First Thoughts: Unemployment rate dips below 8 percent

Good news for Obama. Will it help his debate loss? I hope so.

Quote:

---

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...8-percent?lite

First Thoughts: Unemployment rate dips below 8 percent
By Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Brooke Brower

Unemployment rate dips below 8%... Will it have an impact?... Is Romney’s plan really a $5 trillion tax cut?... Yesterday was a tale of two different campaigns -- one with momentum, the other with something to prove… Romney cleans up his “47%” comment, calling it “completely wrong”… Two points on the return of “Moderate Mitt”… Democrats’public angst (comparing Obama’s debate performance to Donald Verrilli’s SCOTUS oral arguments)… Obama stumps in Virginia and Ohio, while Romney hits Virginia and Florida.

---

It is good news for Obama but the jobs data will come out the Friday prior to the election as well. I am sure the Romney campaign will shrug this off just as the Obama campaign shrugged off the above 8% data.

The Romney clan are saying the Obama team has doctored the unemployment figures. Go figure!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by White Eagle

The Romney clan are saying the Obama team has doctored the unemployment figures. Go figure!

---

"I was completely wrong about the 47%".....Romney
"I never voted against the Ledbetter Act".....Romney

We can now assume that everything Romney says is doctored.

LMAO at the GOP. Things just can't go right. It's below that vaunted 8% unemployment the GOP has clung onto. Deal with it. You made a big issue out of the percentage, now STFU. He got it below 8%.

7.8% sounds much better, and the upward revision of the previous months is encouraging. I have my doubts it's enough to change minds of people who have been eating up lies for months now.

Oh poor right wing lunatics. To think I held so much value in what are still very closely held beliefs for me but that they are so desperate to win they would sabotage anything including America. Now Americans having jobs is problematic for the cowards on the right.

Has any President been reelected with unemployment that high? It is nothing to crow about, but crow they will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benvolio

Has any President been reelected with unemployment that high? It is nothing to crow about, but crow they will.

---

FDR. Relected twice with unemployment numbers double what they are now.

Really so you mean a Democratic President had to save the country from republican policies in the past? Say it aint so Spiff.

I guess it's good news

Not sure how 114k added jobs reduces the UE rate by .3%

And they've restated prior month figures

I admit to not being all that on these numbers

Not sure how many people have left the hunt for a job

After a few months of not so good news this appears to be a positive

So how is this Obama's fault?

Oh no.

Wait a minute.

Will the Republican Congress be claiming credit for this?

Housing sales are up
Car sales are up
Consumer confidence is up

UP is up... regardless of where you want to make the starter marker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chance1

I guess it's good news

Not sure how 114k added jobs reduces the UE rate by .3%

And they've restated prior month figures

I admit to not being all that on these numbers

Not sure how many people have left the hunt for a job

After a few months of not so good news this appears to be a positive

---

Not looking at it close enough. 86,000 jobs were added to the prior two months, and many people (860k+) went back on the labor market and found jobs. It has a lot more good then even mixed news. It's a very good report.

Housing, car sales and consumer confidence is up, but income and productivity has also increased. This is a bad report for Mitt Romney and it takes some of the wind out of his sales. One may try to spin it and say it's manipulated, but it's clearly not. There is significant evidence with the economy that supports it, even with higher gas prices.

This is very good news, but clearly a lot of work remains. In terms of the election, it doesn't erase the debate, but it certainly stops the bleeding. And, there is clearly a great deal of symbolism in dropping below 8%. However, it is important to not overplay the numbers too.

The right is simply going to edit its rhetoric slightly to: "It took Obama 4 years to get the employment rate back to where it was when he was elected" which is, of course, disingenuous and misleading, but what do you expect... and, of course, there will be the anti-intellectualesque conspiracy theories...

On the other hand, the left obviously can't celebrate. They have to take the tack that "a lot of improvement has been made, we are on the right path, and we cannot afford to go backwards now."

It (coupled with those pesky fact-checkers) does stop Romney's momentum in its tracks though.

The Republicans are already claiming that Obama has fiddled the figures.

Yup.

The biggest one month increase in employment in s 29 years, 873,000 more people were employed in September 2012-- and yet the rate dropped only to 7.8% -- and only 114,000 new jobs added.

Does that math add up for anyone?

If your mind doesn't question something like that -- you're open to buying almost anything with questioning -- I doubt most people are that accepting.

Someone please explain this.

PS: I'm still assuming 2 + 2 = 4.

Yes the math does add up and the report is quite clear. One seems to not question what Mitt Romney says... even though it's all based on falsehoods. It's not surprising the right is trying to claim Obama cooked the numbers... when that's clearly not the case.

