Obama Plays.. Unemployment Card...?

[thereisnospoon]

Obama has added 4.1 million jobs since 2009.

Here’s what Bush left us with.....

Aug 2008 - 334,000 net JOBS LOST
Sep 2008 - 458,000 net JOBS LOST
Oct 2008 - 554,000 net JOBS LOST
Nov 2008 - 728,000 net JOBS LOST
Dec 2008 - 673,000 net JOBS LOST
Jan 2009 - 779,000 net JOBS LOST

The data is inaccurate.
Had that amount of jobs been added, the unemployment rate would have dropped precipitously.
You've been tossing these numbers (3 million...4 million) for months without providing a single shred of independent credible evidence.
Not only that, you figures FAIL to take into account the jobs LOST.
As a matter of fact, the NET job gain/loss has been on the MINUS side.
Let's face it, Obama could anally violate you with a 10 meter cattle prod and you'd say "thank you sir. May I have another"..
YOU are an Obama sycophant.

FactCheck.org : Biden’s Manufactured Jobs Claims
And then there is THIS rather laughable story from of all places, The Obama White House.
Clearly your fantasy of these....how many is it? 3? 4? 5 million jobs that Obama has personally created all by himself?.....Stop the fucking bullshit.
White House: 3.6 Million Jobs Lost is “Quite Positive”

Facepalm...

Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
On Dec 2009 there were 137,968,000 seasonally adjusted jobs and on April 2012 there were 141,865,000 which is an increase of 3.897 million jobs.

On Dec 2009 there were 137,953,000 unadjusted jobs and on April 2012 there were 141,995,000 which is an increase of 4.042 million jobs.

SO where is the hard data that supports the actual NET GAIN of employed people? Just because the jobs allegedly exist, does not mean these jobs have been filled.
From where does the BLS get it's information?
If what you claim is true, then why have the unemployment numbers not improved in proportion to the claimed number of new jobs?
The BLS can claim a "job" exists and count it, but they cannot confirm whether the "job" is full or part time. Permanent or contract/temporary.
The BLS under the watchful eye of the Obama White House is no doubt skewing the numbers to make Obama look better. Remember, the people at the head of every federal department, all of the "Czars" and the members of the Cabinet, serve at the pleasure of the President". SO please do not claim the BLS is independent or non-partisan.
I was born during the day. Not yesterday.

 

[thereisnospoon]

How? Give the full process: data collection to release and explain when and how you think the numbers are manipulated. Funny how no one can ever answer that...it's all non-specific.

There you go defending Obama again.

How in the name of anything are you twisting that to be defending Obama? He has fuck-all to do with the UE calculations. He doesn't even know what they are until release.

Oh and are you ready yet to admit you were mistaken in thinking the UE rate came only from people collecting benefits?

Thought not.

Just come out of the closet and admit you are an Obama supporter.

 

[edthecynic]

The data is inaccurate.
Had that amount of jobs been added, the unemployment rate would have dropped precipitously.
You've been tossing these numbers (3 million...4 million) for months without providing a single shred of independent credible evidence.
Not only that, you figures FAIL to take into account the jobs LOST.
As a matter of fact, the NET job gain/loss has been on the MINUS side.
Let's face it, Obama could anally violate you with a 10 meter cattle prod and you'd say "thank you sir. May I have another"..
YOU are an Obama sycophant.

FactCheck.org : Biden’s Manufactured Jobs Claims
And then there is THIS rather laughable story from of all places, The Obama White House.
Clearly your fantasy of these....how many is it? 3? 4? 5 million jobs that Obama has personally created all by himself?.....Stop the fucking bullshit.
White House: 3.6 Million Jobs Lost is “Quite Positive”

Facepalm...

Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
On Dec 2009 there were 137,968,000 seasonally adjusted jobs and on April 2012 there were 141,865,000 which is an increase of 3.897 million jobs.

On Dec 2009 there were 137,953,000 unadjusted jobs and on April 2012 there were 141,995,000 which is an increase of 4.042 million jobs.

