Sorry, you are free to believe what you like, but this graph proves none of that, because it only goes back to Jan. 2010. It ignores the first 11 months of Obama’s adminstration, and seasonal changes in employment from quarter to quarter, year over year. It simply is not possible to examine just the most recent 11 months of data and draw any kind of big picture conclusions about the economy.
People choose cutoff points in graphs for a reason, to amplify the message they are trying to send. Let’s see some graphs that go back to 2007, or even earlier, for some context, and then we can debate facts about the economy.
So that takes care of (A) and (B).
Or, not. Does this graph go back far enough for you? Total non-farm jobs under Bush and Obama:
Same conclusion: The United States under Obama is creating jobs. Period. Fewer than desirable, but job creation nonetheless.
You continue:
As for ©, of course government-funded jobs are not real jobs, because we have to fund them. This distinction causes confusion among those who don’t understand the difference between “real” jobs and government, taxpayer-funded jobs.
A real job is created when a private citizen or business dips into its own assets, or takes out a loan, to hire a person.
This is unadulterated horse-shit. A job is a job. A person is hired to perform a task in exchange for money. Period. They are jobs every bit as real as any other. They transfer money, also just as real, directly into the broader economy. That money spurs a larger overall economy. More people are hired. Lather, rinse, repeat: the Federal Government gradually reduces support as the private markets recover and can employ more people. I’m not sure why this is remarkably hard to understand other than the fact that it demonstrably works (see original three-part graph) and yet is incompatible with a worldview that states that no action of government, large or small, can be for the betterment of society. Ever.
All that aside, though, it is indisputably true that federal/state/local government employment has been distinctly reduced under Obama. Perhaps this graph has a sufficient time scale to pass your ever-so-sensitive BS detector?
That’s government employment relative to population. While the government did indeed get a lot bigger under such noted socialists as DD Eisenhower, it has since shown no trend at all relative to population. There at the very end, under Obama, you’ll note both the census spike and a distinct downward slide.
But, feel free to believe whatever nonsense you are being peddled. These are just the rather inconvenient facts.
Lemkin 