PDA

View Full Version : Economics Obama's October surprise !!!!


Chiefshrink
10-05-2012, 09:17 AM
7.8% unemployment rate:rolleyes:

No wonder he doesn't have to do well in these debates;)

Chiefshrink
10-05-2012, 09:23 AM
Hey what does OMarxist's birth certificate and the unemployment rate have in common ????? :shrug: :LOL:

mikey23545
10-05-2012, 10:22 AM
Unbelievable.

Economists had predicted the number of jobs that would be added in September almost exactly - and it was not even enough to keep up with population increase. They also predicted that such a low figure would cause unemployment to rise to 8.2%.

Incredibly, the figure fell 0.3%, MEANING ALL THESE EXPERTS WERE WRONG BY 0.4%...

Has the prediction for a single month ever been wrong by that much, especially when they were so close to the exact figure for jobs added?

This has crossed over from being incredulous to frightening. This government controls much of the information being released to us, and their fawning puppets in the mainstream media are more than eager to play along.

HonestChieffan
10-05-2012, 10:23 AM
Cooked
Books

LiveSteam
10-05-2012, 10:24 AM
Cooked
Books

Never Not king Obama LMAO

King_Chief_Fan
10-05-2012, 10:28 AM
Cooked
Books

The employment data was too much for some people to take in. Former General Electric CEO Jack Welch tweeted: "Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers." I'm not sure that kind of carefully considered opinion will burnish his reputation as a business leader

redsurfer11
10-05-2012, 10:28 AM
Over 1.5 Million new unemployment claims last month. 113,000 new jobs added to private sector last month. 7.8% unemployment. As Obuma would say "It's Arithmetic"

TEX
10-05-2012, 10:30 AM
Less jobs added this month than last and more folks file for unemployment, yet unemployment goes down??? - Right! - LMAO

Why don't they ADD those poor folks who have QUIT searching for work and see what that does to the numbers. If added - you're looking at double digit unemployment figures. I HOPE Obama brings these numbers up at the next debate. Romney will set him straight - AGAIN.

ChiTown
10-05-2012, 10:38 AM
I'm sure there is a logical explanation as to how 114,000 New jobs can equal a decrease of 0.3% in unemployment. I'd just like to see the math.

ChiefsandO'sfan
10-05-2012, 10:47 AM
seasonal hiring

mikey23545
10-05-2012, 10:51 AM
The employment data was too much for some people to take in. Former General Electric CEO Jack Welch tweeted: "Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers." I'm not sure that kind of carefully considered opinion will burnish his reputation as a business leader

.

BigRedChief
10-05-2012, 10:53 AM
First you didn't like the poll numbers so you just said all them are biased then next it's they're not real unemployment numbers, you say these are cooked books. get out of the bubble

qabbaan
10-05-2012, 10:55 AM
I'm sure there is a logical explanation as to how 114,000 New jobs can equal a decrease of 0.3% in unemployment. I'd just like to see the math.

Many more people leaving the work force or going on disability.

This is oh so convenient because when these numbers are revised later, the election will be over.

LiveSteam
10-05-2012, 10:56 AM
Many more people leaving the work force or going on disability.

This is oh so convenient because when these numbers are revised later, the election will be over.

The King can cook all the books he wants. It still wont be enough to get him reelected

ChiTown
10-05-2012, 10:57 AM
.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/05/news/economy/welch-unemployment-rate/

Jack Welch: Unemployment rate cooked
By Chris Isidore @CNNMoney October 5, 2012: 11:33 AM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The big drop in the unemployment rate a month before the presidential election brought cries of disbelief and conspiracy theories from Jack Welch and other critics of the Obama administration Friday. But the Labor Department was quick to dismiss such claims.
"Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers," tweeted Welch, the former CEO of General Electric (GE, Fortune 500).

The unemployment rate fell to 7.8% in September, down from 8.1% a month earlier. The drop was due to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' survey of households showing that 873,000 more people had jobs than in the previous month. That was the biggest one-month gain in more than nine years.
Welch wasn't alone in raising questions about the jobs numbers. Americans for Limited Government, a conservative group that has been a steady critic of the Obama administration, issued a statement that said the numbers the Bureau of Labor Statistics "used to calculate the unemployment rate are wrong, or worse manipulated. Given that these numbers conveniently meet Obama's campaign promises one month before the election, the conclusions are obvious...Anyone who takes this unemployment report serious is either naive or a paid Obama campaign adviser."

Conn Carroll, a senior writer at the conservative Washington Examiner suggested a slightly less nefarious form of manipulation of the data.
"I don't think BLS cooked numbers. I think a bunch of Dems lied about getting jobs. That would have same effect," he tweeted. "Would love to see the partisan breakdown of the 873,000 Americans who say they got new jobs."

BLS denied there was any manipulation of the data or anything out of the ordinary about the unemployment rate calculation.

"No political appointee is involved in the collecting, processing and analyzing of the data," said Thomas Nardone, the associate commissioner for employment and unemployment statistics. He said the Council of Economic Advisers doesn't get the numbers until Thursday afternoon, and that the Secretary of Labor herself doesn't see them until Friday morning.
Related: GE's Immelt - U.S. starved for investment
Even some conservative economists defended the BLS's integrity and legitimacy of the numbers.

"The jobs #'s may look fishy to some, but if you step back, it's just a plow horse economy lumbering along," tweeted Brian Wesbury, chief economist at First Trust.

TEX
10-05-2012, 11:01 AM
Many more people leaving the work force or going on disability.

This is oh so convenient because when these numbers are revised later, the election will be over.

This is exactly the case. Or they quit trying all together. Add them back into the equation and we're at double digit unemployment. The stupid part of the public, whose vote happens to count just as much as everyone else's, don't understand this. That's why I PRAY Obama brings it up at the next debate. Romney will POUNCE!

whoman69
10-05-2012, 11:09 AM
Monthly estimates of job growth are just that. Past month's figures need to be updated to show actual numbers. The past month's estimates were low so this month's numbers were adjusted. Simple.

FD
10-05-2012, 11:17 AM
I know that this is the middle of a heated election season, and that people's politics will trump reason most of the time, but I just want to say that as a neutral party here, and someone who knows economists at BLS, Labor Dept, and BEA, that the idea that politicians can influence the data is utter nonsense. The methods of collecting and analyzing these data are public and transparent, and the economists working on them guard their independence extremely jealously.