SO where is the hard data that supports the actual NET GAIN of employed people? Just because the jobs allegedly exist, does not mean these jobs have been filled.
From where does the BLS get it's information?
If what you claim is true, then why have the unemployment numbers not improved in proportion to the claimed number of new jobs?
The BLS can claim a "job" exists and count it, but they cannot confirm whether the "job" is full or part time. Permanent or contract/temporary.
The BLS under the watchful eye of the Obama White House is no doubt skewing the numbers to make Obama look better. Remember, the people at the head of every federal department, all of the "Czars" and the members of the Cabinet, serve at the pleasure of the President". SO please do not claim the BLS is independent or non-partisan.
I was born during the day. Not yesterday.

You are a perfect example of how CON$ are so full of hate that they are blinded to the truth and see only what they want to see.

When you clicked on the BLS link you saw that the jobs were listed under the EMPLOYED check box, but in your extreme hate EMPLOYED was blocked out from reaching your brain, thus the highlighted part of your post.

 

[pinqy]

The obama labor department is doing all they can do to make the numbers drop look legit

How? Give the full process: data collection to release and explain when and how you think the numbers are manipulated. Funny how no one can ever answer that...it's all non-specific.

Who collects the information for the unemployment numbers?
And who is in charge of those departments that collects the information?

Robert Groves, an Obama nominee, is the Director of the Census. What do you think he has go do with the CPS and what evidence do you have? He never sees or knows the data before release.

Jack Galvin is the Acting Commissioner of BLS. He was not appointed by anyone. What role do you think he plays? He signs off on all BLS releases the night before they're released (and it's too late to change anything.

I note you don't actually say what you think happens, you just like to hint and imply.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How? Give the full process: data collection to release and explain when and how you think the numbers are manipulated. Funny how no one can ever answer that...it's all non-specific.

Who collects the information for the unemployment numbers?
And who is in charge of those departments that collects the information?

Robert Groves, an Obama nominee, is the Director of the Census. What do you think he has go do with the CPS and what evidence do you have? He never sees or knows the data before release.

Jack Galvin is the Acting Commissioner of BLS. He was not appointed by anyone. What role do you think he plays? He signs off on all BLS releases the night before they're released (and it's too late to change anything.

I note you don't actually say what you think happens, you just like to hint and imply.

Are you that far up obama ass to see that the person who appointed me in charge if not re-elected I will lose my job?

 

[pinqy]

The data is inaccurate.
Had that amount of jobs been added, the unemployment rate would have dropped precipitously.
You've been tossing these numbers (3 million...4 million) for months without providing a single shred of independent credible evidence.
Not only that, you figures FAIL to take into account the jobs LOST.
As a matter of fact, the NET job gain/loss has been on the MINUS side.
Let's face it, Obama could anally violate you with a 10 meter cattle prod and you'd say "thank you sir. May I have another"..
YOU are an Obama sycophant.

FactCheck.org : Biden’s Manufactured Jobs Claims
And then there is THIS rather laughable story from of all places, The Obama White House.
Clearly your fantasy of these....how many is it? 3? 4? 5 million jobs that Obama has personally created all by himself?.....Stop the fucking bullshit.
White House: 3.6 Million Jobs Lost is “Quite Positive”

Facepalm...

Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
On Dec 2009 there were 137,968,000 seasonally adjusted jobs and on April 2012 there were 141,865,000 which is an increase of 3.897 million jobs.

On Dec 2009 there were 137,953,000 unadjusted jobs and on April 2012 there were 141,995,000 which is an increase of 4.042 million jobs.

SO where is the hard data that supports the actual NET GAIN of employed people? Just because the jobs allegedly exist, does not mean these jobs have been filled.

Actually, yes it does. To be a job, it must be a person in that job. Otherwise it's a "job opening".

From where does the BLS get it's information?

So how do you claim manipulation if you don't know where the data comes from????
The monthly report on jobs comes from the Current Employment Statistics Survey (CES). It is a survey of 486,000 establishments every month. Every January it's re-benchmarked based on a full count from March of all businesses that contribute to UI. The establishments are asked each month:"how many people were on your payroll during the pay period that contains the 12th.

If what you claim is true, then why have the unemployment numbers not improved in proportion to the claimed number of new jobs?

Why would it?

The BLS can claim a "job" exists and count it, but they cannot confirm whether the "job" is full or part time. Permanent or contract/temporary.