^^^

Please explain then -- with numbers.

I've already explained it. I don't see the difficulty in grasping the numbers here. The report is quite clear.

And as far as those 873,000... here is an explanation... many of those job positions were already existing. There are more jobs out there one can imagination. People are coming back to the work force. If the republicans would have not obstructed pro-job bills, unemployment would be below 7% right now. 2 million extra jobs would have been created. But republicans will sabotage whatever they can to gain political points.

With 5 minutes of the release of the 7.8 figures the far right media claims the figures were doctored.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GiancarloC

I've already explained it. I don't see the difficulty in grasping the numbers here. The report is quite clear.

And as far as those 873,000... here is an explanation... many of those job positions were already existing. There are more jobs out there one can imagination. People are coming back to the work force. If the republicans would have not obstructed pro-job bills, unemployment would be below 7% right now. 2 million extra jobs would have been created. But republicans will sabotage whatever they can to gain political points.

---

If the jobs were already "out there" as you say -- why weren't they counted earlier.

I'm trying to understand this -- are there 114,000 more jobs or 873,000 more jobs?

What do you mean weren't counted earlier? There are open positions out there that have been open for quite some time. Maybe workers gained qualifications and applied for those jobs, there can be a variety of factors. 873,000 refers to the number of people entering the workforce and finding work that already existed.

Read the main article again.

Your trying to understand things is suspiciously like your slamming the president for no reason... weird...

^^

If I understand Giancarlo -- the 873,000 jobs were jobs without people that got people in Sept and the 114,000 were jobs that were added ---- assuming those jobs included people.

Does that make sense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Springer

^^

If I understand Giancarlo -- the 873,000 jobs were jobs without people that got people in Sept and the 114,000 were jobs that were added ---- assuming those jobs included people.

Does that make sense?

---

In any even we brought in as many immigrants as new jobs, and last month BO gave green cards to 3 million illegals. No progress for Americans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bike10

With 5 minutes of the release of the 7.8 figures the far right media claims the figures were doctored.

---

If democrats or Obama had the power to fudge the jobs numbers, then don't all the goons making this accusation think Obama would have had this done earlier with all the other bad news reports he got this year? Were all those bad ones fudged? Oh of course not, just this single positive one. . .? They suddenly acquired the power to fudge these reports overnight?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Springer

^^

If I understand Giancarlo -- the 873,000 jobs were jobs without people that got people in Sept and the 114,000 were jobs that were added ---- assuming those jobs included people.

Does that make sense?

---

873,000 jobs weren't added in September. Those job positions were available. I wonder why one refuses to listen when I'm trying to explain. Also consider people leaving the workforce for retirement.

Jack Welch thinks it's ........... queer

the #s that is

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...eo-over-obama/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spiff

If democrats or Obama had the power to fudge the jobs numbers, then don't all the goons making this accusation think Obama would have had this done earlier with all the other bad news reports he got this year? Were all those bad ones fudged? Oh of course not, just this single positive one. . .? They suddenly acquired the power to fudge these reports overnight?

---

No, they would wait until the October report, the last month before the election, and report the biggest raise in thirty years. The OCTOBER SURPRISE GAMBIT. Phoney as a three dollar bill.

Phony? And what basis do you have to make for that? This isn't phony. That's a textbook knee jerk reaction to the report.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benvolio

No, they would wait until the October report, the last month before the election, and report the biggest raise in thirty years. The OCTOBER SURPRISE GAMBIT. Phoney as a three dollar bill.

---

Show me the facts. How exactly would they do that? For once, give us something substantial that shows proof of your claims. Show us how exactly that jobs reports are suddenly controlled by the presidency for this current administration only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GiancarloC

873,000 jobs weren't added in September. Those job positions were available. I wonder why one refuses to listen when I'm trying to explain. Also consider people leaving the workforce for retirement.

---

WTF do you mean available?

The figures are created by underlings of the President, exercising executive functions vested in the President. He can, if he wishes, brush them aside and create the figures himself. Here is his appointee--who will be out of work in Jan--lying about some of the figures.http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...ers-Questioned

WTF do I mean? Where is the argument with the content to counter what I have said?

And Benvolio, breitbart isn't a valid source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benvolio

The figures are created by underlings of the President, exercising executive functions vested in the President. He can, if he wishes, brush them aside and create the figures himself. Here is his appointee--who will be out of work in Jan--lying about some of the figures.http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...ers-Questioned

---

Lol, you can't get anymore far right than Breitbart. Your "proof" is as phoney as a three dollar bill, as you would say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by White Eagle

Good news for Obama. Will it help his debate loss? I hope so.