You can argue that the economy still sucks if you want, but please avoid baseless conspiracy theorizing.

Cave Johnson
10-05-2012, 11:25 AM
Over 1.5 Million new unemployment claims last month. 113,000 new jobs added to private sector last month. 7.8% unemployment. As Obuma would say "It's Arithmetic"

a) The unemployment rate and jobs numbers come from 2 different sources and can be somewhat contradictory.

b) July and August jobs were revised upward by about 90K.

Pitt Gorilla
10-05-2012, 11:26 AM
I know that this is the middle of a heated election season, and that people's politics will trump reason most of the time, but I just want to say that as a neutral party here, and someone who knows economists at BLS, Labor Dept, and BEA, that the idea that politicians can influence the data is utter nonsense. The methods of collecting and analyzing these data are public and transparent, and the economists working on them guard their independence extremely jealously.

You can argue that the economy still sucks if you want, but please avoid baseless conspiracy theorizing.Uh, you do realize who you're talking to, don't you? If the data doesn't support their point of view, the numbers are wrong.

ROYC75
10-05-2012, 11:34 AM
First you didn't like the poll numbers so you just said all them are biased then next it's they're not real unemployment numbers, you say these are cooked books. get out of the bubble

Me thinks it's the bubbles that got us here and the bubbly bubbles with the liberals / aka mostly the democratic party.

mikey23545
10-05-2012, 11:37 AM
Yeah, there's nothing weird about the numbers moving by more than they have in months (maybe years), Hussein's way, and in the last month that will have any influence on the election.

Nothing to see here, nothing at all...

TEX
10-05-2012, 11:43 AM
Yeah, there's nothing weird about the numbers moving by more than they have in months (maybe years), Hussein's way, and in the last month that will have any influence on the election.

Nothing to see here, nothing at all...

Exactly - Since the day Obama took office, some 40+ months ago, the numbers have been above 8% and NOW they dip below 8% one month before the election. Let me guess - his policies are finally working - right? LMAO

As I said, factor back into the equation all those who are now on dissability and who have taken themselves out of the job market because they can't find work, and the unemployment rate will be double digits. Easily.

Cave Johnson
10-05-2012, 11:45 AM
Exactly - Since the day Obama took office, some 40+ months ago, the numbers have been above 8% and NOW they dip below 8% one month before the election. Let me guess - his policies are finally working - right? LMAO

As I said, factor back into the equation all those who are now on dissability and who have taken themselves out of the job market because they can't find work, and the unemployment rate will be double digits. Easily.

U6 has always been higher than U3. I love how it's now some sort of revelatory indictment.

LOCOChief
10-05-2012, 11:45 AM
I love it! Let them try to tell everyone how great things are. Just like the debate more and more Obama admin BS is going to make things so clear even the some of the retarded libs will migrate towards the light.

mikey23545
10-05-2012, 11:59 AM
Hopefully they overplayed their hand by skewing the numbers so much...they may have rendered them unbelievable to everyone but the most wild-eyed liberal robots...

ROYC75
10-05-2012, 12:04 PM
That's OK, Biden is on deck, this should be interesting when they ask Joe about the Clinton doctrine of sexual intercourse?

HonestChieffan
10-05-2012, 12:29 PM
From NPR....


Unemployment Rate Drops To 7.8 Percent; 114,000 Jobs Added To Payrolls
by Mark Memmott
NPR - October 5, 2012

The nation's unemployment rate fell to 7.8 percent in September from 8.1 percent in August even though just 114,000 jobs were added to private and public payrolls, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports.

Those hard-to-reconcile figures — a decline in the jobless rate even though job growth was relatively weak — appear to be at least partly explained by a sharp increase in the number of Americans who found part-time jobs and counted themselves as employed.

The decline in the jobless rate means that for the first time since President Obama took the oath of office in January 2009, unemployment is officially below 8 percent. With jobs and the economy atop the list of issues voters care most about, the report is sure to be a hot topic on the campaign trail.

We'll have more from the report, as well as reactions to it, shortly. As we said Thursday, this news is sure to be a hot topic on the campaign trail.

Update at 11:25 a.m. ET. Obama Hails News:

At a campaign event in Fairfax, Va., President Obama just said that today's report is a "reminder that this country has come too far to turn back now."

Though there are "still too many of our friends and neighbors" looking for work, Obama said, "we are moving forward again." Businesses, he said, "have now added 5.2 million new jobs over the past 2 1/2 years ... [and] the unemployment rate has fallen to its lowest level since I took office."

Update at 10:25 a.m. ET. Labor Secretary Says Talk Of "October Surprise" Is "Ludicrous."

We've added this post: Labor Secretary Says Talk Of Fudged Jobless Numbers Is Insulting.

Update at 9:48 a.m. ET. White House Says News Is "Further Evidence" That Economy Is On The Mend:

"While there is more work that remains to be done, today's employment report provides further evidence that the U.S. economy is continuing to heal from the wounds inflicted by the worst downturn since the Great Depression," White House top economic adviser Alan Krueger writes.

Update at 9:45 a.m. ET. Broader Unemployment Rate Stayed At 14.7 Percent:

The Wall Street Journal walks through how the "U-6" unemployment rate remained unchanged last month at 14.7 percent. That rate, as the Journal says:

"Includes everyone in the official rate plus 'marginally attached workers' — those who are neither working nor looking for work, but say they want a job and have looked for work recently; and people who are employed part-time for economic reasons, meaning they want full-time work but took a part-time schedule instead because that's all they could find."

Update at 9:30 a.m. ET. Romney Says This Isn't A "Real Recovery."

This statement from Republican presidential nominee was just released by his campaign:

"This is not what a real recovery looks like. We created fewer jobs in September than in August, and fewer jobs in August than in July, and we've lost over 600,000 manufacturing jobs since President Obama took office. If not for all the people who have simply dropped out of the labor force, the real unemployment rate would be closer to 11%.

"The results of President Obama's failed policies are staggering — 23 million Americans struggling for work, nearly one in six living in poverty and 47 million people dependent on food stamps to feed themselves and their families. The choice in this election is clear. Under President Obama, we'll get another four years like the last four years. If I'm elected, we will have a real recovery with pro-growth policies that will create 12 million new jobs and rising incomes for everyone."

