Obama Spins The Unemployment Numbers -Campagin 2012

1. 60

   lady_love158posted 13 years ago

   The labor department released the jobless numbers and the good news is the rate dropped to 9%! The bad news is only 36,000 jobs were created...
   
   So what's the story? It seems the numbers don't add up! AP reported more than a year ago that it would take 3 million new jobs created to drop the unemployment rate 1% and we have dropped .8% in the last couple of months while only adding about 300,000 jobs for the year! So how can this be? Simple, the unemployment rate doesn't COUNT anyone that hasn't looked for a job in the last 4 weeks! From their website:
   
   
   
   So the Obama assault on American prosperity continues! Obama hopes to make that rate appear lower because NO president since FDR has ever been re-elected with an unemployment rate over 8%!
   
   Obama- liar in chief will do anything to hold onto power!

   replyreport
2. 74

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

   Wow. Getting Americans back to work.
   That's pretty desperate, I must say.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You see, liberals don't read past the headlines... the rate dropped because they didn't count the 2.8 million that haven't bothered to look in the last 4 weeks! The real unemployment rate actually increased to 17%!

      replyreport
3. 74

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

   Perhaps if you were thoughtful enough to provide a LINK to the story you are referencing we could read all the way through.
   Nowhere in what your posted does it say anything about 17%.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      It's not a story It's from the Bureau Of Labor Statistics which I quoted in part. It's your government at work! LOL

      replyreport
   2. 60

      lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Excuse me... they are reporting it as 16.1% and showing a declining trend....
      
      http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
      
      Keep in mind 42% of all unemployed have been out of work for more than 27 weeks and those out more than 12 months are NOT counted in the above rate!
      
      http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

      replyreport
4. 74

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

   LaLo,
   I read the Dept. of Labor Statistics report. NOWHERE did I see any reference to ANYTHING at 17%. Please tell us where you got that number.
   
   Here are some sidebar headline excerpts from marketwatch.com
   The authors seem to feel that the new jobs creation numbers are directly related to the hellatious (but not related to global warming!) weather and storms that have struck most of the US in the past several weeks.
   
   
   More Economic Report
   Feb. 3, 2011  Payrolls expected to rise at modest pace 
   Feb. 3, 2011  U.S. productivity rises 2.6% in fourth quarter 
   Feb. 3, 2011  U.S. jobless claims fall 42,000 to 415,000 
    
   Feb. 2, 2011  U.S. private-sector jobs up 187,000: ADP

   replyreport
   1. 60

      lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I'm not surprised you didn't see it... of course judging by what you wrote I don't think you read my post either... if you had you would have seen the links.

      replyreport
5. 74

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

   LaLo, you just cannot tolerate any positive news out of this administration, can you?
   Any way you read that chart the trend is that the numbers for January 2011 are better than January 2010.
   
   BTW, that figure of 16.1% you quoted? READ the description.
   It incudes people are ARE EMPLOYED PART-TIME! So it's a mixed bag of unemployed + marginally attached + part-time employed.
   In other words, a statistic you picked simply because you liked the big number, but that does not really support your point.
   
   Sorry to burst your bubble.
   
   U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force

   replyreport
6. 74

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

   Please show me where in your OP there are any links.
   There are no links. That is why I asked for them.

   replyreport
7. 74

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

   Let's look at some of the other numbers from the same Department of Labor Statistics report.
   I am including both the positive and the negative -- not trying to paint a picture that is not there.
   Except for construction and transportation and warehousing, all sectors are showing jobs added.
   Boy that really sucks, doesn't it?
   
   Total nonfarm payroll employment changed little in January (+36,000).
   Manufacturing and retail trade added jobs over the month, while
   employment declined in construction and in transportation and
   warehousing.
   Since a recent low in February 2010, total payroll
   employment has increased by an average of 93,000 per month. (See table
   B-1.)
   
   Manufacturing added 49,000 jobs in January.
   Over the month, job gains
   occurred in durable goods, including motor vehicles and parts
   (+20,000), fabricated metal products (+13,000), machinery (+10,000),and computer and electronic products (+5,000).
   Employment in nondurable goods manufacturing declined by 13,000 over the month.
   
   Employment in retail trade rose by 28,000 in January, after changing little in December. Retail trade has added 123,000 jobs since itsrecent low point in December 2009. In January, employment in clothing stores increased by 15,000.
   
   Health care employment continued to trend up over the month (+11,000). Over the prior 12 months, health care had added an average of 22,000 jobs per month.
   
   In January, construction employment declined by 32,000. Within
   construction, there were job losses among nonresidential specialty trade contractors (-22,000) and in construction of buildings (-10,000). Employment in construction may have been impacted by severe winter weather affecting parts of the country during the survey reference period. (See the Frequently Asked Questions.)
   
   Transportation and warehousing employment fell by 38,000 in January,reflecting a sharp decline among couriers and messengers (-45,000).
   Couriers and messengers had an unusually large job gain in December, followed by layoffs of a similar magnitude in January.
   
   Within professional and business services, employment in temporary help services was little changed in January
   (-11,000). 
   Temporary help had added an average of 25,000 jobs per month over the prior 12 months.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Surprised that Lady Love hasn't been back to explain why they aren't real jobs:)

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Stump Parrishposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I'm beginning to think that Lady Love actually works for the Faux News Network. It would explain her inability to see any truth that hasn't been pre-approved by the right or more correctly, the wrong.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, you have a very valid point there. It would certainly explain the reluctance to follow any debate through, instead resorting to sound bites and inane laughter.

            replyreport
8. 74

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

   Lady Love has switched forums. Last I checked she was defending the unconstitutionality of the new health care bill and claiming Obama is going to be held in contempt of court (yeah, some piddly federal court in Florida -- ok then!).
   Most recently she has been spotted sparring with our European hubber friends telling them they need to be grateful that the US allows them to continue their socialist fairyland existences.
   
   I did invite her specifically to come back and explain the 16.1% unemployment number she cited here.
   ...still waiting...

   replyreport
9. 74

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

   It's only inane if you are on the outside looking in

   replyreport
   1. 60

      John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      My bad

      replyreport
10. 74

    Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

    No, not bad. I think you pegged it correctly there, John!

    replyreport
    1. 60

       John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Not bad for an unexceptional Brit

       replyreport
11. 74

    Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

    You are too modest, sir!

    replyreport