---

It doesnt matter if the new rate changes the 1 debate loss or not. This new rate gives all of us proof & continued hope that the Economy is improving slowly and Businesses are begining to hire again....

Obama Supporters arent going to walk away from him because of 1 poor debate performance or even 3 POOR debate performances...We know what the Obama Administration has accomplished over the last 4yrs..I already early-voted for him a few days ago and 12 of my co-workers voted for him this morning...We DO NOT trust ANYTHING that comes out of Mitt Romney's Rich-Lips...I like the guy and the way his Beautiful family supports him 100% but he's a terrible campaigner and he will LIE and say anything to live in the White house. That is not just my opinion its a universal opinion......

I watched The Romney's to see what they were about before I passed any judgement against them...You have to at least listen and watch.....I learned that they feel they are entitled to Live in the White house, they say it's "their turn"...I'm sorry but it doesnt work like that....They don't even TRUST putting their money in American banks and at the same time they wanna move into the White house that is paid by the American Tax payer dollars....No sir, I don't think so...

So Mitt can lock President Obama in the closet for the next 2 debates and do the debate SOLO and Obama supporters will still vote for President Obama the Man that doesnt flip-flop on his core beliefs...

I could care-less about The Republican Party saying the new rate is a farce. They also claimed The Administration NEVER killed Osama and demanded pictures of the Devil's body to be convinced.......

Here's more charts from different sources, to back up the 7.8% figure:

The progress is excruciatingly slow, but it is progress. We are slowly clawing our way back from the Bush Depression.

Things would go much faster, however, if Republicans would allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, would allow more stimulus spending, and would pass the jobs bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterMajestic

They also claimed The Administration NEVER killed Osama and demanded pictures of the Devil's body to be convinced.......

---

Or, as somebody else I know, some people said that he has been dead for years.

I doubt that - they would have waited until ABOUT NOW to "kill" him, instead of more than a year ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benvolio

Has any President been reelected with unemployment that high? It is nothing to crow about, but crow they will.

---

Ronald Reagan was re-elected with an unemployment rate of 7.4%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benvolio

The figures are created by underlings of the President, exercising executive functions vested in the President. He can, if he wishes, brush them aside and create the figures himself. Here is his appointee--who will be out of work in Jan--lying about some of the figures.http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...ers-Questioned

---

This is nonsense. These figures come from one of the most transparent bureaucracies in Washington, D.C., the BLS. NO PRESIDENT (or his merry men) can get to them. The numbers are sent to the White House a day before they're publicized. If the numbers were altered in any way, the whistle would have been blown on the White House.
As for Jack Welch, Chris Matthews made him look like a loony.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frankfrank

Or, as somebody else I know, some people said that he has been dead for years.

I doubt that - they would have waited until ABOUT NOW to "kill" him, instead of more than a year ago.

---

...LOL...Exactly..I remember listening to the BIGGEST Blabber-mouth in Ohio, The Bill Cunninham radio-show the night Obama addressed the nation about Osama's death...Republican callers called in saying "They didnt kill Osama, Dubya killed him in 2006 or 2007 and Obama is taking credit for it".....LOL...Then the next day that Drunkard Glenn Beck pretty much went on a crusade saying No BODY to display meant the Obama Administration was selling America a LIE...

All of them were screaming Bloody-murder after the new rate relase on Friday...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Constantine

This is nonsense. These figures come from one of the most transparent bureaucracies in Washington, D.C., the BLS. NO PRESIDENT (or his merry men) can get to them. The numbers are sent to the White House a day before they're publicized. If the numbers were altered in any way, the whistle would have been blown on the White House.
As for Jack Welch, Chris Matthews made him look like a loony.

---

Jack Welch is a Legendary Brilliant business man and a Romney supporter to the core. He's claiming The Obama Administration cooked the books just like The Donald claims he knows for a FACT Obama is a Kenyan pretending to be an American...

The Presidents underlings at BLS are BIG contributors to Obama. Tell me they aren't worried about their jobs.http://freebeacon.com/meet-the-obama-donors-at-the-bls/

Quote:

---

Harley Frazis of Bethesda, MD, has contributed at least $2,000 to Obama

---

Quote:

---

Stephen Phillips of Washington, D.C., has contributed at least $270 to Obama during the 2012 cycle.

---

Oh yeah.

HUGE donors.

And Harley, who has been publishing articles for the BLS since 1993, would really be concerned about his job, wouldn't he?

