Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Jobless rate falls to 7.8%


  • Please log in to reply
103 replies to this topic

#46 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,012 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 08 October 2012 - 06:24 AM

And for all of your Liberal idiots who continue to claim the media is even close to unbiased can suck on this little nugget.

They have covered for Obama's crappy policies, subpar results, and outright incompetence his entire election....this is just the frosting on the cake. If he had been a Republican and delivered this shitty performance, they would have crucified him.


Pre-election media on jobs reports, then and now
October 6, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
Yesterday’s jobs report from the BLS had an interesting analogue in history. The month before the 2004 election — also a contest for an incumbent President’s re-election — the jobs report for September turned out to be rather weak. The BLS reported a net increase of only 96,000 jobs, weaker than the previous several months{just like yesterday’s number were lower than most of the previous 12 months}, and as it turned out only a short-term blip in a fairly strong recovery of jobs from a lingering recession. That’s slightly weaker than yesterday’s +114,000, and in September 2004 the jobless rate remained unchanged at 5.4%, but it’s close enough to compare the media coverage of then and now.

Let’s start with the New York Times. How did they lead their coverage in October 2004 of the September jobs report?

Employment growth in the United States slowed last month, falling far short of expectations, the U.S. government reported Friday.
The new jobs report cast doubts on the strength of the U.S. economic expansion and appeared to bolster Senator John Kerry’s case against President George W. Bush’s handling of the economy just hours before the second presidential debate.
The Labor Department reported that the U.S. economy added just 96,000 jobs in September, substantially less than the roughly 150,000 needed to keep pace with the expansion in the labor force and start absorbing the slack in the job market.
How did they report yesterday’s jobs report? Let’s just say they gave it a … different emphasis:
The jobless rate abruptly dropped in September to its lowest level since the month President Obama took office, indicating a steadier recovery than previously thought and delivering another jolt to the presidential campaign.
The improvement lent ballast to Mr. Obama’s case that the economy is on the mend and threatened the central argument of Mitt Romney’s candidacy, that Mr. Obama’s failed stewardship is reason enough to replace him.
Employers added a modest 114,000 jobs last month, the Labor Department reported on Friday, but estimates for what had been disappointing gains in July and August were revised upward to more respectable levels.

In 2004, a jobless rate of 5.4% “cast doubt” on the economy, and suddenly 7.8% is a sign of “a steadier recovery.” In 2012, the NYT never even mentions the need to grow jobs by 150,000 each month to keep up with expansion in the labor force. Not even once.

All right, that’s the New York Times. No one expects them to be unbiased. How about PBS? (Stop laughing, you guys.) Believe it or not, they did marginally better, only because they didn’t get so in the tank in 2004:
Still, the September job-creation total fell far short of Wall Street economists’ forecasts for 148,000 new jobs. September’s net increase of 96,000 payroll jobs was less than August’s rise, which the Labor Department revised downward from 144,000 to 128,000 it reported a month ago. The latest figures show four straight months of weak job growth after three strong months in the spring. It was the final jobs report before the Nov. 2 presidential election with polls indicating that jobs are a central concern of voters.

How about yesterday? It was “a rare banner day.” No, really:
A rare banner day on the jobs front, at least at first glance. The official unemployment rate — U-3 — dropped below 8 percent to 7.8 and even our all-inclusive U-7 is down 0.08 percent — to 16.87 percent. The most impressive numbers are in job creation as reported by the monthly survey of “establishments.” While the 114,000 new jobs added in September is a modest figure, the upward revisions for July and August are substantial: 86,000 more jobs, or a bump of better than 30 percent. It’s a good reminder not to take any given month’s numbers too seriously. But it’s a reminder in the right direction.

