WASHINGTON — The U.S. unemployment rate dropped below 8 percent for the first time since the month President Barack Obama took office, a surprising lift for both the economy and his re-election hopes in the final weeks of the campaign.
The rate, the most-watched measure of the country’s economic health, tumbled to 7.8 percent in September from 8.1 percent in August. It fell because a government survey of households found that 873,000 more people had jobs, the biggest jump since January 2003.
The government’s other monthly survey, of employers, showed they added a modest 114,000 jobs in September, but it also showed job growth in July and August was stronger than first thought.
Obama, eager to shift attention from a disappointing performance at the first presidential debate, said Friday that the report showed the country “has come too far to turn back now.”
His Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, countered: “This is not what a real recovery looks like.”
The drop brought the jobless rate back to where it was when Obama was sworn in, in January 2009, and snapped a 43-month streak in which unemployment was 8 percent or higher — a run Romney had been emphasizing.
The October jobs report comes out Nov. 2, four days before the election, so Friday’s report provided one of the final snapshots of the economy as undecided voters make up their minds.
The government calculates the unemployment rate by calling 60,000 households and asking whether the adults have jobs, and whether those who don’t are looking for work.
Those who do not have jobs and are looking are counted as unemployed. Those who aren’t looking are not considered part of the work force and aren’t counted as unemployed.
A separate monthly survey seeks information from 140,000 companies and government agencies that together employ about one in three nonfarm workers in the United States.
That survey found that the economy added 114,000 jobs in September, the fewest since June. Most of the job growth came in service businesses such as health care and restaurants.
The Labor Department raised its job-creation figures by a total of 86,000 jobs for July and August. The July figure was revised from 141,000 to 181,000, and the August figure from 96,000 to 142,000.
Taken together, the two surveys suggest the job situation in the United States is better than was thought.
Economist Joel Naroff, president of Naroff Economic Advisors, called the strong employment reports “a shocker” that showed the job market was sturdier than most economists had thought.
Financial markets seemed less impressed. The Dow Jones industrial average climbed as much as 86 points in early trading but drifted lower for most of the rest of the day. It finished up 34 points at 13,610. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index, a broader measure, was down a fraction of a point.
Stock indexes have been trading at or near their highest levels since December 2007, the month the Great Recession began. They have gotten a lift from Federal Reserve efforts to stimulate the economy, and by a European Central Bank plan to buy the bonds of financially troubled countries to ease a debt crisis there.
Comments
tbaker 7 months, 2 weeks ago
7.9% unemployment is BS.
They used the “household number” of 114,000 jobs being created in September. This is just a wild guess, and it won’t even keep up with the US birth rate, but let’s assume it’s true for sake of argument.
If you look at the U-6 number that counts everybody, people who have given up looking for a job and don't have one, in addition to people who are still looking for a job and don't have one, that number is still around 14.7%, and it has been that way for years.
The labor participation rate is what has changed. If the same number of jobs were available to be had today as when Obama was elected - and they had used that number for September’s calculation - the U3 unemployment (what is commonly cited) rate would be around 11% instead of this BS 7.9. number.
However, Team Obama now says there are 1.1 million fewer jobs to have (they have shrank the labor force). This is how you lower the percentage. You simply lower the number of people looking for work. The only way that 114,000 new jobs can lower the U3 unemployment rate is if people are not in the workforce by even greater numbers. If the labor market is shrinking (lower labor force participation rate) then “creating” 114,000 jobs makes the unemployment rate seem lower. Simple math.
With an election days away, who is surprised by these shenanigans?
hipgal 7 months, 2 weeks ago
the number comes from the dept of labor and statistics and the numbers are not rigged from them. This is positive news. Have we become so skeptical that we cannot accept that maybe there is a light at the end of the tunnel? The dept. is not infiltrated by democrat and republican leaders so this number did not magically appear out of thin air.
420para 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Go ahead and live in the river of De Nile.
vertigo 7 months, 2 weeks ago
http://berkeley.intel-research.net/arahimi/helmet/ali2.jpg
markoo 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Then demonstrate WITH EVIDENCE that it was rigged. Please be specific.
Otherwise your assertion is completely baseless. And I personally believe your tin foil hat is a wee bit too tight and likely cutting off a little circulation.
chootspa 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Ironic comment is ironic.
oletimer 7 months, 2 weeks ago
the ones with common sense are skeptical of everything. especially government reports when their "boss" is running for re-election. Besides, the drop is probably the folks who have given up any chance of finding a job and dropping out. You can sway any report to read any way you want or need to.