Update at 9:15 a.m. ET. More On The Two Surveys:

As we just explained, the unemployment rate is based on a "household survey," while the figure on job growth comes from a survey of employers. The Financial Times notes that:

"The sampling error on the business establishment survey is plus or minus 100,000 jobs. The sampling error on the household survey is plus or minus 280,000 jobs."

Update at 8:55 a.m. ET. Two Surveys, Two Different Indicators:

The unemployment rate reported by BLS is based on surveys it does of households. Basically, researchers ask a series of questions to determine who is and isn't working, what types of jobs they have, whether they're actively looking for work, etc.

That survey produced an eye-popping number: an estimated 873,000 more people reported being "employed" in September than in August. Reuters says that was the biggest one-month jump in that indicator since June 1983.

The figure on payroll employment — in this case, a gain of 114,000 jobs — is based on a survey of public and private employers.

How could 873,000 more people be working if only 114,000 jobs were added to payrolls? One reason: 582,000 more people said they took part-time work "for economic reasons" last month.

Our colleagues at Planet Money have previously reported about how BLS puts its numbers together and the steps it takes to keep them secret. Today, it adds a post on "5 Ways Of Looking At Unemployment."

Update at 8:40 a.m. ET. How Did The Jobless Rate Fall If Job Growth Was Slow?

An increase of 114,000 jobs in an economy with a labor force of more than 155 million people wouldn't alone account for a sharp drop in the jobless rate. So why did the rate decline three tenths of a point?

The Associated Press notes that: "The economy also created 86,000 more jobs in July and August than first estimated. ... The revisions show employers added 146,000 jobs per month from July through September, up from 67,000 in the previous three months."

The BLS report also says there were 456,000 fewer people counted as being among the unemployed last month.

Update at 8:35 a.m. ET. First Time Below 8 Percent Since January 2009:

At 7.8 percent, the jobless rate is back where it was in January 2009 and is below 8 percent for the first time since President Obama was sworn in that month. [Copyright 2012 National Public Radio]


http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/10/05/162352854/unemployment-rate-drops-to-7-8-percent-114-000-jobs-added-to-payrolls?sc=ipad&f=1001

alnorth
10-05-2012, 12:31 PM
I'm sure there is a logical explanation as to how 114,000 New jobs can equal a decrease of 0.3% in unemployment. I'd just like to see the math.

It wasn't September alone that did it (nor the right's favorite explanation: discouraged workers), they had an enormous adjustment for July and August.

KC native
10-05-2012, 12:32 PM
The employment data was too much for some people to take in. Former General Electric CEO Jack Welch tweeted: "Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers." I'm not sure that kind of carefully considered opinion will burnish his reputation as a business leader

ROFL I was waiting for someone to quote this. The BLS doesn't cook the books. Jack Welch on the other hand did.

KC native
10-05-2012, 12:33 PM
I'm sure there is a logical explanation as to how 114,000 New jobs can equal a decrease of 0.3% in unemployment. I'd just like to see the math.

http://bls.gov

It's all there.

KC native
10-05-2012, 12:36 PM
I know that this is the middle of a heated election season, and that people's politics will trump reason most of the time, but I just want to say that as a neutral party here, and someone who knows economists at BLS, Labor Dept, and BEA, that the idea that politicians can influence the data is utter nonsense. The methods of collecting and analyzing these data are public and transparent, and the economists working on them guard their independence extremely jealously.

You can argue that the economy still sucks if you want, but please avoid baseless conspiracy theorizing.

Reality is not allowed in the RWNJ bubble.

King_Chief_Fan
10-05-2012, 12:36 PM
ROFL I was waiting for someone to quote this. The BLS doesn't cook the books. Jack Welch on the other hand did.

well if anyone who knows it when he sees it...let him speak up

KC native
10-05-2012, 12:41 PM
well if anyone who knows it when he sees it...let him speak up

ROFL Jack Welch manipulated GE's numbers for years using GE Financial as his little financial black box. I could see how a dumbass might think that was similar.

King_Chief_Fan
10-05-2012, 12:47 PM
ROFL Jack Welch manipulated GE's numbers for years using GE Financial as his little financial black box. I could see how a dumbass might think that was similar.

I know a dumb ass when I see one....LMAO

stonedstooge
10-05-2012, 12:49 PM
Liberals lying about working. Imagine that

King_Chief_Fan
10-05-2012, 12:50 PM
Liberals lying about working. Imagine that

standing in those hand me out lines is a little bit of work I guess

TEX
10-05-2012, 12:50 PM
Hopefully they overplayed their hand by skewing the numbers so much...they may have rendered them unbelievable to everyone but the most wild-eyed liberal robots...

I'd say your hypothesis holds true here. Idiots. LMAO

alpha_omega
10-05-2012, 12:51 PM
Yayyyy!!! Obama is teh awesome!

TEX
10-05-2012, 12:53 PM
I love it! Let them try to tell everyone how great things are. Just like the debate more and more Obama admin BS is going to make things so clear even the some of the retarded libs will migrate towards the light.

Yep. The truth will come out - and when it does - Obama is going to look worse than he did the other night.

HonestChieffan
10-05-2012, 01:06 PM
If your wife substitute taught for a day she got counted in the new figures. awesome.

tk13
10-05-2012, 01:12 PM
The fact that there's so much hate between the two sides over things like this makes me depressed. It's actually probably the biggest sign this country may be in trouble. If anything positive that makes either side look good, the opposite party just gets in a frothy rabid rage and accuses the other side of lying. In this case, making some pretty serious conspiracy theory accusations, and frankly acting a bit crazy. It's amazing really. If Obama or Romney actually did fix the economy, half the country would never give the guy credit for it. People have basically become slaves to their political party.

mikey23545
10-05-2012, 01:20 PM
The fact that there's so much hate between the two sides over things like this makes me depressed. It's actually probably the biggest sign this country may be in trouble. If anything positive that makes either side look good, the opposite party just gets in a frothy rabid rage and accuses the other side of lying. In this case, making some pretty serious conspiracy theory accusations, and frankly acting a bit crazy. It's amazing really. If Obama or Romney actually did fix the economy, half the country would never give the guy credit for it. People have basically become slaves to their political party.

