Romney and GOP in Panic After Unemployment drops to 7.8%

[edthecynic]

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

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)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/252248-jackass-welsh-never-mind.html

 

[beretta304]

Another Phony Employment Report

by Paul Craig Robert


October 5. Today’s employment report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows 114,000 new jobs in September and a drop in the rate of unemployment from 8.1% to 7.8%. As 114,000 new jobs are not sufficient to stay even with population growth, the drop in the unemployment rate is the result of not counting discouraged workers who are defined away as “not in the labor force.”

According to the BLS, “In September, 2.5 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force.” These individuals “wanted and were available for work,” but “they were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.”


In other words, 2.5 million unemployed Americans were not counted as unemployed.

The stock market rose on the phony good news. Bloomberg’s headline: “U.S. Stocks Rise as Unemployment Rate Unexpectedly Drops.”

A truer picture of the dire employment situation is provided by the 600,000 rise over the previous month in involuntary part-time workers. According to the BLS, “These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.”


Turning to the 114,000 new jobs, once again the jobs are concentrated in lowly paid domestic service jobs that cannot be offshored. Manufacturing jobs declined by 16,000.

As has been the case for a decade, two categories – health care and social assistance (primarily ambulatory health care services) and waitresses and bartenders account for 53% of the new jobs. The BLS never ceases to find ever growing employment of people in restaurants and bars despite the rising dependence of the US population on food stamps. The elderly are rising as a percentage of the American population, but I sometimes wonder if employment in ambulatory health care services is rising faster than the elderly population. Whether these reported jobs are real, I do not know.

The rest of the new jobs were accounted for by retail trade, transportation and warehousing, financial activities (primarily credit intermediation), professional and business services (primarily administrative and waste services), and state government education, where the 13,600 reported new jobs seem odd in light of the teacher layoffs and rise in classroom size.

The high-tech jobs that economists promised would be our reward for offshoring American manufacturing jobs and tradeable professional services, such as software engineering and IT, have never materialized. “The New Economy” was just another hoax, like “Iraqi weapons of mass destruction” and “Iranian nukes.”

While employment falters, the consumer price index (CPI-U) in August increased 0.6 percent, the largest since June 2009. If the August rate is annualized, it means bad news on the inflation front. Instead of bringing us high tech jobs, is “the New Economy” bringing back the stagflation of the late 1970s? Time will tell.

October 6, 2012

Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, has been reporting shocking cases of prosecutorial abuse for two decades.



Another Phony Employment*Report by Paul Craig Roberts

 

[JoeB131]

Then what were the policy mistakes by Ronald Reagan, who inherited a 7.5% UE rate and was re-elected with UE at 7.4%?

What did HE do that directly led to a poor economy and high unemployment?

He made a butt stupid deal with the Democrats that he would increase taxes one dollar for every three dollars in spending cuts, which they reneged on. No duh.

Then he got smart and cut and simplified taxes and left office with a 4.2% unemployment rate.

Obama on the other hand has insisted on higher taxes which target job creators.

Reagan (who I voted for and campaigned for twice) did do some good thing.

But he also raised taxes after cutting them.

He also ran up 2 Trillion in debt, more than tripling it. (By comparison, Obama has only increased the debt by 50%).

The real damage done by Reagan was that he signalled the GOP would no longer have the middle class's back.

 

[Foxfyre]

We have a $16 trillion debt. That represents an average of $50,000 the Congress has spent every single second for the last 100 years. Obama's jobs act offered only another enormus stimulus spending bill after the last one failed to create jobs.

How do you know that the first stimulus failed? It stopped the unemployment from rising further.

As for the deficit, they are always high in a depressed economy, that is why we it needed more stimulus.

Given that track record, anybody who voted for Obama's so-called "jobs act" would need his/her head served up on a platter.

That "track record" was simply the right-wing propaganda, which many people believe only because that is what they wanted to hear.

The House has sent any number of jobs bills--REAL jobs bills that would actually loosen up some of the venture capital and would have created jobs.

That is another right-wing lie. There are huge sums of venture capital that are sitting unused. Loosening even more would change nothing. We have stimulate demand, rather than giving investors even more money.

No dear. Obama PROMISED that the unemployment rate would not rise over 8% IF the stimulus was passed. So his Democratic super majority passed it. And by October 2009 the unemployment rate hit 10% and didn't drop below 9% until January of this year. And given the experience we have in the real history books and the Congressional record, you'll have to post evidence from a credible source that I "lied" about anything if you want to make that stick.

 

[edthecynic]

Then what were the policy mistakes by Ronald Reagan, who inherited a 7.5% UE rate and was re-elected with UE at 7.4%?

What did HE do that directly led to a poor economy and high unemployment?

He made a butt stupid deal with the Democrats that he would increase taxes one dollar for every three dollars in spending cuts, which they reneged on. No duh.