Yeah, well … call that the revenge of Big Bird. How about the Washington Post? From Nexis, here’s their report from October 9, 2004:
U.S. job growth slowed last month as manufacturers, airlines and retailers shed workers, the government reported yesterday in its last official snapshot of the labor market before the presidential election.
Employers added 96,000 non-farm obs last month, down from 128,000 in August, as losses in some industries were more than offset by hires in others, such as real estate, construction and temporary help services.
September was the fourth-straight month of gains below the roughly 150,000 a month that many economists estimate are necessary to keep pace with population growth. The unemployment rate held steady at 5.4 percent as hundreds of thousands of people stopped looking for work and therefore were not counted among the jobless, the Labor Department said.

Aaaaand from yesterday:
The nation’s jobless rate dropped to its lowest point in nearly four years in September. And unlike some recent declines, this one happened for the right reason: not because people gave up looking for a job, but because far more people reported having one.
It is a surprising improvement in a job market that had appeared listless in recent months. Although employers added a modest 114,000 jobs in September, the unemployment rate dropped sharply, from 8.1 to 7.8 percent, the government reported Friday.
Unemployment is at its lowest level since President Obama took office in January 2009, offering him a political boost just days after his performance was widely judged as lackluster during a debate against GOP rival Mitt Romney.

Just as the New York Times did in 2004, the context of the necessary +150K each month to keep up with population growth appeared within the first three paragraphs. In 2012, the Post never mentions that context at all.

Up for another round? Here’s the Chicago Tribune in 2004, and this time, we’ll start with the headline, again from Nexis:

JOBS REPORT: September employment growth a disappointment
The nation’s payrolls grew by a less-than-expected 96,000 jobs in September, as joblessness remained at 5.4 percent, the Labor Department said in its last employment report before Election Day. …
Economists said the latest report was disappointing, and that job growth remains anemic for this stage of an economic recovery.
The country should be creating 250,000 jobs or more per month by now, one analyst said.
Disappointment at 96,000 and 5.4%! How about in 2012?
The U.S. unemployment rate dropped to a near four-year low of 7.8 percent in September, a potential boost to President Barack Obama’s re-election bid.
The Labor Department said on Friday the unemployment rate, a key focus in the race for the White House, dropped by 0.3 percentage point to its lowest point since January 2009.
A survey of households from which the jobless rate is derived showed 873,000 job gains last month, the most since June 1983. The drop in unemployment came even as Americans come back into the labor force to resume the hunt for work. The workforce had shrank in the prior two months.
The household survey is volatile. A survey of business establishments showed employers added 114,000 jobs to their payrolls last month, a touch above economists’ expectations for 113,000 jobs. Employment for July and August was revised to show 86,000 more jobs created than previous reported.

And just in case you don’t get the message from the coverage, the Tribune’s editors tell you today that the American economy “has finally broken loose,” and that the overall result is “modestly positive” at +114K and 7.8% while +96K and 5.4% in 2004 was “a disappointment”:
After 43 straight months in the cold grip of an 8-plus percent unemployment rate, America finally broke loose — by a little.

On Friday, the Labor Department reported that the jobless tally dipped in September to 7.8 percent, its lowest level since January 2009. That was down from 8.1 percent in the month-earlier report. …
The volatility in the household numbers contrasts with the more stable, larger survey of employers, which is the basis for the job creation figure of 114,000. The more encouraging part of the report was an upward revision in the number of jobs created in July and August, which suggested that the jobs slump this past summer wasn’t as deep as previous reports suggested. America’s jobs engine is bumping along a little more steadily than economists might have thought. It’s hardly robust, though.
This was a modestly positive report — period.
Ah, the huge difference between +96K/5.4% and +114K/7.8% … or really, between Republican incumbents and Democratic incumbents.

#47 Zod

Zod

    YOUR RULER

  • MFCEO
  • 20,084 posts

Posted 08 October 2012 - 06:30 AM

Spin it any way you want to, the economic policies of Obama are a failure.


SO...


conservative policies put on in greatest economic crisis since great depression = good

Obama policies have improved the economy = bad


talk and spin all you want, those are the two very simple facts.