Keith 7 months, 2 weeks ago
I'm sorry you can't get the bad news you need to scare people into voting for your deeply flawed candidate.
420para 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Not me,Thanks.
420para 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Not me,Thanks
justfornow 7 months, 2 weeks ago
That was definitely worth repeating:)
markoo 7 months, 2 weeks ago
"The labor participation rate is what has changed."
Yeah, I saw this line on every Right Wing Mouthpiece website and it was repeated by Limbaugh as well. Really surprising that you're regurgitating this yak here.
And it's a terribly pathetic line at that. Looking at the times back in Jan 2009 to now, you're making a ridiculous apples to oranges comparison and ignoring a couple of variables that affect the labor participation rate between those two times:
"This exercise, though, assumes that the entire drop in the labor force participation rate from January 2009 to the present is a result of discouraged people giving up on looking for work. It ignores the fact that the baby boomers are hitting retirement age, meaning that demographics would probably bring down the labor force participation rate even if the economy were booming. Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution, estimates that half of the decline in the labor force participation rate “can be traced to an aging population.” The calculation above also ignores the fact that a higher share of young people are going to college, and are staying out of the work force temporarily while they improve their skills."
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/fact-check-an-11-percent-unemployment-rate/
But go ahead and reassure yourself in that conservative circle that shuts out the rest of the reality-based community.....
beatrice 7 months, 2 weeks ago
You are correct, tb -- 7.9% is a bunch of bs!
The actual number is 7.8%.
Glad I could clear that up for you.
msezdsit 7 months, 2 weeks ago
blah blah blah. Obama isn't losing 600,000 jobs a month like Bush did and Romney will. I like the way all you right winger fanatics sit around hoping for bad news so you can feed your flawed ideology mill at the peril of the american people. Your grapes are mighty sour baker.
lawrenceguy 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Please stop with the dis-information. These are the same statistics that have been used for years. Yest they are not perfect but it is the best measure we have. Seems everyone believed the numbers from the BLS up untill the numbers this month. The bias in this case is on the part of the readers and the press who are questionion them, not the statistics.
CastleRock 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Just another piece of evidence that the economy continues to recover. What's the count up to now?....5,000,000 new private-sector jobs in the last 30 months with the addition of the 200,000 (September plus July/August revisions) new jobs in yesterday's report. Good news for President Obama.
Pretty impressive recovery considering the huge job loss from 2008/2009!
markoo 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Just curious, did you ever point out the U6 number when Bush was in office? Ever?
markoo 7 months, 2 weeks ago
"I, like Ron Paul and other libertarians, regularly criticized Bush's failed economic policies"
Are you able to come up with one citation in your past posts?
" I have never said one kind word about George W. Bush in over 10,000 posts nor of any of his policies or neo-cons in general."
Never saying one kind word is not the equivalent to critiquing him for his horrible unemployment record. Again, I'm curious if you've ever truly stated such a thing.
"You see, George Bush and Barack Obama are really just two sides of the same coin."
Yes, I'm aware of your Libertarian sentiments regarding these two. In some respects I actually agree. Do you see any differences between the two, however, in any way regarding their economic policies? If you do not, I'd venture to guess you're being a little too dismissive or even ignorant of these obvious discrepancies.
Finally, what is your alternative plan, and can you cite real life historical examples in this country of it actually working, i.e. on a large scale (not just in 1 small town in Montana, for example).
markoo 7 months, 2 weeks ago
"And so on."
Fair enough.
"big deficits"
Huh:
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43656
Going down another $200 billion. Funny how that's happening. Not to mention a $75 billion surplus for September.
"entitlement spending,"
Of course going after fraud on such entitlements is nice to see, is it not?:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/business/medicare-fraud-charged-against-91.html?src=recg
Just uncovered $430 million in Medicare fraud in one bust yesterday. But yeah, you're right, Obama and the Democrats love Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, as does the vast majority of the population across both sides of the aisles. Bummer.
"war spending,"
Obama got us out of Iraq, and is getting us out of Afghanistan next year. Both he and Congress are cutting spending on the military in accordance to their spending agreement over a year ago. But I agree to a large extent, military spending is way too high.
"progressive taxation"
Not what Republicans want at all. Surely you know that.
" If you're going to tell me that Bush is some tax-slasher and Obama a tax-raiser when one favors a 36% tax and the other a 39% tax then I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Their policies are nearly identical."