Then he got smart and cut and simplified taxes and left office with a 4.2% unemployment rate.

Obama on the other hand has insisted on higher taxes which target job creators.

And here we have more fuzzy math. St Ronnie left with a U-3 rate of 5.49%. And since according to CON$ the BLS numbers are cooked that translates to 9.45%

BTW, Reagan was the biggest tax raiser in peacetime history.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/252248-jackass-welsh-never-mind.html

Ed the liar makes Rush Limbaugh stock go up

 

[kaz]

Ed the liar makes Rush Limbaugh stock go up

In fairness to Ed, I don't think they are lies, I think he really is that stupid

 

[edthecynic]

We have a $16 trillion debt. That represents an average of $50,000 the Congress has spent every single second for the last 100 years. Obama's jobs act offered only another enormus stimulus spending bill after the last one failed to create jobs.

How do you know that the first stimulus failed? It stopped the unemployment from rising further.

As for the deficit, they are always high in a depressed economy, that is why we it needed more stimulus.



That "track record" was simply the right-wing propaganda, which many people believe only because that is what they wanted to hear.

The House has sent any number of jobs bills--REAL jobs bills that would actually loosen up some of the venture capital and would have created jobs.

That is another right-wing lie. There are huge sums of venture capital that are sitting unused. Loosening even more would change nothing. We have stimulate demand, rather than giving investors even more money.

No dear. Obama PROMISED that the unemployment rate would not rise over 8% IF the stimulus was passed. So his Democratic super majority passed it. And by October 2009 the unemployment rate hit 10% and didn't drop below 9% until January of this year. And given the experience we have in the real history books and the Congressional record, you'll have to post evidence from a credible source that I "lied" about anything if you want to make that stick.

No dear, Obama made no such promise, and UE was already over 8% when the stimulus went into effect.

 

[ilia25]

We have a $16 trillion debt. That represents an average of $50,000 the Congress has spent every single second for the last 100 years. Obama's jobs act offered only another enormus stimulus spending bill after the last one failed to create jobs.

How do you know that the first stimulus failed? It stopped the unemployment from rising further.

As for the deficit, they are always high in a depressed economy, that is why we it needed more stimulus.



That "track record" was simply the right-wing propaganda, which many people believe only because that is what they wanted to hear.

The House has sent any number of jobs bills--REAL jobs bills that would actually loosen up some of the venture capital and would have created jobs.

That is another right-wing lie. There are huge sums of venture capital that are sitting unused. Loosening even more would change nothing. We have stimulate demand, rather than giving investors even more money.

No dear. Obama PROMISED that the unemployment rate would not rise over 8% IF the stimulus was passed.

So he underestimated the severity of the crisis. But it does not mean he was wrong trying to stop it! Economy needed far bigger stimulus that what was passed in 2009 -- but any further attempts were blocked by Republicans.

 

[kaz]

UE was already over 8% when the stimulus went into effect.

Gotcha, Obama didn't cause the problem, he just didn't do anything about it, so we should go ahead and re-elect him. Obama took over in a recession. W also took over in a recession. Obama will leave office in three months in a recession, just like W left office in a recession. Actually, Eddie Boy, here's the thing. With W, it wasn't a recession the whole time in between like it was with Obama. Actually recessions normally end in about 18 months. Obama accomplished the task of it still going on 4 years later. While it's actually a achievement, it's not one a rational person would re-elect him for...

 

[edthecynic]

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.)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/252248-jackass-welsh-never-mind.html

Ed the liar makes Rush Limbaugh stock go up

And his audience go down. He has fallen from 15+ million to 14.75 in this latest ratings period. So far he has fallen from his self professed high of over 40 million per day to under 15 million per week.

Just remember these two graphics every time your MessiahRushie tells you his audience is growing by leaps and bounds.

 

[edthecynic]

UE was already over 8% when the stimulus went into effect.

Gotcha, Obama didn't cause the problem, he just didn't do anything about it, so we should go ahead and re-elect him. Obama took over in a recession. W also took over in a recession. Obama will leave office in three months in a recession, just like W left office in a recession. Actually, Eddie Boy, here's the thing. With W, it wasn't a recession the whole time in between like it was with Obama. Actually recessions normally end in about 18 months. Obama accomplished the task of it still going on 4 years later. While it's actually a achievement, it's not one a rational person would re-elect him for...

Bush, the Socialist, ended his first recession by giving every worker a check of $300 or $600 if filing jointly. The Bush Depression ended July 2009.

 

[ilia25]

UE was already over 8% when the stimulus went into effect.

Gotcha, Obama didn't cause the problem, he just didn't do anything about it

On what planet? Obama enacted a huge stimulus, and when it he realised it was not enough, he was trying to do more, but was blocked by Republicans in the Congress.