Take another Xanax and get back to your well-deserved slumber...

cosmo20002
10-05-2012, 01:26 PM
The fact that there's so much hate between the two sides over things like this makes me depressed. It's actually probably the biggest sign this country may be in trouble. If anything positive that makes either side look good, the opposite party just gets in a frothy rabid rage and accuses the other side of lying. In this case, making some pretty serious conspiracy theory accusations, and frankly acting a bit crazy. It's amazing really. If Obama or Romney actually did fix the economy, half the country would never give the guy credit for it. People have basically become slaves to their political party.

There is not "so much hate between the two sides over things like this."
Call it what it is--unhinged lunacy by the right.

A report was released--a report released every month--that contains jobs stats and an unemployment rate based on a specific formula. This formula--followed for years--accounts for the most recent job info and makes corrections to data on prior recent reports.

IT IS THE SAME PROCEDURE EVERY TIME. But the right doesn't like this month's report, so they come up with reasons it doesn't count. It is one side acting idiotic here.

Bump
10-05-2012, 01:28 PM
if Obama wants to seal the deal, he just needs to explain why MJ needs to be legal on a federal level. But that won't happen, too many idiots in this country who drink booze and think MJ is bad, lol.

tk13
10-05-2012, 01:29 PM
Take another Xanax and get back to your well-deserved slumber...

I'm not a mentally ill person suggesting the Department of Labor is cooking the books. I mean that seriously, this is pretty much the equivalent of saying the government caused the Joplin tornado.

ChiTown
10-05-2012, 01:30 PM
There is not "so much hate between the two sides over things like this."
Call it what it is--unhinged lunacy by the right.

A report was released--a report released every month--that contains jobs stats and an unemployment rate based on a specific formula. This formula--followed for years--accounts for the most recent job info and makes corrections to data on prior recent reports.

IT IS THE SAME PROCEDURE EVERY TIME. But the right doesn't like this month's report, so they come up with reasons it doesn't count. It is one side acting idiotic here.

LOL. This, coming from the Liberal Lap Dog:LOL:

Fish
10-05-2012, 01:30 PM
The fact that there's so much hate between the two sides over things like this makes me depressed. It's actually probably the biggest sign this country may be in trouble. If anything positive that makes either side look good, the opposite party just gets in a frothy rabid rage and accuses the other side of lying. In this case, making some pretty serious conspiracy theory accusations, and frankly acting a bit crazy. It's amazing really. If Obama or Romney actually did fix the economy, half the country would never give the guy credit for it. People have basically become slaves to their political party.

This. The election season really brings out the worst in people. It's sad that the overwhelming majority would rather fight the other party than attempt any progress together. Many would rather see one side fail, than see both sides progress. We have two awful candidates to choose from, and both have shown more commitment to lobbyists and their own images than the actual American people. But the people don't care, because they'd rather point fingers and make accusations, than to admit that we're being screwed by both parties. But deep down, I think that's just how both parties prefer it. More blame on the opposite party, and less blame on the system as a whole.

cosmo20002
10-05-2012, 01:31 PM
I'm not a mentally ill person suggesting the Department of Labor is cooking the books. I mean that seriously, this is pretty much the equivalent of saying the government caused the Joplin tornado.

What's your point? Anyway, the government didn't cause it. God did. Because of gay marriage.

cosmo20002
10-05-2012, 01:35 PM
LOL. This, coming from the Liberal Lap Dog:LOL:

Liberal/conservative has nothing to do with it. People who accept reports (and polling data) such as this when they like them, and reject them when they don't, are morons.

Stewie
10-05-2012, 01:35 PM
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The big drop in the unemployment rate a month before the presidential election brought cries of disbelief and conspiracy theories from Jack Welch and other critics of the Obama administration Friday. But the Labor Department was quick to dismiss such claims.
"Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers," tweeted Welch, the former CEO of General Electric (GE, Fortune 500).

The unemployment rate fell to 7.8% in September, down from 8.1% a month earlier. The drop was due to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' survey of households showing that 873,000 more people had jobs than in the previous month. That was the biggest one-month gain in more than nine years.

Since when is this an "official" metric? Oh, it added nearly one million jobs. The dumbasses gobble this BS up instead of looking at total employment.

The markets don't believe this BS either.

cosmo20002
10-05-2012, 01:42 PM
Since when is this an "official" metric? Oh, it added nearly one million jobs. The dumbasses gobble this BS up instead of looking at total employment.



1940

cosmo20002
10-05-2012, 01:44 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/05/september-jobs-report-where-do-these-numbers-come-from/?wprss=rss_business


September jobs report: Where do these numbers come from?
Posted by Dylan Matthews on October 5, 2012 at 12:40 pm

The September jobs report is already spurring a number of conspiracy theories, alleging that the numbers have been tampered with for political gain. Ezra has dispatched with those quite nicely. But it raises a broader question. How does the Bureau of Labor Statistics derive these numbers? How accurate is that process? And how susceptible is it to tampering?

The jobs report actually compiles the results of two different surveys: the Current Population Survey (CPS), which is commonly dubbed the “household survey,” and Current Economic Statistics (CES), or the “employer survey.” The household survey produces the unemployment rate, and the employer survey produces the “nonfarm payrolls” number, which is the most common measure of jobs gained.

Household survey

The CPS is a monthly survey of households that asks which people in the household have worked (or were temporarily absent) in the past week; which have actively looked for work in the past month but did not work; and which neither looked for work nor worked. It’s jointly run by BLS and the Census Bureau and has been conducted since 1940.

The number of people who either worked or looked for work is defined as the “labor force”. The CPS calculates both the “labor force participation rate” — which is the fraction of people over 16 and not in prison who are in the labor force — and the “unemployment rate”, which is the percentage of the labor force not working.

It also calculates a number of “alternative” unemployment measures by asking if members of the household have concluded that no work is available (the “U-4″ measure), have given up looking for work but would still like a job (the “U-5″ measure), or are working part-time but would like to be working full-time (the “U-6″ measure). These tend to be higher than the regular unemployment rate. This month, U-6 was unchanged because a lot of the job gains came in part-time work, but all the others went down.

BLS also asks if members of the household lost their jobs in the month in question, and if they’ve been unemployed more than 15 weeks. Both of these measures went down last month, which is another sign that the labor market is recovering.