No, I'm not going to tell you that at all. Surely you know there's much bigger differences between the two?
"Cutting spending."
"The Depressions of 1921 and 1946."
Can you be more specific how cutting spending entirely helped us in these Depressions? You're being a little confusing here.
markoo 7 months, 2 weeks ago
"The national debt is still going up. Regardless, Obama's stimulus plan shows that he believes in keynesian policies of spending the nation in debt."
Indeed it is still going up, albeit much slower relatively speaking versus his GOP predecessors (Reagan tripled the debt, Bush II doubled it).
Your definition of Keynesian policies is absurd, but I guess you're welcome to your own glossary terms and definitions. I'm pretty sure Clinton also entailed Keynesian policies. He inherited $4,174,218,594,232.91 from Bush I, added $1,553,558,144,071.73 during his presidency, but $2,767,282,794,374.59 was paid toward interest from 1994 to 2002 (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm). Funny how higher taxes on the rich coupled with properly selective reduced spending helps, isn't it?
"According to the link you posted, spending for military operations in Iraq continues...."
Of course it does. We still have troops there, plus spending for their infrastructure is necessary considering how bad Bush decimated their country. Cutting them off entirely would be foolish. Then again, that does appear to be classic Libertarian mantra.
"When Reagan made major changes to the tax code, it remained highly progressive."
Payroll tax increases on ALL workers and capping it at, what, $110K (for 2012) annual income is a classic definition of regressive taxation, which is exactly what Reagan and Greenspan created in 1983 to keep MC and SS solvent.
"Clearly the GOP believes in progressive taxation, they just differ from the dems by a few percentage points. That's reality. They are the same--don't be fooled by any rhetoric."
I think you have a point to some extent, however what Obama wants in changing certain things with taxes such as eliminating the AMT, taxing higher for those making over $250K has been stymied by the GOP by holding other things hostage.
markoo 7 months, 2 weeks ago
"Simple. In both cases the government reduced spending and unemployment and private production increased within a year to a year and a half."
I know this is a popular Libertarian idea, which is why I asked. First off, the 1921 recession was that involving inflation is a much quicker recovery with slashed spending and pushing private spending. This monetary policy problem was not just solved by spending cuts - those cuts were actually offset by rationing savings that had been pent up (as well as demand) from the first World War. Furthermore, didn't government spending get slashed before the recession hit? There's more here which, admittedly, a bit over my head, but seems to refute those austerity arguments made in the early 1920's:
http://menghusblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/a-critique-of-the-austrian-school-interpretation-of-the-1920-21-depression-rae.pdf
As for 1946, ending WWII helped slash the U.S. budget, which much of those cuts were overseas and not involving domestic programs. In fact, the U.S. budget exceeded the budget before we went to war:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_brief.php
And similar to 1921, there was a huge pent-up demand after WWII for consumers, not to mention a huge pool of savings for civilians to utilize as the economy again transitioned to civilian production. There was a great demand for so many goods after years of rationing, like housing, cars, clothing, etc. This was an ideal time for private companies to flourish, which they did. Their savings and demand is exactly opposite to what we had with our current recession. You can read more here:
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2011/07/post-1945-boom-in-america.html
"Our current recession could have been over two years ago if this policy was followed. Instead, the economy was given more poison instead of cure."
Woulda coulda shoulda. It's always fun to give your insight ex post facto, isn't it? As I've stated in a post below, fiscal crisis like the one we just went through takes much longer to recover from. In the last 15 fiscal crisis we've had post WWII, 10 of them or 2/3 takes longer than a decade to return from pre-crisis GDP and unemployment levels:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-02/five-years-after-crisis-no-normal-recovery.html
What we've achieved in just 4 years despite GOP obstructionism is pretty remarkable, IMO. And comparing recoveries from 1921 and 1946 to our recent recovery is a complete apples to oranges comparison in regards to how we got into those respective recessions in the first place. Surely you know this?
markoo 7 months, 2 weeks ago
" The recession could have been over two years ago."
Sigh. Repeating your ex post facto assertion does not make your point any stronger.
"The reason why it takes a decade is because the government follows terrible Keynesian policies."
Again, your ex post facto assertion on woulda coulda shoulda does not make your point any stronger, and you have no other historical evidence to support your assertions to the contrary.
Then again, we could always examine other countries like, say, Somalia. They've cut government spending entirely. Can you tell me the differences between their government and what ours should be if we cut spending like they do?
