Poor repubs are sad from this report. Remember that they don't want our beloved nation to succeed under a democratic president.
Unemployment, February 1st year of term to September 4th year of term (February is used because President is not sworn in until January 21st- since that’s less than half a month, February is the first full month for a Presidential term. September is used so that all can be compared with the exact same number of months). 1. Clinton 1: 7.1% to 5.1% (-2.0) 2. Reagan 2: 7.2% to 5.4% (-1.8) 3. Clinton 2: 5.2% to 3.9% (-1.3) 4. Obama 1: 8.3% to 7.8% (-.5) 5. Reagan 1: 7.4% to 7.3% (-.1) 6. W Bush 2: 5.4% to 6.1% (+.7) 7. W Bush 1: 4.2% to 5.4% (+1.2) 8. HW Bush 1: 5.2% to 7.6% (+2.4) http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbymonth.aspx?type=UR
Na, not at all. But if Obama plans to bring Democrats and Republicans together, he needs to throw the cookie monster on the street!
114k jobs added is terrible, not even enough to keep up with population growth The 7.8% number comes from 456k less total unemployed. How does that jive with only 114k added? Simple, the other 342k just left the workforce. That's one way to bring the UE number down I guess
I admit I am puzzled how 114,000 jobs -- a third of the monthly number needed to bring down joblessness -- brings down the jobless percentage down by half a percent. I believe Obama is counting part-time jobs -- jobs like paying each of his part-time telephone bank "employees" a penny or so apiece. This is the same way he considerably exagerated his "green jobs" count -- by including everyone from bus drivers using bio-diesel fuels to janitors using "green" cleaning agents.
Nice try, except labor force participation went up this month. Standard GOP talking point doesn't work this time.
You know, you could just do a little Google research on how the numbers are calculated instead of making up wild conspiracy theories. I realize you don't actually care about knowing things and instead like to just believe whatever makes Obama look worst, but it's always an option if you ever decide there's some value to being educated.
I saw that as well. I guess in the end my question is how does this all add up? Too many conflicting factors. Did they revise the working age population downward?
It's easy to manipulate the numbers when you control the apparatus that generates the numbers. If you would ever remove your rose colored glasses and face the realities of the harm Obama is doing to the nation, you will be better served.
No - it's pretty simple. The two numbers are calculated from different surveys, so they don't move in tandem. It's always been that way - on the way up, and on the way down. http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/10/05/why-did-the-unemployment-rate-drop-9/ Also, the payroll number gets revised for previous months (where many more jobs were created than previously counted), whereas unemployment rate doesn't.
It's also easy - much easier - to do basic research and learn basic facts. If you ever removed blinders, you'd see that there are pretty simple explanations for all the many, many things that you don't understand. For your theory to work, Obama would have to convince a bunch of civil servants - including many Romney supporters - to risk their careers to fudge numbers in his favor. It would take just one person exposing it to bring down his entire administration. So yeah, I think your conspiracy theory is garbage.
Great strategy. Try and pretend the numbers are fixed, even though it's the same way the numbers have been calculated for Presidents for decades. Keep trying to cheer on bad jobs and economic numbers. So much for country over any party that you claimed the other day.
The jobs in July and August were actually much higher than they had thought. So those revisions in addition to the new jobs for this report made a difference.
