Why does Bush call the normal replacement of retired employees "New Jobs"??? No president before Bush did this

Question

The Department of Labor claims aproximately 120,000 people retire each month. The younger workers replacing them was never in the history of the DOL called "New Jobs" before Karl errr I mean Bush.

Are the Bush numbers a little twisted???

Answer 1

Any time anyone takes a closer look at ANYTHING this Administration says it turns out to be a distortion or an outright lie.

Answer 2

In effect these could be new jobs given that people from about aged 55 to whatever, would be filling them and job descriptions could be drawn up differently, tasks, duties, salary, benefits...any or all of these could be changed to in effect make these positions new jobs. New positions that were never in existence before would naturally be classed as new. Don't know what the issue really is. In a country with millions of people, 120,000 retirees a month may be legitimate...I'd think tho that a typo is to blame and actually only 12,000 is more accurate ;) But what do I know.

Answer 3

Thank you for bring up that point. People, especially Bush’s diehard supporters, never tend to look for the facts behind Bush’s assertions about new job creation and American economic prosperity. The truth is, most of Bush’s so called improvements follow this pattern to where at face value it seems like something positive has happened, when it is in reality all just distortion and spin that make it appear so.

Another interesting thing about Bush’s job creation is that he, and most of his supporters, fail to cite where these jobs are being created. Most of them are in the service and retail industries – two areas which happened to have the lowest paying jobs and require the least amount of formal education. So what is happening is more jobs are being created, but these jobs do not provide sufficient salaries for professionals who lost their jobs to lower wage earners in India and China. Hence, more people are being employed, but they are being underemployed.

Like all of Bush’s so called successes, they are merely cosmetic, and it only takes a cursory examination to reveal this fact.

Answer 4

basically because some occupies the white homestead does no longer unavoidably recommend that individual is a PRESIDENT. Bush replaced right into a pResident. I not in any respect had any use or respect for the guy. As for the click, if that's truly real, ( pardon my skepticism) , sturdy ON THEM

Answer 5

Bushcorp are a bunch of criminals and the wheels are coming off left and right. This is a good way to give the cons talk shows something to defend him. There hasn't been a pres since Nixon with more questionable people around him. I swear I think the guy could murder five year old twins with a baseball bat on HBO and Rush lumpbaugh would find a way to defend him.

Answer 6

makes perfect sense to me,as insanity will do that to you.D duyba Bush is in full retreat now,like a mad dog,even trying to use the U,N again.add a twist of sour lemon for the facial expressions of bushster and you are in the game....cheers

Answer 7

Yes of course they are twisted, does he include jobs sent over to India and job stolen by illegal immigrants as new jobs too?

Answer 8

Just more of the distortion and lies out of this Administration. And we thought Nixon was a liar. Who knew there would be one even bigger liar?

Answer 9

Probably. The fact remains, we have high employment. I know Liberals like it when the economy fails under a Republican president. I know Liberals don't really want the country to fail. Right?

Answer 10

Remember the first commandment of economics: figures don't lie, but liars figure.