"And "pent-up demand" does not make an economy grow."
It wasn't the only factor. If you actually read what I wrote you'd see it was only one of the factors.
" If you use your head you'll see that's the silliest idea ever."
You have a reputation here of insulting people when pressed on your points. I can see this beginning to come out.
"It wasn't any extra demand that created the Industrial Revolution, it was increases in production."
Another completely apples to oranges comparison. You're getting pretty good at that. I'm sorry, but your Libertarian austerity measures is not the cure for cancer and the end all be all solution for everything. And again, you're running out of historical examples.
"You must first produce before you can consume. Increases in production are what cause economic growth, not just demanding more."
This is patently absurd. The demand must be there as well, otherwise production without demand does nothing but contribute to a downward spiral in the economy.
Seriously, where did you take your Econ 101 courses at?
"And no, it's no different than previous recessions."
I'm sorry, but you stating this does not make it so.
"The cause is always the same--inflation and overspending."
That's a pretty pathetic oversimplification and quite wrong on many instances. It wasn't inflation and overspending that caused our recent recession. In fact, it wasn't inflation and overspending that caused the previous recession that Bush inherited. Yes there was major inflation and overspending in the 1920 recession (amongst other things that I mentioned previously), which is why reducing inflation, cutting interest rates, and cutting spending worked so well coupled with the other factors I mentioned previously.
And by the way, it doesn't counter any Keynesian philosophy, which I'll explain below.
"Time and time again the government creates recessions. The cure is always less government."
Again your oversimplification and erroneous statements like this are purely revisionist history. But again, stating anything otherwise would run counter to your Libertarian beliefs. I get it.
markoo 7 months, 2 weeks ago
"No, their policies are absurd. I define them correctly."
Incorrect. According to Keynesians, fiscal stimulus is only appropriate in a DEFLATIONARY situation with extremely low interest rates (i.e. liquidity trap that creates a prolonged depression). In 1920 (as well as in 1980 with Volker), both inflation and interest rates were high, and the ensuing recession was created by raising the rates even further. There was no liquidity trap and no collapse in aggregate demand in 1920, and it doesn't follow nor does it contradict Keynesian philosophy in any way.
If you actually knew Keynesian economics, you'd know this.
"Again, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. The difference between the Clinton tax rates and the Bush tax rates is a few percentage points. Wake up!"
Often times those few percentage points makes a tremendous difference. Of course the tech boom helped out quite a bit as well. Timing is also crucial in giving tax cuts and tax increases, which Clinton had a much better handle on versus Bush.
grammaddy 7 months, 2 weeks ago
You must be Republican if you can't enjoy the idea that unemployment dropped to the same level it was when Obama took office.We're not where we need to be, but at least we are not where we were.
tbaker 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Like I said Castle, it looks like they rigged the numbers. They used the “household survey” numbers of total employment which rose by 873,000 in September.
That’s the biggest one month jump in that number in 29 years - since June 1983. What other data corroborates and supports this rare event?
That’s why this is flakey. There is a huge divergence in the two surveys done by the Labor Department. The Household Survey shows a gain of 873,000 people employed in September - resulting in this surprise drop in the unemployment rate - while the Establishment Survey (the survey normally used to calculate U3 unemployment) only showed a rise of 114,000.
quik 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Does this mean that we're now counting drug dealers amongst the employed? Is that the big change?
lunacydetector 7 months, 2 weeks ago
if you believe unemployment dropped (the largest drop in 29 years), i have a bridge in brooklyn i'd like to sell you.
mommatocharlie 7 months, 2 weeks ago
To be fair, Obama DID say the numbers would go down. However, he did not say that the numbers of unemployed wouldn't go down till just a few weeks before the election, after he screwed up in the first debate.
tomatogrower 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Agreed. I can't think of anyone I know who doesn't have a job. I know a few who don't have the job they for which they trained, and would like to find something in their field, but they have a job. They go shopping still. They are doing just fine.
LarryNative 7 months, 2 weeks ago
I am not a republican and from what I have read, the 7.9% number seems misleading. The three glaring facts are: 1) 3% are not included because they stopped looking for work 2) Manufacturing jobs dropped sharply 3) 48,000,000 are still on food stamps
I do believe things are getting better but with a devaluing dollar and monster deficit spending, the ballon will pop and its gonna be devastating. Lock in your rates at all costs or you will be screwed.
