In a setback, the U.S. economy gained 126,000 jobs last month, much worse than expected.

Overall, the American economy has taken some hits this year due to a harsh winter and sluggish growth in other parts of the world. But most expect it to snap back and, over the past year, job creation has been strong.

The Labor Department also reported that the unemployment rate remained the same at 5.5% in March.

Get complete coverage of breaking news on CNN TV, CNN.com and CNN Mobile.

You never hesitate to tell people how educated you are, yet you accept this garbage as factual? If you really want to learn the truth, never accept anything as fact until you research the numbers behind whatever you are reading. I would tell you to do the same thing if you were reading an article from an organization you view as ‘right’ leaning.

That source you linked is incredibly misleading. Here are the total employment numbers from the BLS;

2001 - 127,980,410
2002 - 127,523,760
2003 - 127,567,910
2004 - 128,127,360
2005 - 130,307,840
2006 - 132,604,980
2007 - 134,354,250
2008 - 135,185,230
2009 - 130,647,610
2010 - 127,097,160
2011 - 128,278,550
2012 - 130,287,700
2013 - 132,588,810
2014 - 135,128,260

All yearly data can be found here - http://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm

That data only tells part of the story. To get a more accurate picture of the US employment situation, you also need to consider the total population of the US for the corresponding time period, and the percentage of Americans who were actually employed. It would not be fair if I said there were 135 million people employed when Bush was POTUS in 2008 while Bill Clinton only had 112 million employed in 1994. The LFPR was 66.6% in 1994 and 66.2% in 2008. Clinton had slightly higher LFPR percentage even though the employment numbers were considerably lower. The overall numbers favor Clinton.

The Labor Force Participation Rate must be considered if you really want an accurate assessment of the employment situation. While the population of the US grew from 2001 to 2015, the percentage of Americans who were employed declined significantly. Here is the January reading for each corresponding year;

2001 – 67.2%
2002 – 66.5%
2003 – 66.4%
2004 – 66.1%
2005 – 65.8%
2006 – 66.0%
2007 – 66.4%
2008 – 66.2%
2009 – 65.7%
2010 – 64.8%
2011 – 64.2%
2012 – 63.7%
2013 – 63.7%
2014 – 63.0%
2015 – 62.9%

I tried to link the BLS table but it looks like it is Java based and I can’t hyperlink. Screenshot below.

I know someone will come back with the ‘Boomers retiring’ argument and that does explain part of the decline in LFPR, but only part.

If you run the math, you would find that it equals ‘O’skidmark has failed’.

7 years into Obama's presidency and Obama's die-hard supporters are still saying 'Bush's fault'. It's beyond belief! It goes to show you that there's no reasoning with them. They're hopeless! It's like the new quarterback complaining that the last quarterback left him on his own 5 yard line and after all his efforts we're now on our 1 foot line.

No matter how bad Bush might have been, you'd think that after 7 years Obama might have moved the ball forward a bit. But when you believe that you can 'stimulate' your own household's economic well-being by buying new furniture, drapes, carpets, etc, even though you're dead broke, then you might fall for Obama's failed policies.

Obama might have taken a page from Reagan's playbook and instead of stimulus spending, do what every right-thinking household would do - CUT SPENDING aka, cutting taxes. He would then have realized a strong, vibrant economy. But Obama's all about control of the state and power - like all dictators before him.