Romney and GOP in Panic After Unemployment drops to 7.8%

[kaz]

You're saying the unemployment number is a lot worse than reported? Prove that

I'm not backing up a point that you won't even acknowledge much less address. I said why the reported number is low even if it's "accurate." Address it first rather then playing games.

So what you're really saying is that Obama inherited an unemployment situation that was much worse than the official UE number indicated.

Actually I didn't address that point at all.

 

[Foxfyre]

From today's WSJ (and betting a donut and cup of coffee that our resident Obamabots won't read it):

. . . .Democrats are celebrating the decline in the jobless rate, which only shows how their standards have changed since President Obama entered the White House. In 2004, they were lambasting George W. Bush for a September jobless rate that was 5.4%. Only last month they were begging the Federal Reserve to print more money indefinitely because the job market was so weak. Now they say happy days are almost here again.

The reality is that more than three years into this weakest of economic recoveries, 12.1 million Americans are still out of work—nearly 23 million by the broader definition that includes those who have stopped looking or can't find full time work—and the labor participation rate is still down to 1981 levels at 63.6%. Hooray!

Of the 114,000 new jobs, 104,000 were in the private economy, and all of the 86,000 in upward revisions for July and August came in government jobs. Job growth for 2012 has averaged 146,000 a month, which is down from 153,000 in 2011.

Manufacturing employment fell again (down 38,000 in the last two months) further dampening one of the few bright spots in this recovery. A still abysmal 40.1% of the unemployed in America have been jobless for six months or more. Such a job market is anemic by any historic measure for this stage in an expansion and reflects continuing slow GDP growth in the 1%-2% range.

The number that has our friends suspicious is the giant 873,000 leap in employment as measured by the "household survey." That's the biggest one-month increase in nearly 30 years, which certainly does deserve an explanation.

The household survey contacts about 60,000 individual households to find out how many Americans are working. It is different from the much larger "establishment survey," which measures about 141,000 businesses and government agencies to see how many jobs they created. The household survey determines the jobless rate, so the huge one-month leap accounts for the September decline to 7.8%.

Because of its small size, the household survey tends to be highly volatile. In August it found that the number of net new jobs had fallen by 119,000 and in July by 195,000. The point is that you can't read too much into one month's number. As much as we agree that you can't trust the government, this is probably the explanation for the huge one-month jump in September.

Even if the 873,000 job estimate is confirmed in future months, the survey found that 582,000 of those jobs were what the survey calls "part-time for economic reasons." That is, they would rather be working full-time. The number of part-time workers for economic reasons grew to 8.6 million in September from 7.7 million in March. . . .
Review & Outlook: Happy Days Are Not Here Again - WSJ.com

 

[bigrebnc1775]

From today's WSJ (and betting a donut and cup of coffee that our resident Obamabots won't read it):

. . . .Democrats are celebrating the decline in the jobless rate, which only shows how their standards have changed since President Obama entered the White House. In 2004, they were lambasting George W. Bush for a September jobless rate that was 5.4%. Only last month they were begging the Federal Reserve to print more money indefinitely because the job market was so weak. Now they say happy days are almost here again.

The reality is that more than three years into this weakest of economic recoveries, 12.1 million Americans are still out of work—nearly 23 million by the broader definition that includes those who have stopped looking or can't find full time work—and the labor participation rate is still down to 1981 levels at 63.6%. Hooray!

Of the 114,000 new jobs, 104,000 were in the private economy, and all of the 86,000 in upward revisions for July and August came in government jobs. Job growth for 2012 has averaged 146,000 a month, which is down from 153,000 in 2011.

Manufacturing employment fell again (down 38,000 in the last two months) further dampening one of the few bright spots in this recovery. A still abysmal 40.1% of the unemployed in America have been jobless for six months or more. Such a job market is anemic by any historic measure for this stage in an expansion and reflects continuing slow GDP growth in the 1%-2% range.

The number that has our friends suspicious is the giant 873,000 leap in employment as measured by the "household survey." That's the biggest one-month increase in nearly 30 years, which certainly does deserve an explanation.

