left office than when he entered it. The reverse is true for Bush. 'Nuff said.

The point of my post was that Dan used a bogus arguement. If he wanted to create one and center it on the stock market, then I'm happy to listen and have that discussion. But cherry picking numbers and ignoring the larger macro economic forces is a BS tactic.