The Democrats posit the notion that "we really are better off than we were four years ago." Here is why that is nuts . . .

<<<< I say "29 consecutive months of job growth,"  truth is 22 months.  I say "4.5 million jobs created,"  truth is 4 million jobs created.  I say "Only 4 million jobs lost in four years,"  truth is 5.1 million jobs lost. I say "We ARE better off,"  truth is "nonsense."

When speaking of "four years ago,"  as the Dems attempt to frame the debate,  they mention that we lost 800,000 jobs in Obama's first month.  I assume, therefore,  "four years ago"  begins with January of 2009. The question,  then is "Are we better off today,  than we were four years ago,  beginning with January of 2009?"

Indeed,  we lost 800,000 jobs that month.  We have moved passed that issue.  Give the Dems one point.

7.3% versus 8.1% today.

Now,  at the end of Bush (December of 2008),  we stood at 7.3 % uuemployment,  Four years later we stand at 8.1% and have been at 8% or above for 43 consecutive months.  Are things better today, comparing unemployment numbers,  than four years ago?  Of course not.  

9.0% unemployment average v 5.3% under Bush

Under Bush,  we lost 2.59  million jobs.Under Obama we lost 5.1 million

Using CNN numbers,  we lost 2.59 million jobs during the 2008 recession.  In the four years since 2008, we have lost 5.135 million jobs if you add up the month by month numbers found at the Bureau of Labor site, here.  Are we better off in this regard,  today, than four years ago.  Of course not. 

If you count consecutive months of job growth,  the actually number is 22 months,  not 29.  Surely someone in the Democrat Party knows how to count.  Using Bureau of Labor stats,  "consecutive months" cannot begin  until October of 2010. That is job growth for 27 consecutive months compared to 52 consecutive months,  under Bush,  the longest sustained growth in American history (see Forbes).

Bush 8 million jobs created v 4 million under Obama

If you add up all the totals given in the chart (second one down on the BLS page hyperlinked),  you have 4.06 million jobs,  not 4.7 million.  Compare that to the four years of Bush (2003 to 2007) of 8 million jobs created or 5.4 million created including 2008  (again,  see Forbes ).  Keep in mind that Bush became president during a recession,  as well.  Add to this,  the destruction of the world's trade center ("9/11"),  something the Democrats want you to forget about when talking about the Bush economic years.  Are we creating jobs at a faster, more sustained rate under Obama than under Bush?  Of course not.

We are 1 million short after four years. 

Comparing 5.1 million jobs lost to 4 million jobs created under Obama, \ we are standing at minus 1.07 million jobs.  For those of you living in Chicago,  that's 1.07 million fewer people working than four years ago.

Workforce participation is down under Obama

Today,  four years into Obama,  workforce participation is at a 30 year low.  Are we better off today than four years ago?  Heck,  we are not better off compared to 30 years ago.

Annual debt is up under Obama

Obama's annual budgets average 1.3 trillion dollar every freaking year.  Bush averaged 440 billion counting TARP;  counting the two wars,  that average rises to 650 billion [at most],  still half of the Obama spending binge.