SnakeFist 7 months, 2 weeks ago
But being on food stamps doesn't necessarily mean not having a job. When I was in the Army, for example, every enlisted person below E6 (and some above that) with at least one child qualified for food stamps.
grammaddy 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Not true.But keep repeating the lie.Eventually someone might believe it.
grammaddy 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Even bigger surprise-neither are you.Just because you say it does not make it fact.You must be involved in one of the agencies' work programs or you get nada.Obama did NOT remove the work requirements. He simply allowed States to make their own rules concerning them, and they must be able to prove that those other options will reduce the number on the welfare rolls by 20%.Been there, worked there.
LarryNative 7 months, 2 weeks ago
I understand food stamps does not equal unemployment. I was stating my concerns that unemployment numbers do not tell us the complete story of our economy.
SnakeFist 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Isn't it funny how conservatives were fine with how unemployment was calculated until Obama took office, and now they introduce factors like "labor participation rates" and "alien abduction rates". Maybe we should re-calculate unemployment under Bush using these new factors so we have a better idea of what Obama started with.
Does anyone without a tinfoil hat really believe that, as Liberty_One asserts, 22% - more than 1 in 5 - people are out of work (or, as he has asserted in the past, that unfunded liabilities now top 222 trillion)? The conservative perspective is a sad and cynical one.
Ribs61 7 months, 2 weeks ago
I don't know anything about unemployment numbers, other than both parties manipulate the numbers to the own purposes.
I do know the Congressional Budget Office is non-partisan and the numbers Liberty_one sites are accurate. Not everything in the forecast will necessarily come true but it is the direction we are heading with total spending. As an example, there could be many (think thousands) of elderly people pass away earlier than normal life expectancy, which would decrease anticipated expenditures in both medicare and social security. Those programs are not sufficiently funded for the promised benefits.
BigAl 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Great post. I bet some of these fine conspiracy folks are also "birthers".
SnakeFist 7 months, 2 weeks ago
For the record, Liberty_One asserted unemployment is "up past 22% now". Unemployment during the worst days of the Great Depression was approximately 25%.
tomatogrower 7 months, 2 weeks ago
It was found that 50% were either unemployed or underemployed. Underemployed means that they are not working in their field of study, or they aren't getting paid very well in the new entry level. It does not mean that they are unemployed. Of course, they could borrow money from Mum and Dadykins and start their own business.
I mean the 1% have to have educated service workers don't they? They get tired of being waited at restaurants by poor uneducated trash. And they need college grads to nanny their children (should read, raise their status icons). Have a little sympathy for those poor billionaires.
Liberty, I run a business and the new paradigm in the business world is to try to do the same work with as few people as possible. Preferably with no employees at all, no matter the lowering of quality and customer service. I've seen businesses change to that thinking all of the time. I know several managers and owners who look down on their workers and just consider them a deficit that can be replaced any time. They love the high unemployment rate. They can hire much cheaper labor now.
question4u 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Where in the country is there anyone who is saying, "I was perfectly neutral until I heard one side declare a conspiracy when information issued by the US government was not what they wanted to hear, and I'm sure that I can believe their accusations because they're clearly not biased"? The louder conspiracy touters howl the less credible they will sound to anyone who truly hasn't made up his or her mind. It's not as though the birther issue hasn't created a track record. What is a truly undecided voter more likely to believe: two government surveys that BOTH show drops in unemployment or the conspiracy theories of people who are as partisan as they come? If you believe that it's the latter, you've already bought the Brooklyn Bridge. Debate outcomes might have an influence, but whining about conspiracy over unemployment numbers is more likely to backfire than to sway any undecided voters. As for the rest it would take an event proportionate to an atomic blast to move them one way or the other.
tbaker 7 months, 2 weeks ago
The Labor Department reported the “household survey” numbers of total employment rose by 873,000 in September.
That’s the biggest one month jump in that number in 29 years - since June 1983.
I have a question4u: What other data corroborates and supports this rare event?
vertigo 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Just because something is rare doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
A big factor in that jump is the number of people who lost their jobs in September decreased by 468,000. That's half of your 873,000 right there.
Armstrong 7 months, 2 weeks ago
The U-6 has unemployment at about 14.7 % Those damned munbers are killin ya Barry
markoo 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Yeah, funny how you conservatives found the U6 number in the last 4 years. Can't seem to find any of you reciting this number in the Bush Administration.
Not one of you.
And I can't imagine why.......
Armstrong 7 months, 2 weeks ago
What does that have to do with Barry's unemployment numbers. Not one lib can debunk this 14.7 % number -
Not one of you.