The household survey contacts about 60,000 individual households to find out how many Americans are working. It is different from the much larger "establishment survey," which measures about 141,000 businesses and government agencies to see how many jobs they created. The household survey determines the jobless rate, so the huge one-month leap accounts for the September decline to 7.8%.

Because of its small size, the household survey tends to be highly volatile. In August it found that the number of net new jobs had fallen by 119,000 and in July by 195,000. The point is that you can't read too much into one month's number. As much as we agree that you can't trust the government, this is probably the explanation for the huge one-month jump in September.

Even if the 873,000 job estimate is confirmed in future months, the survey found that 582,000 of those jobs were what the survey calls "part-time for economic reasons." That is, they would rather be working full-time. The number of part-time workers for economic reasons grew to 8.6 million in September from 7.7 million in March. . . .
Review & Outlook: Happy Days Are Not Here Again - WSJ.com

Stop using historical facts to make your argument stick.
It's unfair and will make the libs here cry.

 

[blackhawk]

The Obama lead in the RCP poll has gone from 3.2 to 1.8 I'm sorry who is in a panic?

 

[Foxfyre]

From today's WSJ (and betting a donut and cup of coffee that our resident Obamabots won't read it):

. . . .Democrats are celebrating the decline in the jobless rate, which only shows how their standards have changed since President Obama entered the White House. In 2004, they were lambasting George W. Bush for a September jobless rate that was 5.4%. Only last month they were begging the Federal Reserve to print more money indefinitely because the job market was so weak. Now they say happy days are almost here again.

The reality is that more than three years into this weakest of economic recoveries, 12.1 million Americans are still out of work—nearly 23 million by the broader definition that includes those who have stopped looking or can't find full time work—and the labor participation rate is still down to 1981 levels at 63.6%. Hooray!

Of the 114,000 new jobs, 104,000 were in the private economy, and all of the 86,000 in upward revisions for July and August came in government jobs. Job growth for 2012 has averaged 146,000 a month, which is down from 153,000 in 2011.

Manufacturing employment fell again (down 38,000 in the last two months) further dampening one of the few bright spots in this recovery. A still abysmal 40.1% of the unemployed in America have been jobless for six months or more. Such a job market is anemic by any historic measure for this stage in an expansion and reflects continuing slow GDP growth in the 1%-2% range.

The number that has our friends suspicious is the giant 873,000 leap in employment as measured by the "household survey." That's the biggest one-month increase in nearly 30 years, which certainly does deserve an explanation.

The household survey contacts about 60,000 individual households to find out how many Americans are working. It is different from the much larger "establishment survey," which measures about 141,000 businesses and government agencies to see how many jobs they created. The household survey determines the jobless rate, so the huge one-month leap accounts for the September decline to 7.8%.

Because of its small size, the household survey tends to be highly volatile. In August it found that the number of net new jobs had fallen by 119,000 and in July by 195,000. The point is that you can't read too much into one month's number. As much as we agree that you can't trust the government, this is probably the explanation for the huge one-month jump in September.

Even if the 873,000 job estimate is confirmed in future months, the survey found that 582,000 of those jobs were what the survey calls "part-time for economic reasons." That is, they would rather be working full-time. The number of part-time workers for economic reasons grew to 8.6 million in September from 7.7 million in March. . . .
Review & Outlook: Happy Days Are Not Here Again - WSJ.com

Stop using historical facts to make your argument stick.
It's unfair and will make the libs here cry.

Naw. They'll just ignore it, or dismiss it as the WSJ and therefore unreliable, and keep deflecting all the blame on Booooooooooosh.

 

[JimH52]

Using Mitt's math, 7.8% can be interpreted as 8.7%...I mean he did say 3 of 38 green jobs that failed was half. The Mittster, the model on honestly and that standard of truth basically lied his guts out to win the first debate. Unfortunately for Mitt, the polls did not change and he now must face the truth in the next debate....OOUUUUCCCHHHH!

It seems the GOP wants to turn the clock back. They want to return to the good old bad days when the environment was being trashed and when they could call people of color "Boys", as I was called by one of them. I had to look at my arm to remind myself that I am not a person of color.

Sorry Guys, you can't turn the clock back. It is what it is...and that is Obama is far ahead in electoral votes.