The CPS sample includes about 66,000 households. Every month, 25 percent of the sample is changed, so that the sample is not just studying the same group of people. The response rate is very high – usually more than 90 percent. By contrast, opinion polls have a response rate of around 9 percent, and contain samples a fraction of that size.

But even still, there is a lot of room for error. This is most apparent when the BLS releases “revisions” to the data, which showed the initial numbers to be off by almost 400,000 last year. The BLS estimates that the standard error for the unemployment rate is 0.1 points. That means that the margin of error, like that you’d use for polls, is about 0.196 points:


It’s higher for changes in the unemployment rate – the standard error is 0.12, so the margin of error is around 0.2352. But the drop in unemployment last month was 0.3 points – so outside the margin of error, and statistically significant. As former Labor Department economist Betsy Stevenson explains, that’s a clear improvement.

Employer survey

What about the CES? That surveys 141,000 employers, both private and public, at 486,000 worksites and asks for the number of employees, hours worked, and earnings. “Employees” includes both part-time and full-time labor, and is a snapshot taken at the twelfth of the month. “Employment is the total number of persons on establishment payrolls employed full-or part-time who received pay for any part of the pay period that includes the 12th day of the month,” BLS explains. It excludes the self-employed, volunteers, farm workers, and domestic workers. But it includes workers who are on strike, and those working for two different businesses are double-counted.

The standard error for CES is enormous - 55,254 for monthly change. That means the margin of error (at a 95 percent confidence level) is 108,293 – nearly the total number of jobs gained last month. So this month’s job gain was statistically different from zero, but many past ones were not:


What’s this about the seasons?

Both the CPS and the CES use a process called “seasonal adjustment.” They figure that employment usually follows certain seasonal patterns. Construction workers don’t work in the winter, high school and college graduates get hired in the spring, teachers get laid off for the summer, etc. They then adjust the number of employed and unemployed people by what you’d expect to change due to seasonal factors.

As Brad has noted, there’s some evidence that the adjustment formula has gone awry, as there is a wide divergence in the summer and winter jobs numbers, with the latter usually stronger, as you can see in the above figure.

How secure is it?

As my colleague Eli Saslow notes, the BLS process is highly confidential. Economists are put on an eight-day security lockdown in advance of the report, signing confidentiality agreements every morning. The computers they use feature heavy encryption, and data is placed in a safe even for bathroom breaks. The Wednesday before the release, the CPS data comes in, followed by the CES data a few days after.

On the day before the release, three copies of the report and a CD-ROM are placed in a safe and taken to downtown Washington from the secure location where they were prepared, and presented to the few White House officials who have permission for a sneak peek at the numbers. Journalists are given access to the information 30 minutes before release but have to connect to a secure network that prevents them from sending out the data ahead of its official release.

As nonpartisan as government gets

The BLS is a highly nonpartisan operation, existing since 1884 and headed by Jack Galvin, a career employee who ran the employment and unemployment statistics division from 1998 to 2011, and has held a variety of positions there since 1978. Prior to him, Keith Hall headed the agency from 2008 to 2012, following career positions at the Council of Economic Advisors and the International Trade Commission. It’s normal for BLS commissioners to span administrations and parties. Janet Norwood headed the agency from 1979 to 1991, spanning Carter, Reagan, and Bush I, while her predecessor Julius Shiskin headed it under Nixon, Ford and Carter.

Hall has told the Wall Street Journal that it is “impossible” to alter the numbers for political gain. But that hasn’t stopped some from harboring conspiracy theories about their political manipulation. Former GE chief Jack Welch today tweeted that “these Chicago guys will do anything…can’t debate so change numbers,” implying the Obama administration artificially inflated the figures.

But presidents themselves have worried about the agency in the past. Richard Nixon infamously asked his aide Fred Malek to count the number of Jews working in BLS, based on his delusion that Jewish liberals were trying to sabotage him through bad jobs numbers. Suffice it to say, none of these conspiracy theories — be they anti-semitic or anti-Obama — have any truth to them.

cosmo20002
10-05-2012, 01:46 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/05/september-jobs-report-debunking-the-jobs-report-conspiracy-theories/

September jobs report: Debunking the jobs report conspiracy theories

Weíve hit that moment in the election when people begin to lose their minds. Case in point, within minutes of the jobs report, Twitter filled with Republicans claiming the books were somehow cooked, the numbers arenít real, etc.

Letís take a deep breath. Jobs reports are about the economy, not about the election. Confusing the two leads to very bad analysis.

This is a good jobs report in a still-weak economy. The 114,000 jobs we added in September arenít very impressive. The revisions to the last two months, which added 86,000 jobs to the total, were much more impressive. Those revisions also suggest that Septemberís jobs could get revised up ó or, of course, down. So be careful about reading too much into that number. Still, these are, at best, good, not great, numbers.

The controversy, if itís worth using that word, is over the unemployment rate, which dropped from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent. Thatís three-tenths of one percent. Thatís what all the fuss is about.

Letís get one thing out of the way: The data was not, as Jack Welch suggested in a now-infamous tweet, manipulated. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is set up to ensure the White House has no ability to influence it. As labor economist Betsey Stevenson wrote, ďanyone who thinks that political folks can manipulate the unemployment data are completely ignorant of how the BLS works and how the data are compiled.Ē Plus, if the White House somehow was manipulating the data, donít you think they would have made the payroll number look a bit better than 114,000? No one would have batted an eye at 160,000.

The fact is that thereís not much that needs to be explained here. Weíve seen drops like this ó and even drops bigger than this ó before. Between July and August the unemployment rate dropped from 8.3 percent to 8.1 percent ó two-tenths of one percent. November-December of 2011 also saw a .2 percent drop. November-December of 2010 saw a .4 percent drop. This isnít some incredible aberration. The fact that the unemployment rate broke under the psychologically important 8 percent line is making this number feel bigger to people than it really is.

The number could, of course, be wrong. The household survey is, well, a survey, which means itís open to error. But the internals back it up. The number saying they had jobs increased by about 800,000. That seems high, but itís counting 582,000 who say they got part-time jobs.

Thereís precedent for this. As Daniel Indiviglio notes, part-time jobs increased by 579,000 in September 2010 and by 483,000 in September 2011. It might simply be seasonal hiring. You donít need to resort to ridiculous theories like Democrats across the country suddenly deciding to lie to surveytakers in order to help Obama.