#48 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,012 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 08 October 2012 - 06:38 AM

SO...


conservative policies put on in greatest economic crisis since great depression = good

Obama policies have improved the economy = bad


talk and spin all you want, those are the two very simple facts.


the economy has NOT improved under Obama.

Statistics from the start of Obama's term until now:

Jobless rate is up....people on gov't assitance is up...median family income is down. This is all DURING Obama's administration.

You are the one who distorts the facts.

Obama was elected because he was a great cheerleader. But, like most cheerleaders, he has been exposed to having little substance.

#49 Zod

Zod

    YOUR RULER

  • MFCEO
  • 20,084 posts

Posted 08 October 2012 - 06:41 AM

the economy has NOT improved under Obama.



Would you rather be in October 2012 or October 2007?

Chance of an honest answer... 0%

#50 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,758 posts

Posted 08 October 2012 - 07:53 PM

I'm amazed that all those GOP Tea Party jobs bills haven't helped employment skyrocket.

You know, the actual laws that the President has to sign because he can't just make up crap like you apparently think he can?

For what small good it would have done, the fact that Hatter has to face is that it takes Congress and the President to pass laws. Congress only had one plan and that was to not do anything that made Obama look good. You know the quote. You know the facts. You probably agree with them.

Posted Image
Posted Image

#51 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,224 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 08 October 2012 - 08:42 PM

glass stegall is the epicenter of everything bad but its always those cons that got us here.

#52 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,328 posts

Posted 08 October 2012 - 09:30 PM

I'm amazed that all those GOP Tea Party jobs bills haven't helped employment skyrocket.

You know, the actual laws that the President has to sign because he can't just make up crap like you apparently think he can?

For what small good it would have done, the fact that Hatter has to face is that it takes Congress and the President to pass laws. Congress only had one plan and that was to not do anything that made Obama look good. You know the quote. You know the facts. You probably agree with them.

Posted Image
Posted Image


Exactly what jobs bills put forth by the HoR have been passed by the Senate?

#53 FurdTurgason

FurdTurgason

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 954 posts

Posted 08 October 2012 - 09:46 PM

You know, the actual laws that the President has to sign because he can't just make up crap like you apparently think he can?



And yet you blamed Bush and anyone who ever voted with him on the right for the collapse at the end of his term, when the Congress was strongly in control of the Democrats. You know, Pelosi and Reed? Ring a bell? As Ronald Reagan once said, Democrats do NOT spend like drunken sailors, simply because drunken sailors use their own money.

#54 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,328 posts

Posted 08 October 2012 - 09:58 PM

SO...

conservative policies put on in greatest economic crisis since great depression = good

Obama policies have improved the economy = bad


talk and spin all you want, those are the two very simple facts.


I seem to remember stump speeches talking about bailing out Main Street instead of Wall Street, "shovel ready" jobs to build up America's infrastructure, etc.

As for conservative policies putting us in this economic crisis, this has become the greatest fallacy put forth by anyone over the past decade. 5 major factors have put us where we are today:

1) Housing bubble "caused by irresponsible bank lending" was the result of the housing initiative mandated by government put forth by a republican controlled congress and signed off gladly by a democrat president while lauded by his party as a bi-partisan landmark. Banks were then either forcibly put to dole out risky mortgages at the compulsion of their shareholders to "get in the game" of federally insured loans or outright threatened with losing their FDIC accreditation for not complying. We still continue to re-inflate that bubble with more unilateral executive order today with the umpteenth mortgage re-finance mandates. So people will be baffled ONCE AGAIN when that bubble bursts.

2) Tech bubble bursts. This was well underway before the next factor

3) 9/11 terrorist attacks had an immediate and lasting impact on our economy

4) Two subsequent warfronts put on a national credit followed by unprecedented federal governmental growth under a democrat controlled congress and signed off gladly by a republican president while lauded by his party as a bi-partisan landmark.