Quote:

---

FRAZIS, HARLEY
Frazis, Harley. “How to Think About Time-Use Data: What Inferences Can We Make About Long- and Short-Run Time Use from Time Diaries?” (with Jay Stewart). Annals of Economics and Statistics Number 105/106 (January-June 2012), 231-246.
___. "How Does Household Production Affect Measured Income Inequality?" (with Jay Stewart). Journal of Population Economics.24:1 (January 2011), 3-22.
___. "Why Do BLS Hours Series Tell Different Stories About Trends in Hours Worked?" (with Jay Stewart). In Labor in the New Economy, Katharine G. Abraham, James R. Spletzer, and Michael Harper, eds. NBER Studies in Income and Wealth, University of Chicago Press. (2010) pp. 343-372.
___. "Comparing Hours Worked Per Job in the Current Population Survey and the American Time Use Survey" (with Jay Stewart), Social Indicators Research 93:1 (August 2009), 191-195.
___. "On-the-Job Training" (with Mark Loewenstein). Foundations and Trends in Microeconomics 2(5) 2007, pp. 363-440.
___. "Where Does the Time Go? Concepts and Measurement in the American Time Use Survey" (with Jay Stewart). Hard to Measure Goods and Services: Essays in Memory of Zvi Griliches, Ernst Berndt and Charles Hulten, eds., NBER Studies in Income and Wealth, University of Chicago Press, (Spring 2007), pp. 73-97.
___. "Data Watch-The American Time Use Survey" (with Daniel S. Hamermesh and Jay Stewart), Journal of Economic Perspectives 19(1), Winter 2005, pp. 221-32.
___. "Reexamining the Returns to Training: Functional Form, Magnitude, and Interpretation" (with Mark Loewenstein). Journal of Human Resources 40:2 (Spring 2005) pp. 453-476.
___. "Estimating Linear Regressions with Mismeasured, Possibly Endogenous, Binary Explanatory Variables" (with Mark Loewenstein). Journal of Econometrics 117(2), November 2003, pp. 151-178.
___. "Human Capital, Signaling, and the Pattern of Returns to Education." Oxford Economic Papers, 54(2), April 2002, pp. 298-320.
___. "Correlates Of Training: An Analysis Using Both Employer And Employee Characteristics" (with Maury Gittleman and Mary Joyce). Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 53(3) April 2000, pp. 443-62.
___. "Tracking the Returns to Education in the Nineties: Bridging the Gap Between the New and Old CPS Education Items" (with Jay Stewart). Journal of Human Resources 34(3) Summer 1999, pp. 629-41.
___. "Keying Errors Caused by Unusual Keypunch Codes: Evidence from a Current Population Survey Test" (with Jay Stewart). American Statistical Association Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods, 1998, pp. 131-34.
___. "Formal and Informal Training: Evidence from a Matched Employee-Employer Survey" (with Maury Gittleman, Michael Horrigan, and Mary Joyce). Advances in the Study of Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Economic Growth v. 9, edited by Gary Libecap, (Greenwich, Ct.: JAI Press, 1997), pp. 47-82.
___. "Selection Bias and the Degree Effect." Journal of Human Resources 28(3), Summer 1993, pp. 538-554.
BLS Publications and Working Papers by Harley Frazis

---

http://www.bls.gov/ers/publications.htm


*Buzzer Sound*

Try again.

They clearly are not impartial. The contributions prove they want him to win and are helping him.

Sorry, Epic Fail.



Lamest argument ever. As though these two people only are responsible for issuing the stats. (Hint: They're not) or that they even have a direct connection to analysis of employment figures. (Hint: They don't)...or that there are no Romney supporters in the entire group of economists at the BLS (Hint: This one is up in the air)

The point and the proof are pitiful.

Shooorly you can do better than this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benvolio

The Presidents underlings at BLS are BIG contributors to Obama. Tell me they aren't worried about their jobs.http://freebeacon.com/meet-the-obama-donors-at-the-bls/

---

You go from Brietbart to Free Beacon.

Quote:

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Free_Beacon

The Washington Free Beacon is an American web site that publishes associated content from a U.S. conservative perspective.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/169082...s-taiwan-lobby

Conservative 'Free Beacon' Fronts for Taiwan Lobby
Lee Fang on July 26, 2012 - 3:55 PM ET

The Washington Free Beacon, a new website on the right, has a particular fascination with promoting weapon sales to Taiwan. In addition to daily hits on the Obama administration and Democrats, the Free Beacon has multiple posts calling for more F-16 fighter jet sales to the island nation, and has branded skeptics of militarization as “pro-China” activists.

---

Do I need to get more links?
You are full of it!