Not from the CES, no. But from the CPS they can and they lumpish that every month.

The BLS under the watchful eye of the Obama White House is no doubt skewing the numbers to make Obama look better.

But you don't have any evidence or actual reason to think so. You don 't even know how the surveys are conducted.

Remember, the people at the head of every federal department, all of the "Czars" and the members of the Cabinet, serve at the pleasure of the President".

And when was the last time a president ever fired the head of a statistical agency? And what is your actual evidence that Obama is putting any pressure on the unappointed acting commissioner or the previous, Bush appointed commissioner who retired in January? Why would either care?

SO please do not claim the BLS is independent or non-partisan.

You really don't understand the concept of evidence, do you?

 

[pinqy]

Who collects the information for the unemployment numbers?
And who is in charge of those departments that collects the information?

Robert Groves, an Obama nominee, is the Director of the Census. What do you think he has go do with the CPS and what evidence do you have? He never sees or knows the data before release.

Jack Galvin is the Acting Commissioner of BLS. He was not appointed by anyone. What role do you think he plays? He signs off on all BLS releases the night before they're released (and it's too late to change anything.

I note you don't actually say what you think happens, you just like to hint and imply.

Are you that far up obama ass to see that the person who appointed me in charge if not re-elected I will lose my job?

And where is your actual evidence that any president has pressured BLS to manipulate the data? Oh you have none ( although Nixon did try to interfere).

And more importantly, though you refuse to answer, how could it be done?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Robert Groves, an Obama nominee, is the Director of the Census. What do you think he has go do with the CPS and what evidence do you have? He never sees or knows the data before release.

Jack Galvin is the Acting Commissioner of BLS. He was not appointed by anyone. What role do you think he plays? He signs off on all BLS releases the night before they're released (and it's too late to change anything.

I note you don't actually say what you think happens, you just like to hint and imply.

Are you that far up obama ass to see that the person who appointed me in charge if not re-elected I will lose my job?

And where is your actual evidence that any president has pressured BLS to manipulate the data? Oh you have none ( although Nixon did try to interfere).

And more importantly, though you refuse to answer, how could it be done?

Do you have any proof that he hasn't? Use some common sense instead of your political partisanship.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
On Dec 2009 there were 137,968,000 seasonally adjusted jobs and on April 2012 there were 141,865,000 which is an increase of 3.897 million jobs.

On Dec 2009 there were 137,953,000 unadjusted jobs and on April 2012 there were 141,995,000 which is an increase of 4.042 million jobs.

SO where is the hard data that supports the actual NET GAIN of employed people? Just because the jobs allegedly exist, does not mean these jobs have been filled.
From where does the BLS get it's information?
If what you claim is true, then why have the unemployment numbers not improved in proportion to the claimed number of new jobs?
The BLS can claim a "job" exists and count it, but they cannot confirm whether the "job" is full or part time. Permanent or contract/temporary.
The BLS under the watchful eye of the Obama White House is no doubt skewing the numbers to make Obama look better. Remember, the people at the head of every federal department, all of the "Czars" and the members of the Cabinet, serve at the pleasure of the President". SO please do not claim the BLS is independent or non-partisan.
I was born during the day. Not yesterday.

You are a perfect example of how CON$ are so full of hate that they are blinded to the truth and see only what they want to see.

When you clicked on the BLS link you saw that the jobs were listed under the EMPLOYED check box, but in your extreme hate EMPLOYED was blocked out from reaching your brain, thus the highlighted part of your post.

Yes...Typical lib spin. Because you cannot rebut the facts, you dredge up the old hate card.
Eddie, you're out of gas here.
I don't care about check boxes or cereal boxes. The BLS stats do not prove anything. They are an estimate based on straw polling of employers. The numbers are a guess.
And the BLS STILL does not calculate nor will it ever, the NET gain or loss of actual employed.
These BLS numbers mean very little in face of public perception. If the people generally feel good about jobs and the economy, they will vote for the incumbent. If they do not, which is the current perception, they will blame the incumbent.
Whether you want to accept this fact or not, jobs and the weak economy are going to be campaign issues which Obama is going to have to defend. This will be difficult.
So you can carry on spewing numbers that are designed to make Obama look good all day long. It's not going to change a thing. The American people are going to vote with their bank accounts and job prospects in mind.
Have you bothered to examine as to why Obama and his people are trying to get social issues out in front of the voters?