Which leads to another argument: That U6, the broadest measure of labor-market pain, didnít move, which should make us skeptical of the fact that U3, the normal unemployment rate, did move. Thatís just misunderstanding what U6 is.

U6 is not an unemployment measure. It includes part-time workers who want full-time work. So it doesnít count the increase in part-time work. But every measure of actual unemployment ó U1, U2, U3, U4, and U5 ó went down. You can see them all here. Again, thereís no mystery.

This is an encouraging report. What it tells us is that the labor market has been a bit better over the last few months than we thought, and that the recovery hasnít slowed in the ways we feared. What the response to it tells us is that the election is driving people a little bit crazy.

Stewie
10-05-2012, 01:49 PM
1940

Cool! Whew! I thought we had a problem with numbers.

I don't doubt there are all kinds of household surveys. They are ignored for the most part.

Stewie
10-05-2012, 01:53 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/05/september-jobs-report-debunking-the-jobs-report-conspiracy-theories/

September jobs report: Debunking the jobs report conspiracy theories

Weíve hit that moment in the election when people begin to lose their minds. Case in point, within minutes of the jobs report, Twitter filled with Republicans claiming the books were somehow cooked, the numbers arenít real, etc.

Letís take a deep breath. Jobs reports are about the economy, not about the election. Confusing the two leads to very bad analysis.

This is a good jobs report in a still-weak economy. The 114,000 jobs we added in September arenít very impressive. The revisions to the last two months, which added 86,000 jobs to the total, were much more impressive. Those revisions also suggest that Septemberís jobs could get revised up ó or, of course, down. So be careful about reading too much into that number. Still, these are, at best, good, not great, numbers.

The controversy, if itís worth using that word, is over the unemployment rate, which dropped from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent. Thatís three-tenths of one percent. Thatís what all the fuss is about.

Letís get one thing out of the way: The data was not, as Jack Welch suggested in a now-infamous tweet, manipulated. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is set up to ensure the White House has no ability to influence it. As labor economist Betsey Stevenson wrote, ďanyone who thinks that political folks can manipulate the unemployment data are completely ignorant of how the BLS works and how the data are compiled.Ē Plus, if the White House somehow was manipulating the data, donít you think they would have made the payroll number look a bit better than 114,000? No one would have batted an eye at 160,000.

The fact is that thereís not much that needs to be explained here. Weíve seen drops like this ó and even drops bigger than this ó before. Between July and August the unemployment rate dropped from 8.3 percent to 8.1 percent ó two-tenths of one percent. November-December of 2011 also saw a .2 percent drop. November-December of 2010 saw a .4 percent drop. This isnít some incredible aberration. The fact that the unemployment rate broke under the psychologically important 8 percent line is making this number feel bigger to people than it really is.

The number could, of course, be wrong. The household survey is, well, a survey, which means itís open to error. But the internals back it up. The number saying they had jobs increased by about 800,000. That seems high, but itís counting 582,000 who say they got part-time jobs.

Thereís precedent for this. As Daniel Indiviglio notes, part-time jobs increased by 579,000 in September 2010 and by 483,000 in September 2011. It might simply be seasonal hiring. You donít need to resort to ridiculous theories like Democrats across the country suddenly deciding to lie to surveytakers in order to help Obama.

Which leads to another argument: That U6, the broadest measure of labor-market pain, didnít move, which should make us skeptical of the fact that U3, the normal unemployment rate, did move. Thatís just misunderstanding what U6 is.

U6 is not an unemployment measure. It includes part-time workers who want full-time work. So it doesnít count the increase in part-time work. But every measure of actual unemployment ó U1, U2, U3, U4, and U5 ó went down. You can see them all here. Again, thereís no mystery.

This is an encouraging report. What it tells us is that the labor market has been a bit better over the last few months than we thought, and that the recovery hasnít slowed in the ways we feared. What the response to it tells us is that the election is driving people a little bit crazy.

JFC! The numbers don't need to manipulated. Cooking the books started with Clinton's changes that included hedonics, birth/death, etc.

ShadowStats is your friend.

suzzer99
10-05-2012, 02:49 PM
Republican PR machine going full conspiritard on this one. I just wish they'd make up their minds on whether these numbers are fake great numbers, or real numbers that aren't actually that good. Get your talking points aligned guys.

alpha_omega
10-05-2012, 03:12 PM
The number is the number (relative to all the other reports that have come before this one).


Fact of the matter is that it is just now down to where it was at the beginning of the presidency. Shouldn't that number have started coming down sometime way before now???????

jjjayb
10-05-2012, 03:15 PM
IT IS THE SAME PROCEDURE EVERY TIME. But the right doesn't like this month's report, so they come up with reasons it doesn't count. It is one side acting idiotic here.

Going to copy this from elsewhere. It gives a good explanation for where the jobs report comes from, and why these numbers are very suspect and likely to be revised.

The jobs report is made up of two SURVEYS. One of businesses (in which 410,000 businesses report) and a large phone survey of households (in which 60,000 homes are called).

The latter survey is much more volatile than the first. It tends to have lots of noise in it, and big swings. But even so, this big spike is notable for being bigger than recent swings.
It's this last survey that informs the actual unemployment figure. The first number, the payroll survey, tells us the net job creation in a month.

Now, according to the household survey, 873,000 jobs were created last month. Very close to one million jobs. That's not unprecedented; it happened last in 1983.

Only thing is, when that happened in 1983, that was in the first blast of the Reagan boom, and the country's Gross Domestic Product was growing at a blistering 9.3% rate.

Current rate of GDP growth? Something like 1.3%.

Jumps almost as big as this one (but not quite) have happened when the GDP growth rate was 5% or so.

But at the 1.3% level? At this level of economic growth -- not even enough to keep up with population growth-- what exactly would be driving the employment train?

If anyone's too young too know, let me explain to you what a 1983 economy feels like: It feels like the movie Wall Street. As Adam Carolla says, "pre-AIDS, mid-coke." Poppy music on the Blaupunkt. People buy plastic watches to wear on their ankles and in their hair. The world is your Cinnabon's.

It's the kind of economy where you sort of have some leverage with your boss because the economy's so hot that labor is a seller's, not buyer's market.

Not just for good jobs. For crap jobs too. A sizzling economy makes a lot of crap jobs. So you can quit your job and have a pretty good idea you'll have a new one in a couple of weeks.