 

[Chris]

Umemployment has dropped from 10.2% to 7.8%
The stock market has doubled since the stimulus.
5 million private sector jobs have been created since 2009.
GDP has been growing since 2009.
Americans net worth is up $10 trillion dollars since 2009.
Auto sales are up. Retail sales are up. Home sales are up.
Bin Laden is dead, and GM is alive.
Obama has done a very good job.

 

[edthecynic]

Another Phony Employment Report

by Paul Craig Robert
According to the BLS, “In September, 2.5 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force.” These individuals “wanted and were available for work,” but “they were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.”


In other words, 2.5 million unemployed Americans were not counted as unemployed.

October 6, 2012

Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, has been reporting shocking cases of prosecutorial abuse for two decades.



Another Phony Employment*Report by Paul Craig Roberts

Another phony opinion piece by an obvious moron.

Now why should that 2.5 million be counted as part of the labor force when they won't bother to look for a job or can't/won't accept a job if offered????

Table A-16. Persons not in the labor force and multiple jobholders by sex, not seasonally adjusted

Discouraged workers (2) 802,000

Other persons marginally attached to the labor force (3) 1,715,000

(2) Includes those who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for reasons such as thinks no work available, could not find work, lacks schooling or training, employer thinks too young or old, and other types of discrimination.
(3) Includes those who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for such reasons as school or family responsibilities, ill health, and transportation problems, as well as a number for whom reason for nonparticipation was not determined.

 

[ilia25]

UE was already over 8% when the stimulus went into effect.

Gotcha, Obama didn't cause the problem, he just didn't do anything about it, so we should go ahead and re-elect him. Obama took over in a recession. W also took over in a recession. Obama will leave office in three months in a recession, just like W left office in a recession. Actually, Eddie Boy, here's the thing. With W, it wasn't a recession the whole time in between like it was with Obama. Actually recessions normally end in about 18 months. Obama accomplished the task of it still going on 4 years later. While it's actually a achievement, it's not one a rational person would re-elect him for...

Bush, the Socialist, ended his first recession by giving every worker a check of $300 or $600 if filing jointly. The Bush Depression ended July 2009.

Just for the record -- recession means the economy is shrinking, and the last one was over in the summer of 2009. Depression means the economy is staying below its potential (because a lot of able people are not working) -- and it is far from over.

Bush did not have to deal with depression because the recession of 2000-2001 was not deep enough and could bounce on it own when Fed dropped the rates to zero. Obama had to deal with far worse a crisis -- this time Fed could not stop depression and Obama had to improvise with the stimulus. And it would have worked, if not for Republican obstruction.

 

[Chris]

Bush's SEC let Wall Street run a derivatives Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.

George W. Bush was the goose that flew into the engine.

Obama landed the plane in the Hudson.

 

[Foxfyre]

Gotcha, Obama didn't cause the problem, he just didn't do anything about it, so we should go ahead and re-elect him. Obama took over in a recession. W also took over in a recession. Obama will leave office in three months in a recession, just like W left office in a recession. Actually, Eddie Boy, here's the thing. With W, it wasn't a recession the whole time in between like it was with Obama. Actually recessions normally end in about 18 months. Obama accomplished the task of it still going on 4 years later. While it's actually a achievement, it's not one a rational person would re-elect him for...

Bush, the Socialist, ended his first recession by giving every worker a check of $300 or $600 if filing jointly. The Bush Depression ended July 2009.

Just for the record -- recession means the economy is shrinking, and the last one was over in the summer of 2009. Depression means the economy is staying below its potential (because a lot of able people are not working) -- and it is far from over.

Bush did not have to deal with depression because the recession of 2000-2001 was not deep enough and could bounce on it own when Fed dropped the rates to zero. Obama had to deal with far worse a crisis -- this time Fed could not stop depression and Obama had to improvise with the stimulus. And it would have worked, if not for Republican obstruction.

Please describe this "Republican obstruction." And please explain why the Democrats have not passed a budget in the last three years because Harry Reid won't allow any budget to be debated on the Senate floor? Please explain how the Senate, not allowing House bills out of committee for debate and vote is not obstructionism.

 

[Amazed]

Umemployment has dropped from 10.2% to 7.8%
The stock market has doubled since the stimulus.
5 million private sector jobs have been created since 2009.
GDP has been growing since 2009.
Americans net worth is up $10 trillion dollars since 2009.
Auto sales are up. Retail sales are up. Home sales are up.
Bin Laden is dead, and GM is alive.
Obama has done a very good job.

...and your boy has dropped from a 5 point lead to 1.4.......thats gotta hurt.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/252248-jackass-welsh-never-mind.html

Ed the liar makes Rush Limbaugh stock go up

And his audience go down. He has fallen from 15+ million to 14.75 in this latest ratings period. So far he has fallen from his self professed high of over 40 million per day to under 15 million per week.

Just remember these two graphics every time your MessiahRushie tells you his audience is growing by leaps and bounds.

No one has to listen to rush because you can tell us what he said, rushes biggest fan.