 

[pinqy]

Are you that far up obama ass to see that the person who appointed me in charge if not re-elected I will lose my job?

And where is your actual evidence that any president has pressured BLS to manipulate the data? Oh you have none ( although Nixon did try to interfere).

And more importantly, though you refuse to answer, how could it be done?

Do you have any proof that he hasn't? Use some common sense instead of your political partisanship.

Ummm, is that how you think it works? You can just make up anything you want out of your ass with no real reason to think it's true and then insist others prove it's not true. Weird.

But in any case the facts speak for themselves: there's not enough time, it would be far too complicated, and the President has no access to the data until it's published.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And where is your actual evidence that any president has pressured BLS to manipulate the data? Oh you have none ( although Nixon did try to interfere).

And more importantly, though you refuse to answer, how could it be done?

Do you have any proof that he hasn't? Use some common sense instead of your political partisanship.

Ummm, is that how you think it works? You can just make up anything you want out of your ass with no real reason to think it's true and then insist others prove it's not true. Weird.

But in any case the facts speak for themselves: there's not enough time, it would be far too complicated, and the President has no access to the data until it's published.

Ummm, is that how you think it works?

Are you saying it's not possible?

You can just make up anything you want out of your ass with no real reason to think it's true and then insist others prove it's not true. Weird.

Is this your attempt at proving that I am wrong? You wanted me to prove it but you can't not prove that obama has not influenced the person he appointed. Are politicians trust worthy? Has obama been worthy of being trusted? Has he been open an honest? If you answer no to any of my questions then their your proof.

 

[pinqy]

SO where is the hard data that supports the actual NET GAIN of employed people? Just because the jobs allegedly exist, does not mean these jobs have been filled.
From where does the BLS get it's information?
If what you claim is true, then why have the unemployment numbers not improved in proportion to the claimed number of new jobs?
The BLS can claim a "job" exists and count it, but they cannot confirm whether the "job" is full or part time. Permanent or contract/temporary.
The BLS under the watchful eye of the Obama White House is no doubt skewing the numbers to make Obama look better. Remember, the people at the head of every federal department, all of the "Czars" and the members of the Cabinet, serve at the pleasure of the President". SO please do not claim the BLS is independent or non-partisan.
I was born during the day. Not yesterday.

You are a perfect example of how CON$ are so full of hate that they are blinded to the truth and see only what they want to see.

When you clicked on the BLS link you saw that the jobs were listed under the EMPLOYED check box, but in your extreme hate EMPLOYED was blocked out from reaching your brain, thus the highlighted part of your post.

Yes...Typical lib spin. Because you cannot rebut the facts, you dredge up the old hate card.
Eddie, you're out of gas here.
I don't care about check boxes or cereal boxes. The BLS stats do not prove anything. They are an estimate based on straw polling of employers. The numbers are a guess.

it's certainly NOT a straw poll. It's pretty accurate and BLS also does full counts of non farm payroll though obviously that's not available every month. For the last 10 years, the estimates were off between -0.7% and 0.6% with an average absolute difference of 0.26% That's damn good source: Benchmark

And the BLS STILL does not calculate nor will it ever, the NET gain or loss of actual employed.

of course they do. That's mostly what they do. The gross numbers aren't even in the Employment Situation.

Whether you want to accept this fact or not, jobs and the weak economy are going to be campaign issues which Obama is going to have to defend.

well, duh. It'll probably what sinks him. Kind of odd if he's manipulating the numbers, isn't it?

So you can carry on spewing numbers that are designed to make Obama look good all day

you're never going to even try to explain that, are you?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Do you have any proof that he hasn't? Use some common sense instead of your political partisanship.

Ummm, is that how you think it works? You can just make up anything you want out of your ass with no real reason to think it's true and then insist others prove it's not true. Weird.

But in any case the facts speak for themselves: there's not enough time, it would be far too complicated, and the President has no access to the data until it's published.

Ummm, is that how you think it works?

Are you saying it's not possible?

It's "possible" for me to rob the bank down the street.

Is that "proof" that I did?