 

[JimH52]

The Obama lead in the RCP poll has gone from 3.2 to 1.8 I'm sorry who is in a panic?

You found one poll out of over a dozen that gave Mitt the liar a little bump. Of course that poll was taken before the 7.8% But it was a nice try...

 

[Vast LWC]

From today's WSJ (and betting a donut and cup of coffee that our resident Obamabots won't read it):

Article from WSJ

OK, first of all, I want to make it clear that I read that article when it came out, so saw no need to read it again now.

Second, that is of course, an opinion piece from a Mudoch publication, so it has about as much legitmacy as a piece by Keith Olbermann, or any other talking head from MSNBC.

Now, for the most part, the WSJ has still kept most of it's integrity as far as actual news goes, but it's opinion pages have always been quite biased, and the takeover by Murdoch has made that bias considerably worse.

That being said, the article does have a point in that it is possible that the statistics from this month are off; they almost always are.

But that means they have as much of a chance of being not optimistic enough as they do of being too optimistic. That's the way margins of error work.

So, it's just as likely that the economy added even more jobs than reported as it is that the economy added less jobs.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Obama lead in the RCP poll has gone from 3.2 to 1.8 I'm sorry who is in a panic?

You found one poll out of over a dozen that gave Mitt the liar a little bump. Of course that poll was taken before the 7.8% But it was a nice try...

Um, you do understand that the RCP is the average of ALL the national polls? If you don't understand that, you might want to sort of not post on this subject until you've studied up some.

 

[Amazed]

The Obama lead in the RCP poll has gone from 3.2 to 1.8 I'm sorry who is in a panic?

You found one poll out of over a dozen that gave Mitt the liar a little bump. Of course that poll was taken before the 7.8% But it was a nice try...

It is an aggregate pollusing the top ten polls in the nation.

You are dismissed for lack of knowledge.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

From today's WSJ (and betting a donut and cup of coffee that our resident Obamabots won't read it):

Stop using historical facts to make your argument stick.
It's unfair and will make the libs here cry.

Naw. They'll just ignore it, or dismiss it as the WSJ and therefore unreliable, and keep deflecting all the blame on Booooooooooosh.

It's just not fair

 

[Vast LWC]

Naw. They'll just ignore it, or dismiss it as the WSJ and therefore unreliable, and keep deflecting all the blame on Booooooooooosh.

The WSJ opinion pages are unreliable, the news pages generally are not.

That is an opinion piece.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

From today's WSJ (and betting a donut and cup of coffee that our resident Obamabots won't read it):

Article from WSJ

OK, first of all, I want to make it clear that I read that article when it came out, so saw no need to read it again now.

Second, that is of course, an opinion piece from a Mudoch publication, so it has about as much legitmacy as a piece by Keith Olbermann, or any other talking head from MSNBC.

Now, for the most part, the WSJ has still kept most of it's integrity as far as actual news goes, but it's opinion pages have always been quite biased, and the takeover by Murdoch has made that bias considerably worse.

That being said, the article does have a point in that it is possible that the statistics from this month are off; they almost always are.

But that means they have as much of a chance of being not optimistic enough as they do of being too optimistic. That's the way margins of error work.

So, it's just as likely that the economy added even more jobs than reported as it is that the economy added less jobs.

Foxfyre was right

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Naw. They'll just ignore it, or dismiss it as the WSJ and therefore unreliable, and keep deflecting all the blame on Booooooooooosh.

The WSJ opinion pages are unreliable, the news pages generally are not.

That is an opinion piece.

Do you somehow think people forget those attacks on Bush by democrats when they actually happened?

 

[Foxfyre]

From today's WSJ (and betting a donut and cup of coffee that our resident Obamabots won't read it):

Article from WSJ

OK, first of all, I want to make it clear that I read that article when it came out, so saw no need to read it again now.

Second, that is of course, an opinion piece from a Mudoch publication, so it has about as much legitmacy as a piece by Keith Olbermann, or any other talking head from MSNBC.

Now, for the most part, the WSJ has still kept most of it's integrity as far as actual news goes, but it's opinion pages have always been quite biased, and the takeover by Murdoch has made that bias considerably worse.