And I know why
markoo 7 months, 2 weeks ago
I'm not debunking. Times are still tough and everyone including the President acknowledges that. What I am doing is questioning whether or not Right Wingers such as yourself ever questioned and utilized that U6 number when YOUR guy was in the Executive. Ever.
By the way, if you don't like where we are with unemployment, then ask businesses to stop squeezing every bit of life out of their workers by asking them to work harder and longer while refusing to hire more workers and sitting on trillions of dollars in the process. Ask the GOP to stop blocking jobs bills that Obama and the Democrats have attempted to pass through, including one that would have helped veterans:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/veterans-jobs-bill-blocked-in-the-senate/
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-07-19/politics/politics_senate-bring-jobs-home-bill-blocked_1_gop-senators-senate-republicans-jobs
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/3/senate-gop-shoots-down-obama-infrastructure-bill/?page=all
And lastly, also keep in mind something crucial about our recovery. As economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff said back in April, after systemic financial crisis, economies need more than a decade to return to initial per capita GDP. Furthermore, in 10 out of the last 15 financial crisis we have been in post WWII, unemployment did not return to pre-crisis levels until after a decade:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-02/five-years-after-crisis-no-normal-recovery.html
Considering how far this Administration has taken us in just 4 years, that's a considerable accomplishment so far. But even with this perspective, I highly doubt any Winger such as yourself would give any credit for that, so why would I bother?
Armstrong 7 months, 2 weeks ago
If you like the econimic model of Greece and Spain Barry is the guy to do it. Barry is too inept to run our country. The last 4 years of failure should prove that fact on numerous levels.
markoo 7 months, 2 weeks ago
"If you like the econimic model of Greece and Spain Barry is the guy to do it."
Except, of course, they are in their own crisis (much in part because of our own crisis and weakening of global banks), while we are slowly but steadily recovering from ours.
In any case, you really didn't respond to anything I said at all. Funny that. You change the subject faster than your Presidential candidate.
"Barry is too inept to run our country."
Yeah, getting us back to similar unemployment levels as to when he took office due to an idiot Administration that took us to the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression while having a GOP blocking anything and everything he has proposed to stimulate jobs recovery and making it their mantra to block anything he does from the getgo regardless of whether or not it will help our economy -
I'd say he hasn't done too bad so far. But hey, that's just me. We'll see in less than a month whether or not the rest of the country agrees with me or if they want your pompous CEO uber-wealthy twit of a candidate who can't relate to anyone but the filthy-rich in the office instead.
"The last 4 years of failure should prove that fact on numerous levels. "
Guess that's where our differences lie. Where you see failure, I see moving forward through unbelievably tough times, albeit slowly while the GOP blocks anything and everything he does in the process.
Armstrong 7 months, 2 weeks ago
How do you think the banks got "weak" in the first place ? Do you have any basic knowledge of the economy over there ? Do you have any basic knowledge of what started the decline of Greece and Spain ? Do you have any basic knowledge of our economy mimicing those models? Didn't think so
markoo 7 months, 2 weeks ago
"How do you think the banks got "weak" in the first place ? "
By our horrible deregulation policies which caught up with us and eventually caught up to them in a global economy.
"Do you have any basic knowledge of the economy over there ? "
No more than you seemingly have here in our country. Quite frankly, I prefer to focus on our country a little more. Is that okay?
"Do you have any basic knowledge of what started the decline of Greece and Spain ?
Their banks weakening had a large effect. Their central bank system is also a great deal different than ours and in many respects strapped them down from recovering as effectively as we were able to. There's a lot more other differences which I'm guessing you not terribly familiar with, but you can read more here:
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2012/0112millersciacchitano.html
But again, what's your point in bringing up this comparison? We're recovering, they're not. Who cares? If you're going to quiz me any further, perhaps you can refute any of my points I made above. It's a little tedious only refuting yours.
LarryNative 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Its also funny how Bush detractors called him a war criminal yet Obama uses drones to assassinate and nobody seems to care (myself included). This is political hypocrisy at work Markoo and both parties are guilty.
markoo 7 months, 2 weeks ago
I don't deny this at all. It's one of my biggest criticisms of Obama.
vertigo 7 months, 2 weeks ago
I was unaware healthcare, transportation and warehousing were all considered low-paid service jobs.
vertigo 7 months, 2 weeks ago
How so? You said 114,000 new jobs were "mostly low-paid service jobs".