You can just make up anything you want out of your ass with no real reason to think it's true and then insist others prove it's not true. Weird.

Is this your attempt at proving that I am wrong? You wanted me to prove it but you can't not prove that obama has not influenced the person he appointed. Are politicians trust worthy? Has obama been worthy of being trusted? Has he been open an honest? If you answer no to any of my questions then their your proof.

You really don't get it, do you? You're the one making claims - you've got to provide the "proof".

 

[edthecynic]

SO where is the hard data that supports the actual NET GAIN of employed people? Just because the jobs allegedly exist, does not mean these jobs have been filled.
From where does the BLS get it's information?
If what you claim is true, then why have the unemployment numbers not improved in proportion to the claimed number of new jobs?
The BLS can claim a "job" exists and count it, but they cannot confirm whether the "job" is full or part time. Permanent or contract/temporary.
The BLS under the watchful eye of the Obama White House is no doubt skewing the numbers to make Obama look better. Remember, the people at the head of every federal department, all of the "Czars" and the members of the Cabinet, serve at the pleasure of the President". SO please do not claim the BLS is independent or non-partisan.
I was born during the day. Not yesterday.

You are a perfect example of how CON$ are so full of hate that they are blinded to the truth and see only what they want to see.

When you clicked on the BLS link you saw that the jobs were listed under the EMPLOYED check box, but in your extreme hate EMPLOYED was blocked out from reaching your brain, thus the highlighted part of your post.

Yes...Typical lib spin. Because you cannot rebut the facts, you dredge up the old hate card.
Eddie, you're out of gas here.
I don't care about check boxes or cereal boxes. The BLS stats do not prove anything. They are an estimate based on straw polling of employers. The numbers are a guess.
And the BLS STILL does not calculate nor will it ever, the NET gain or loss of actual employed.
These BLS numbers mean very little in face of public perception. If the people generally feel good about jobs and the economy, they will vote for the incumbent. If they do not, which is the current perception, they will blame the incumbent.
Whether you want to accept this fact or not, jobs and the weak economy are going to be campaign issues which Obama is going to have to defend. This will be difficult.
So you can carry on spewing numbers that are designed to make Obama look good all day long. It's not going to change a thing. The American people are going to vote with their bank accounts and job prospects in mind.
Have you bothered to examine as to why Obama and his people are trying to get social issues out in front of the voters?

Again you show your complete ignorance of the facts due to your blinding hatred. The BLS surveys 60,000 HOUSEHOLDS!!!!

But thank you for admitting that the CON$ervoFascist plan is to lie about the economy in hope of controlling public perception with their CON$ervoFascist lies.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Ummm, is that how you think it works? You can just make up anything you want out of your ass with no real reason to think it's true and then insist others prove it's not true. Weird.

But in any case the facts speak for themselves: there's not enough time, it would be far too complicated, and the President has no access to the data until it's published.

Are you saying it's not possible?

It's "possible" for me to rob the bank down the street.

Is that "proof" that I did?

You can just make up anything you want out of your ass with no real reason to think it's true and then insist others prove it's not true. Weird.

Is this your attempt at proving that I am wrong? You wanted me to prove it but you can't not prove that obama has not influenced the person he appointed. Are politicians trust worthy? Has obama been worthy of being trusted? Has he been open an honest? If you answer no to any of my questions then their your proof.

You really don't get it, do you? You're the one making claims - you've got to provide the "proof".

You don't get it either is he making a claim that obama does not have any influence over his appointee the one who controls the department who collects the information for the unemployment numbers?

 

[pinqy]

You are a perfect example of how CON$ are so full of hate that they are blinded to the truth and see only what they want to see.

When you clicked on the BLS link you saw that the jobs were listed under the EMPLOYED check box, but in your extreme hate EMPLOYED was blocked out from reaching your brain, thus the highlighted part of your post.