Is that the way the third quarter of 2012 feels to people?

So. You can buy that this number is real, and we all just missed the signs of a 9.3% growth spurt, or you can wonder if maybe this isn't just an "implausible statistical quirk," as one analyst calls it. Every poll -- and that's what the household survey is, a big poll -- is subject for the occasional outside-the-MoE error.

You don't even have to think Obama cooked the books (though Jay Cost reminds that that does happen) to look at the number with suspicion.

The economy simply did not add 873,000 jobs last month. It simply did not. The payroll survey says it added a mere 114,000.

There is absolutely no confirmatory data suggesting that the 873,000 number is right and the 114,000 number is wrong. As one guy asked on Twitter -- did payroll taxes jump up past month?

It's either a lucky outlier for Obama -- or luck had nothing to do with it -- but it doesn't represent current economic conditions.

If Obama and Solis really believed the economy grew 873,000 jobs, why aren't they celebrating that? Why aren't they bragging about it? Why aren't they doubting the 114,000 figure, and noting the 700,000 in undercounted jobs they should be getting credit for?

J Diddy
10-05-2012, 03:16 PM
The number is the number (relative to all the other reports that have come before this one).


Fact of the matter is that it is just now down to where it was at the beginning of the presidency. Shouldn't that number have started coming down sometime way before now???????

It was no small hole to dig out of. Fact of the matter is that the economy is coming back and jobs are too. That proves that his policies are working.

alpha_omega
10-05-2012, 03:16 PM
It was no small hole to dig out of. Fact of the matter is that the economy is coming back and jobs are too. That proves that his policies are working.

We are not going to agree on this...that proves shit.

jjjayb
10-05-2012, 03:25 PM
It was no small hole to dig out of. Fact of the matter is that the economy is coming back and jobs are too. That proves that his policies are working.

One piece of data, the household survey points to improvement. Every other piece of data points in the other direction. What are the chances that the household survey data is the correct data? It'll be revised.

Stewie
10-05-2012, 04:06 PM
ShadowStats just exposed this BS unemployment number.

HonestChieffan
10-05-2012, 04:11 PM
ShadowStats just exposed this BS unemployment number.

Stewie, you know this will bring on a raid by the little mexican economics guerrilla fighter don't you?

KCTitus
10-05-2012, 04:21 PM
Republican PR machine going full conspiritard on this one. I just wish they'd make up their minds on whether these numbers are fake great numbers, or real numbers that aren't actually that good. Get your talking points aligned guys.

I dont want to believe the PR, so help me understand this. In August, the economy gained more jobs than September and the unemployment rate went up. This month the unemployment rate dropped .4 percent while gaining less jobs. Can you explain that for me? Somehow, that doesnt add up.

mlyonsd
10-05-2012, 06:14 PM
The number could, of course, be wrong. The household survey is, well, a survey, which means itís open to error. But the internals back it up. The number saying they had jobs increased by about 800,000. That seems high, but itís counting 582,000 who say they got part-time jobs.


I saw the % today in headlines and wondered WTF.

Forward.

KCTitus
10-05-2012, 06:34 PM
I'm not a mentally ill person suggesting the Department of Labor is cooking the books. I mean that seriously, this is pretty much the equivalent of saying the government caused the Joplin tornado.

Or the Katrina hurricane...

stonedstooge
10-05-2012, 06:41 PM
How do you survey enough people that you get a number of 582,000 out of how many surveyed? Survey by phone, mail, what? Just using the number they gave of 582,000 would require getting back information from over the course of a year, almost 1600 a day. I'm sure this "survey" wasn't over a full year either.

cosmo20002
10-05-2012, 07:20 PM
How do you survey enough people that you get a number of 582,000 out of how many surveyed? Survey by phone, mail, what? Just using the number they gave of 582,000 would require getting back information from over the course of a year, almost 1600 a day. I'm sure this "survey" wasn't over a full year either.

extrapolation

KC native
10-05-2012, 07:49 PM
One piece of data, the household survey points to improvement. Every other piece of data points in the other direction. What are the chances that the household survey data is the correct data? It'll be revised.

The trend is what matters with the unemployment series. The trend has been improving. It will probably stall out some going into year end but the trend in unemployment has been better for a decent amount of time

KC native
10-05-2012, 07:53 PM
Stewie, you know this will bring on a raid by the little mexican economics guerrilla fighter don't you?

No, the guy who does shadow stats does good work. I think his numbers are slightly overstated and I think the govenment's are a little understated. The real number is between the two.

Keep being a dumb ass though.

AustinChief
10-05-2012, 08:06 PM
No, the guy who does shadow stats does good work. I think his numbers are slightly overstated and I think the govenment's are a little understated. The real number is between the two.

Keep being a dumb ass though.

SGS does do good work, surprised you would say that though, since they show consistently that the "real" unemployment rate has NOT turned the corner and in fact is still increasing. My take is that the "accurate" analysis lies between the U6 and SGS numbers. Which would be a pretty much stagnant rate.

http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/sgs-emp.gif?hl=ad&t=1349444413

Regarding the recent numbers.. it's a blow to Romney for ONE reason... timing... these numbers WILL get adjusted.. or the November numbers will reflect the difference in reality. The problem is that with all the early voting and people simply making up their minds... I doubt the true numbers will get reported in time to make a difference.

I'd say that Romney had a legit shot at taking a solid lead and extending it with 2 more strong debates... this is going to seriously bite into that.

Chiefshrink
10-05-2012, 10:34 PM
I'd say that Romney had a legit shot at taking a solid lead and extending it with 2 more strong debates... this is going to seriously bite into that.

I will side with the majority of "We The People" that we don't buy into these numbers and are much smarter than Obama thinks we are. The country I believe has been onto to Barry for sometime now and 7.8 % hasn't reduced the price of gas still at 3.80 a gal, food on our tables is still 30-40% higher, and millions are still 'underemployed' thus this 7.8% still doesn't FIX SH** ! As you know, it's all about what have you done for me lately Barry ?? Except lie to us !!

These numbers will do very little IMHO for Barry on election day:shrug: However, with that said I damn guarantee you since we know these polls are severely skewed for Obama in general by the Marxist Media and now with this phoney 7.8% rate being touted at every turn until election day, the polls now will drastically be manipulated even worse to swing back for Obama. And then the next jobs report on Nov 2nd right before election day Chicago Barry will have the rate go from 7.8 to 7.5. Count on it !!