5) Collapse of European markets due to unsustainable entitlements under modern socialist regimes.

Essentially, the Kensyian model of paying off current expenses with a plan of controlled fiat currency and futures credit has failed in spectacular fashion. That INCLUDES the Fed in its current incarnation and ALL of the stimulus packages put forth by both Bush and Obama.

The difference between the last administration and this one is the scope and scale of said stimulus packages and the subsequent squandering of those resources. As a result, we are effectively mortgaging our kids' futures to maintain a "current standard of living" instead of doing the responsible thing and living within our means and fix the fuggin problem.

Do I agree with all of Romney's plans for our nation? Hell no. There's a ton of things that I would change were I given the chance. However, given a choice between a turd sandwich and a giant douche, the least messy alternative is pretty clear for myself. It sucks that if I am to save my kid's future I will have to suck it up and downsize my life for the foreseeable future, but it is not a hard decision to make. The hard part is getting the western world out of their collective arrested development and live fiscally responsible.

#55 King

King

    A Cell of Awareness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,761 posts

Posted 09 October 2012 - 05:25 AM

I seem to remember stump speeches talking about bailing out Main Street instead of Wall Street, "shovel ready" jobs to build up America's infrastructure, etc.

As for conservative policies putting us in this economic crisis, this has become the greatest fallacy put forth by anyone over the past decade. 5 major factors have put us where we are today:

1) Housing bubble "caused by irresponsible bank lending" was the result of the housing initiative mandated by government put forth by a republican controlled congress and signed off gladly by a democrat president while lauded by his party as a bi-partisan landmark. Banks were then either forcibly put to dole out risky mortgages at the compulsion of their shareholders to "get in the game" of federally insured loans or outright threatened with losing their FDIC accreditation for not complying. We still continue to re-inflate that bubble with more unilateral executive order today with the umpteenth mortgage re-finance mandates. So people will be baffled ONCE AGAIN when that bubble bursts.

2) Tech bubble bursts. This was well underway before the next factor

3) 9/11 terrorist attacks had an immediate and lasting impact on our economy

4) Two subsequent warfronts put on a national credit followed by unprecedented federal governmental growth under a democrat controlled congress and signed off gladly by a republican president while lauded by his party as a bi-partisan landmark.

5) Collapse of European markets due to unsustainable entitlements under modern socialist regimes.

Essentially, the Kensyian model of paying off current expenses with a plan of controlled fiat currency and futures credit has failed in spectacular fashion. That INCLUDES the Fed in its current incarnation and ALL of the stimulus packages put forth by both Bush and Obama.

The difference between the last administration and this one is the scope and scale of said stimulus packages and the subsequent squandering of those resources. As a result, we are effectively mortgaging our kids' futures to maintain a "current standard of living" instead of doing the responsible thing and living within our means and fix the fuggin problem.

Do I agree with all of Romney's plans for our nation? Hell no. There's a ton of things that I would change were I given the chance. However, given a choice between a turd sandwich and a giant douche, the least messy alternative is pretty clear for myself. It sucks that if I am to save my kid's future I will have to suck it up and downsize my life for the foreseeable future, but it is not a hard decision to make. The hard part is getting the western world out of their collective arrested development and live fiscally responsible.


Everything here is true, particularly the bit about the Fed. Though I'd still vote for Obama over Romney if I voted. And if Gary Johnson didn't exist.

#56 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,012 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 09 October 2012 - 05:53 AM

Would you rather be in October 2012 or October 2007?

Chance of an honest answer... 0%


Please remove Obama's ******* from your mouth long enough to explain this.....

The Dems used ONE study to attack Romney's Tax Plan, even though there are 9 out there that completely contradict it. Now, the author of the ONE study they used has come out publically and said that the Democrats and Obama have absolutely misquoted him and has ZERO idea how they could have even come to their ridiculous conclusions.