Yes...Typical lib spin. Because you cannot rebut the facts, you dredge up the old hate card.
Eddie, you're out of gas here.
I don't care about check boxes or cereal boxes. The BLS stats do not prove anything. They are an estimate based on straw polling of employers. The numbers are a guess.
And the BLS STILL does not calculate nor will it ever, the NET gain or loss of actual employed.
These BLS numbers mean very little in face of public perception. If the people generally feel good about jobs and the economy, they will vote for the incumbent. If they do not, which is the current perception, they will blame the incumbent.
Whether you want to accept this fact or not, jobs and the weak economy are going to be campaign issues which Obama is going to have to defend. This will be difficult.
So you can carry on spewing numbers that are designed to make Obama look good all day long. It's not going to change a thing. The American people are going to vote with their bank accounts and job prospects in mind.
Have you bothered to examine as to why Obama and his people are trying to get social issues out in front of the voters?

Again you show your complete ignorance of the facts due to your blinding hatred. The BLS surveys 60,000 HOUSEHOLDS!!!!

They also survey 428,000 establishments every month and that's the jobs numbers. Both surveys are part of the Employment Situation each month.

Jobs and employment are slightly different.

 

[Chris]

A few key facts......

8 million jobs were lost in the Great Recession.

4.2 million PRIVATE SECTOR jobs have been created since the stimulus.

A lot of government jobs have been lost since 2009.

If these government jobs had not been lost, unemployment would be below 6%.

10,000 Americans a day are retiring, so there is going to be a labor shortage in a few years.

All these numbers add up to 8.1% unemployment.....a number that will continue to go down.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A few key facts......

8 million jobs were lost in the Great Recession.

4.2 million PRIVATE SECTOR jobs have been created since the stimulus.

A lot of government jobs have been lost since 2009.

It these government jobs had not been lost, unemployment would be below 7%.

10,000 Americans a day are retiring, so there is going to be a labor shortage in a few years.

All these numbers add up to 8.1% unemployment.....a number that will continue to go down.

10,000 Americans a day are retiring, so there is going to be a labor shortage in a few years.

Link

A lot of government jobs have been lost since 2009.

Yep less taxes were taken in

It these government jobs had not been lost, unemployment would be below 7%.

Was it ever said that if the stimulus is not passed unemployment will be above 8.0%

8 million jobs were lost in the Great Recession.

When did the great recession start? Who was in control of congress?

All these numbers add up to 8.1% unemployment.....a number that will continue to go down.

Of course obama's labor department is doing everything thy can too cook the numbers.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Are you saying it's not possible?

It's "possible" for me to rob the bank down the street.

Is that "proof" that I did?

Is this your attempt at proving that I am wrong? You wanted me to prove it but you can't not prove that obama has not influenced the person he appointed. Are politicians trust worthy? Has obama been worthy of being trusted? Has he been open an honest? If you answer no to any of my questions then their your proof.

You really don't get it, do you? You're the one making claims - you've got to provide the "proof".

You don't get it either is he making a claim that obama does not have any influence over his appointee the one who controls the department who collects the information for the unemployment numbers?

No, he's not.

He's making the claim that with an absence of any evidence, it's pretty ridiculous to assume that "Obama" is cooking the numbers, just because it's within the realm of possibility.

 

[pinqy]

Do you have any proof that he hasn't? Use some common sense instead of your political partisanship.

Ummm, is that how you think it works? You can just make up anything you want out of your ass with no real reason to think it's true and then insist others prove it's not true. Weird.

But in any case the facts speak for themselves: there's not enough time, it would be far too complicated, and the President has no access to the data until it's published.

Ummm, is that how you think it works?

Are you saying it's not possible?

for all practical purposes, no I don't see how it is, especially with oversight and independent researchers. But you're not just claiming it's "possible," you're claiming it happens, though you refuse to back that up.

You can just make up anything you want out of your ass with no real reason to think it's true and then insist others prove it's not true. Weird.

Is this your attempt at proving that I am wrong?[/quote]
No, it's me pointing out your dishonesty in your arguments.

You wanted me to prove it but you can't not prove that obama has not influenced the person he appointed.

And how and it what way are you clawing this influence works? And Obama hasn't yet had an appointee to BLS (his nominee hasn't been approved yet)

Are politicians trust worthy? Has obama been worthy of being trusted? Has he been open an honest? If you answer no to any of my questions then their your proof.

Irrelevant. Just because someone is corrupt doesn't mean they have corrupted everything. You are claiming specific corruption but offer no evidence. I'm not asking for "proof," just your evidence.