The BLS reports the 114,000 new jobs were in healthcare, transportation and warehousing.
Healthcare is a service job, but not typically low paying.
Transportation and warehousing aren't service jobs and the pay is mixed depending on the type of transportation.
WristTwister 7 months, 2 weeks ago
The UE numbers will be revised to something north of 8% - after the election. Change you can believe in.
vertigo 7 months, 2 weeks ago
"YOU CAN'T REDUCE UNEMPLOYMENT BY 0.3% WITH 114,000 NEW JOBS!"
Read the BLS report. The number of people who lost their jobs in September fell by 462,000. That's half of the 873,000 alone.
jafs 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Something about that doesn't seem quite right to me.
The article says that over 800,000 people more had jobs, not that they hadn't lost theirs yet.
I don't understand the vast divide between that number and the number of new jobs.
vertigo 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Look at it like this:
Say there's a bucket that is leant over spilling water while simultaneously there's a flow of water into the bucket. So some new water goes into the bucket while some water flows out of the bucket. How much goes in depends on how strong the flow in is and how much goes out depends on the angle of the tilt.
What we seen this month is a small increase of the flow in and a lessening of the angle slowing the water out... and what you get is a net increase in the amount of water in the bucket.
jafs 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Nice analogy.
But, it doesn't fit with the statement that 800,000 more people have jobs.
That means that 800,000 people more have jobs this month than last month, not that 400,000 people kept their jobs, right?
I agree that lessening the folks losing their jobs is a positive thing, and part of the solution, along with new ones, but that's not how this was presented in the article.
vertigo 7 months, 2 weeks ago
No it means 800,000 more people were employed in September than the previous month. It doesn't say 800,000 new people found jobs.
jafs 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Same thing really.
If it were only a case of not losing your job, you wouldn't count all of those people in the 800,000 figure.
Say I have a job in August, and I don't lose it - that wouldn't count towards more people employed in September than August, since I was employed in both months.
In order to have more people employed, more people have to get jobs, not just keep theirs.
From the article "873,000 more people had jobs in September".
vertigo 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Yes it would... if every month some people lose their jobs those numbers go away from the employment column. If less people lose their jobs those numbers stay in the employment column.
Column A is employed
Column B is unemployed
Column A for July is 100 people
Column B for July is 10 people
In July 10 people lost their jobs and went to column B while 11 people found jobs and went to column A. A small net gain of jobs in column A (employment).
So In August: Column A is 101
and Column B is 9.
In August 10 more people lost their jobs but 12 people found new jobs which gives us another small gain in employment.
September Column A is 102
Column B is 8
That month of 5 people lost their jobs (half what we saw from the month before) while12 new people found job.
So for October that gives us column A (employment) a total of 109
and column B is now 1.
A large gain in employment from the month before (so 7 more people were employed than the previous month)... all because half the amount of people lost their jobs from the month before. 12 new people found jobs while 5 retained their jobs that normally (had the trend line continued) would have lost theirs. But since they didn't lose theirs those numbers stayed in the employment column rather than moved out of the employment column. Giving a larger increase in column A while those who found jobs remained steady.
jafs 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Ok - let's try to think this through together.
Given your numbers, we have more people getting new jobs than shows up in the employment figures, right?
In your 3 month example, 35 people have new jobs (11+12+12), but the increase in employment is only 9 (109-100).
The figures in the article show the exact opposite - we only have about 100K new jobs, but 800K more people employed, which doesn't make sense.
It would make more sense if the number of new jobs was higher than the employment jump.
Keeping one's job doesn't count towards more people employed - what counts is new jobs, offset a bit by newly unemployed folks.
Best case scenario - nobody loses their jobs at all. Then the number of people employed will rise at exactly the number of new jobs, with no unemployment offset. But, there's no reasonable way that the number of people newly employed can possibly be greater than the number of new jobs.
beatrice 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Well now I'm convinced. A few anonymous people who regularly bash President Obama say that the numbers from the Labor Department are false and the numbers were somehow rigged. I mean, why should I doubt their claims over the Labor Department?
Seriously, unemployment could be at 3% and some people would still hate Obama.
Oh well.
Come Nov. 7, I suspect we will be reading about how the voting numbers were also falsified.
Oh well.
Armstrong 7 months, 2 weeks ago
"Come Nov. 7, I suspect we will be reading about how the voting numbers were also falsified." - By the left
Pastor_Bedtime 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Good. So not a peep out of you about voter fraud when Obama wins? I'll quote you on that then.
beatrice 7 months, 2 weeks ago
You think the Left are going to be arguing that Obama's win was even bigger?