In short, they fabricated the conclusion and flat made poo up for their political ad. Works for them, because the core base of the Democrat Party has the intelligence and intellectual capacity of a 6th grader.


October 8, 2012 by John Hinderaker
Princeton Professor: Obama Is Misquoting Me on Romney’s tax plan
The Democrats are trying to rebound from last week’s disastrous Colorado debate by portraying Mitt Romney as a liar.
Obama’s favorite attack on Romney is his claim that Romney’s tax plan involves a $5 trillion tax cut. As Romney pointed out during the debate, this simply ignores the fact that Romney advocates closing loopholes and limiting deductions along with reducing marginal rates. The Democrats can’t deny that, so they say that the numbers don’t add up, and there will be a large tax cut, albeit not $5 trillion. In support of that claim, they have cited an analysis by Princeton economist Harvey Rosen. They have a big problem, however: Professor Rosen says he has no idea what they are talking about:
Last night, the Obama campaign blasted out another email claiming that Mitt Romney’s tax plan would either require raising taxes on the middle class or blowing a hole in the deficit. “Even the studies that Romney has cited to claim his plan adds up still show he would need to raise middle-class taxes,” said the Obama campaign press release. “In fact, Harvard economist Martin Feldstein and Princeton economist Harvey Rosen both concede that paying for Romney’s tax cuts would require large tax increases on families making between $100,000 and $200,000.”
But that’s not true. Princeton professor Harvey Rosen tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD in an email that the Obama campaign is misrepresenting his paper on Romney’s tax plan:
I can’t tell exactly how the Obama campaign reached that characterization of my work. It might be that they assume that Governor Romney wants to keep the taxes from the Affordable Care Act in place, despite the fact that the Governor has called for its complete repeal. The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same. That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral.

#57 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,177 posts

Posted 09 October 2012 - 09:36 AM

http://www.orlandose...0,1505128.story

Obamacare working like a charm. Folks will lose their health coverage and be put on part time and only choice will be government insurance. The choice will be taken away by the policies instituted.

We will be a state run society if we keep heading this way. Gov tell you what to eat, what to drink, start checking your blood tests to make sure you are abiding by their rules or you lose your benefits. No more sugary drinks, alcohol, red meat. Tailgate parties will be a blast in a few years.

#58 beach

beach

    |~~-~-~|

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,689 posts

Posted 09 October 2012 - 09:46 AM

We will be a state run society if we keep heading this way. Gov tell you what to eat, what to drink, start checking your blood tests to make sure you are abiding by their rules or you lose your benefits. No more sugary drinks, alcohol, red meat. Tailgate parties will be a blast in a few years.


We already are told what to eat. It's just all an illusion of choice in the end

They just shove whatever crap they want and people eat it up on both side (pun intended)

They won't take away red meat...they will create synthetic forms...just like the rise of aspartame

And there will always be alcohol. A ban against alcohol would probably be the one thing that would without a doubt cause an American uprising...that's just not happening.

#59 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,177 posts

Posted 09 October 2012 - 09:48 AM

We already are told what to eat. It's just all an illusion of choice in the end

They just shove whatever crap they want and people eat it up on both side (pun intended)

They won't take away red meat...they will create synthetic forms...just like the rise of aspartame

And there will always be alcohol. A ban against alcohol would probably be the one thing that would without a doubt cause an American uprising...that's just not happening.


Once they control medicine, doctors, hospitals, the cost of your insurance, etc. They can tell you to do whatever they want. Or, you suffer whatever consequences they deem effective

#60 beach

beach

    |~~-~-~|

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,689 posts

Posted 09 October 2012 - 09:50 AM

Once they control medicine, doctors, hospitals, the cost of your insurance, etc. They can tell you to do whatever they want. Or, you suffer whatever consequences they deem effective


You missed my point. Its a subtle transition...realize this is all true as it exists right now


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.