But it won't help:thumb:

cosmo20002
10-05-2012, 11:26 PM
These numbers will do very little IMHO for Barry on election day:shrug: However, with that said I damn guarantee you since we know these polls are severely skewed for Obama in general by the Marxist Media and now with this phoney 7.8% rate being touted at every turn until election day, the polls now will drastically be manipulated even worse to swing back for Obama. And then the next jobs report on Nov 2nd right before election day Chicago Barry will have the rate go from 7.8 to 7.5. Count on it !!


You're probably right. Obama's margin of victory will still probably be around 100 electoral votes.

jjjayb
10-06-2012, 07:41 AM
The trend is what matters with the unemployment series. The trend has been improving. It will probably stall out some going into year end but the trend in unemployment has been better for a decent amount of time

But the trend has not shown that big of a jump. Actually, it hasn't shown that kind of jump in almost 30 years. Yet, no other indicator points to a sudden jump. Every other indicator shows that we are still treading water. \

Although no other indicator shows a jump, this phone survey of 60,000 houeholds extrapolates to a jump unseen in almost 30 years. My question would be if the survey methodology changed. Have they changed the questions asked? Have they changed how the sampling is done? If any other signs of our economy pointed to this, then great. But when 2 and 2 don't equal 4, you should probably question the results.

HonestChieffan
10-06-2012, 08:51 AM
Its all about the spin....the spin didnt get off the ground on this report. There is no way you can polish this turd and not have it look like a shiny turd.

President Obama and his allies are celebrating finally getting the unemployment rate down below the 8-percent level that, 44 months ago, they said it would never exceed if Obama’s $831,000,000,000 “stimulus” were to be passed (see Figure 1). But the celebration is rather premature — for the latest figures from the administration’s own Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) show that a lower percentage of Americans are employed now than at any point during the recession.


The latest BLS figures show that only 58.7 percent of Americans over the age of 16 are employed. This marks the 37th straight month under Obama that fewer than 59.0 percent of Americans have been employed. To put that into perspective, the lowest percentage of Americans who were employed during the Bush-Obama recession was 59.4 percent. The lowest percentage of Americans who were employment during the 20 years before Obama took office was 61.0 percent. In other words, the worst month in the two decades before Obama was 2.3 points better than where we’re at now.

Only in Obama’s world of lowered expectations could 58.7-percent employment be viewed as cause for celebration.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/employment-remains-worse-during-recession_653770.html

stonedstooge
10-06-2012, 09:18 AM
Its all about the spin....the spin didnt get off the ground on this report. There is no way you can polish this turd and not have it look like a shiny turd.

President Obama and his allies are celebrating finally getting the unemployment rate down below the 8-percent level that, 44 months ago, they said it would never exceed if Obamaís $831,000,000,000 ďstimulusĒ were to be passed (see Figure 1). But the celebration is rather premature ó for the latest figures from the administrationís own Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) show that a lower percentage of Americans are employed now than at any point during the recession.


The latest BLS figures show that only 58.7 percent of Americans over the age of 16 are employed. This marks the 37th straight month under Obama that fewer than 59.0 percent of Americans have been employed. To put that into perspective, the lowest percentage of Americans who were employed during the Bush-Obama recession was 59.4 percent. The lowest percentage of Americans who were employment during the 20 years before Obama took office was 61.0 percent. In other words, the worst month in the two decades before Obama was 2.3 points better than where weíre at now.

Only in Obamaís world of lowered expectations could 58.7-percent employment be viewed as cause for celebration.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/employment-remains-worse-during-recession_653770.html

FORWARD!!!!!!!

philfree
10-06-2012, 06:27 PM
Let's look at this through the eyes of Tiger Woods. Well have to move the decimal point to the right one digit so that 8.2 = 82 and 7.8 = 78.

So if Tiger shoots a 82 he breaks several clubs and misses the cut. It sucks! Now let's say the next week Tiger improves and shoots a 78. He probably doesn't break as many clubs but he still misses the cut because 78 sucks.

So while unemployment "may" have improved it took way to long to do so and it's still at a level that sucks. It don't make the cut.

Reminds me of my highschool golf coach. One guy would come in off the course and the coach would ask him "how'd you play?" The guy said "80!" Coach said "That sucks!". The next player would come in and the coach would ask him "What'd you shoot?" This guy says "79!" Coachs says "That's great!"

Pawnmower
10-06-2012, 07:16 PM
But the celebration is rather premature ó for the latest figures from the administrationís own Bureau of Labor Statistics (B.S.) show that a lower percentage of Americans are employed now than at any point during the recession.


FYP

Comrade Crapski
10-06-2012, 10:51 PM
Why, it's the biggest single month jump in hiring in twenty nine years! Hope and change, at last, hope and change at last!!!!

http://www.iaza.com/work/121007C/iaza14295022888100.jpg

patteeu
10-07-2012, 06:44 PM
I don't even know why we care about this jobs report. Even if you take it as good news, and I'm no sure whether it is or isn't, it's way too little, way too late. Surely there isn't a single person who watched the debate with an open mind who will take this minor drop in the unemployment rate as convincing evidence that the empty suit who has been telling us about recovery summer for three straight years is the guy best suited to lead us to better economic times.

Psyko Tek
10-07-2012, 08:01 PM
Hey what does OMarxist's birth certificate and the unemployment rate have in common ????? :shrug: :LOL:

both as a problem are a tea bagger fantasy?

Comrade Crapski
10-08-2012, 02:31 AM
I don't even know why we care about this jobs report. Even if you take it as good news, and I'm no sure whether it is or isn't, it's way too little, way too late. Surely there isn't a single person who watched the debate with an open mind who will take this minor drop in the unemployment rate as convincing evidence that the empty suit who has been telling us about recovery summer for three straight years is the guy best suited to lead us to better economic times.

Only in the age of Hopey Change would 7.8% unemployment be heralded as good news.

Calcountry
10-08-2012, 01:37 PM
Over 1.5 Million new unemployment claims last month. 113,000 new jobs added to private sector last month. 7.8% unemployment. As Obuma would say "It's Arithmetic"Just ask Bill Clinton.