That doesn't make sense.
beatrice 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Because it is the same institution that has been putting out numbers all along, including when it was above 9%. That is why. This sudden distrust from some is nothing but partisan rantings. If the numbers had said the unemployement numbers had gone up, think those same people would be questioning their methodology?
lunacydetector 7 months, 2 weeks ago
true unemployment numbers: http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
Armstrong 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Prediction: As seasonal hiring begins for the Christmas holiday season Barry will be given credit for dropping the unemployment rate yet again " We will be on the brink of prosperity " unfortunately that only lasts until January like the last 4 years
beatrice 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Again, you are dead wrong.
It was at 9.9% in Dec. 2009 and fell to 9.7 in Jan. 2010, 9.4 in Dec. 2010 and 9.1 in Jan. 2011, and 8.5 in Dec. 2011 with the number being 8.3 in Jan. 2012? http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=country:US&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment+rate
You really are bad at this who numbers thing.
grammaddy 7 months, 2 weeks ago
World Leader in what? Prison population? Homelessness? Number of ididots still spouting"Greatest Nation in the World?" Polluters? Amount we spend on war instead of education or healthcare?
yourworstnightmare 7 months, 2 weeks ago
This is not what a real recovery looks like? Oh, Moderate Mitt must mean unemplyment and the economy in a real recovery just get better overnight. Now that would be real.
Look, the economy is clearly improving because of Obama's (and Bush's) policies. It is slow, and it may never fuller recover to look exactly like it did before, but to deny it is getting better is like clicking the heels of your ruby slippers together.
Add this to the list of Obama accomplishments.
antonioandolini 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Whether the unemployment rate appears unbelievable. The numbers are reported the same as when Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2 were in office. At least Obama is not waiving the victory flag yet. He is saying there is a lot of work left to do. Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2, would have been dancing in the street and taking all the credit. When Bush2 was in office anytime the unemployment rate came out showed an increase, they pointed the attention to the war in Iraq. Bush2 should have taken less time reading 1984 and more time on reading something that would have improved the economy. Hopefully, everyone won't see the unemployment as a negative and vote for Mitt the Switch!!!
LarryNative 7 months, 2 weeks ago
I agree with you Lib but If I voted tomorrow, I would vote Romney. The main reason is deficit spending under Obama is insane. I also feel Romney is a moderate rep acting hard right to get elected. Romneys Mass. tenure speaks volumes as to this man's political ideology and its not hard right. Its irrelevant, Romney will win Ks anyway. Kansas electoral votes would go to a purple pig wearing pink lipstick if it was running as a republican.
verity 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Romney has changed his political ideology in order to get elected. Do you really trust him to be a moderate as president? He chose Ryan, who is hard right, to be, as they say, a heartbeat away from the presidency. That alone would keep me from voting for him---not that I would anyway for any number of reasons, one being his entire lack of empathy for those not born with a silver spoon.
Of course, as you say, it really doesn't matter in Kansas.
deec 7 months, 2 weeks ago
Stagnant wages, underemployment and an aging population contribute to the rise in food stamp applicants. So do illicit foreclosures and the rise in homelessness. Child support evaders contribute. Disability eligibility may reflect an aging population, and so might the vast number of war veterans who do not receive adequate care when discharged.
sunshine_noise 7 months, 2 weeks ago
VOTE Barak Obama for re-election. He's the better of the two evils. Romney becomes President we all just better bend over and kiss our cans good-bye because none of use (except the already rich) won't have a pot to pee in. Say good-bye to Middle Class America. At least we'd have some semblance of that to hold onto with Obama in office.
vertigo 7 months, 2 weeks ago
"VOTE Barak Obama for re-election. He's the better of the two evils."
A vote for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.
jafs 7 months, 2 weeks ago
And yet, it's still the better choice, if those are the options.
I prefer to say he's the relatively better of two candidates, neither of whom is completely satisfying.
hear_me 7 months, 1 week ago
Liberty, Regardless of the scale used, a comparison can be made. The point to be made is that in 2008, unemployment was increasing. In 2012, unemployment is decreasing. A little casual calculus. Which would we rather have? An increasing rate or a decreasing rate.
By the way, I really appreciated Rand Paul's position on foreign wars. http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/opinion/rand-paul-romney-foreign-policy/ I think there's room for agreement across the aisle on this.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.