That being said, the article does have a point in that it is possible that the statistics from this month are off; they almost always are.

But that means they have as much of a chance of being not optimistic enough as they do of being too optimistic. That's the way margins of error work.

So, it's just as likely that the economy added even more jobs than reported as it is that the economy added less jobs.

The point is not what the actual numbers are as much as the point is WHY the numbers are what they are. Would you be okay with the Obama administration jury rigging the numbers to give him cover for his poor debate performance? I can't say with certainty that they did that, but the numbers defy any reasonable person's perception of credibility, no matter what that person's ideology might be.

The following is partly taken from a Fox News report, so you won't like it any better. But it is Huffpost reporting it, and the people quoted are not affiliated with Fox News. In fact G.E. is an Obama darling, supports cap and trade to protect the planet from global warming 100%--of course G.E. would make billions once that legislation passed--and another G.E. CEO is Obama's jobs czar even though G.E. makes ALL its profits overseas and paid no taxes in the USA the last two years. (I only mention this to keep perspective.)

Jack Welch, the former CEO of GE, stood by his tweet calling Friday's unemployment rate of 7.8 percent "unbelievable."

"I have no idea where this number came from," he told Fox News. "I don't know what the right number is, but I'll tell you these numbers dont smell right when you think about where the economy is right now."

Following Friday's report that the unemployment rate fell to 7.8 percent, Welch wrote in a tweet: "Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers."

Welch wasn't the only one offering conspiracy theories though; Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) wrote on his Facebook page that the unemployment rate fell below 8 percent through "manipulation of data" and CNBC personality Rick Santelli said "I told you they'd get it under 8 percent -- they did! You can let America decide how they got there!"
Jack Welch On Fox News: 'These Numbers Don't Smell Right' (UPDATE) (VIDEO)

 

[JoeB131]

Romney and GOP in Panic After Unemployment drops to 7.8%

So much for your username being truthful.
Not like I expected anything different though.
Yawn.

I would call it a panic, too.

I've been watching politics for 32 years. I've never seen anyone question the BLS figures until now.

The closest was in 1983, I think it was, when Reagan's DOL recalculated how the UR was calculated by including people in the military as employed. And that was a legitimate critique of how the method was used.

Point being- Romney's main talking point is that unemployment (which went wild under Bush) has remained above 8% for Obama's entire term.

Except now it's under 8%.

 

[kaz]

I've been watching politics for 32 years. I've never seen anyone question the BLS figures until now

That's because you're a moron. The unemployment rate is constantly criticized as under-counting the unemployed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm not backing up a point that you won't even acknowledge much less address. I said why the reported number is low even if it's "accurate." Address it first rather then playing games.

So what you're really saying is that Obama inherited an unemployment situation that was much worse than the official UE number indicated.

Actually I didn't address that point at all.

You didn't address that because you don't want us to adjust ALL the UE numbers higher; you only want to adjust Obama's current number higher,

because you're an intellectually dishonest person.

By your 'logic' and standards, I could say that Barack Obama

inherited an unemployment rate of 14.2% and now has it down to 7.8%.

 

[thanatos144]

This was bound to happen..... Any thinking person knew Obama would try to pull a run a round the unemployment numbers.... They have manipulated the numbers for 4 years so of course they would do it a few weeks before the election..... I mean only idiots dont see how crooked this is.

 

[Navy1960]

This might be a different take on the jobs report, but it seems to me that until such time as one party or the other starts to at least sound like they are positive about the future of this nation rather than how bad our nation is, and how we have lost this edge, or how we are 3rd rate etc. The nation as a whole, will stay in the same position it is now. One good thing about President Reagan was that regardless of how bad the economy seemed or how bad this nation had let itself slide downwards, the positive outlook from the White House went a long long way in providing real leadership that helped in a small way spur the nation to action. In my humble opinion that is one of the jobs a President should take sersiously, and that is leadership and being a leader means being the biggest cheerleader for this Nation and it's people rather than seeking to to find ways to show how bad our nation is. In short, perhaps it's time we have a leader who can stop talking about what we CANT do and find one who can talk about what we CAN do.!!