IT'S A MIRACLE!!!!! Look what Obama pulled out of his hat 33 days before the election
The seas didn't part. The earth didn't stand still, but an Obama miracle (at face value) did occur. Today, the Obama's Labor Department released the September job's report (October surprise) which for the first time (33 days before the election) showed the U3 unemployment rate a 7.8%. When I heard the number released this morning at 8:30am, two words formed immediately, OCTOBER SURPRISE.. If the economy was getting better and people truly were finding jobs, that of course would be great news. This report, however shows that is hardly the case. Barack Obama was quick to cease on the jobless rate as success in saying "we can't turn back now". All I can say is that if Obama truly believes our economy is on the right track based off this dismal report and the reports from nearly a year, we are doomed to become Europe at warp speed. Last month, the unemployment rate was 8.2% but now it's at 7.8%. Many economists and financial experts find the Labor Department report suspicious, and that's putting it mildly. Former CEO of General Electric Jack Welsh and contributor to CNBC tweeted "Obama is manipulating the jobs number because his debate performance was awful. According to the Labor Department
"The Department of Labor said that unemployment fell 0.3 percent because of a total employment gain of 873,000, the most since 1983. The number of unemployed, meanwhile, fell 456,000 in September.
11 Comments:
Man Oh man.... A 0.3 percent drop in the unemployment rate and the haters turn into conspiracy theorist's....
Question: Where were the conspiracy theories during the period of 2010-04-01 to 2010-05-01, when the unemployment rate went from 9.9 down to 9.6? Which is a 0.3 percent drop. How about 2010-11-01 to 2010-12-01 when the rate went from 9.8 to 9.4, a 0.4 percent drop?
So what now? The Obama administration cooked the BLS books? So from here on out the BLS is not to be trusted? Or, will the Obama haters only believe what "they chose" from the BLS?
After over fifty years of reporting, suddenly the statistical integrity of this well respected non partisan group is being accused of conspiring and rigging it's own trusted reports to help a president get re-elected? By 0.3 percentage points no less? It's no doubt that the Black guy in the White House has driven many Republicans and conservatives totally crazy....
allen "Man Oh man.... A 0.3 percent drop in the unemployment rate and the haters turn into conspiracy theorist's...."
As usual, trying to smear the messengers when you can't smear the message allen. What else is new? It's no secret that historically no incumbent president has ever been re elected with an unemployment rate over 8%. You knew that right? Furthermore, the 7.8% rate is critical to Obama because that was what it was when he took office in January of 2009.
It's not a conspiracy to ask how the numbers make sense. Would you like to take a crack at it?
p allen "After over fifty years of reporting, suddenly the statistical integrity of this well respected non partisan group is being accused of conspiring and rigging it's own trusted reports to help a president get re-elected? By 0.3 percentage points no less? It's no doubt that the Black guy in the White House has driven many Republicans and conservatives totally crazy..."
This isn't about 15 years, it's about the importance of the 7.8% number and 33 days left to the election allen. Bring it back to reality allen. Of course you just want to dismiss this as right wing conspiracy and nothing more, because you can't explain how the numbers are legitimate. All anyone is asking for is a logical explanation. That isn't asking for much. Then again, the left might call it racist to dare challenge the numbers. Oh wait, you did bring up Obama's race "that black guy", figures.
CB;" it's about the importance of the 7.8% number and 33 days left to the election".
RIGHT!!! You fell right into that one Tyrone.
That's why your conservative cohorts are going completely crazy! It's the 7.8 figure. It's not about whether the economy is improving...or not. It's all about the 7.8. Hell, a 0.3 drop ain't really all that good. The December 2010 report showed a 0.4 percent drop and conservatives didn't let out a peep!!!
The conservatives that are screaming foul are doing so because they don't want the president to get re-elected, EVEN IF IT MEANS THAT UNEMPLOYMENT MUST BE HIGH TO INSURE PRESIDENT OBAMA LOSES! Such a callous and overbearing reaction "PROVES" that President Obama's detractors don't really care how many people are out of work. It's all about politics.
Obama detractors (a.k.a. Romney supporters) have taken to accusing the BLS of being corrupt, when (as I've shown you) after 50 years reporting drops had never been challenged by conservatives (to the best of my knowledge).
Question: Nahhhh... Never mend the question. I've got my own conspiracy theory. I believe the BLS cooked the books and posted higher than actual figures for the past 3 years. Yeahhhhh. They would report 9.5 when it was really 7.5. But this month the Obama administration caught their dirty deeds and made them post the actual numbers! Yeahhhh that's the ticket!
With all you said, you still didn't answer the question to how the numbers came to be, so how about taking a crack at it allen. Again, I am not the issue.
CB"With all you said, you still didn't answer the question to how the numbers came to be, so how about taking a crack at it allen. Again, I am not the issue".
The numbers came to be in the same way and fashion they have for the last 50 years...that's the point Tyrone. My question to you is what did they do differently? Did they change their methods?
The reports from the BLS can be, and in the past have been revised if they deemed it necessary. It's happened before, and the politicians and pundits don't accuse the bureau of "cooking the books." As you've so eloquently stated, the only difference is "33 days before the election."
Honestly Tyrone, this conspiracy theory is crazy insane. A report from the BLS saying the unemployment rate dropped to 7.8% should be looked at as good news for the American economic outlook. The overall outlook of a 7.8% figure really isn't a great strength for any sitting president. Frankly, it's still awful high. However, for a country and people who are trying to recover from the worst recession since the Great Depression, such economic news should be welcomed by all.
I'm not calling it a conspiracy - it's been an ongoing lie for the last 3 years. If you really wanted an accurate number, you would include the number of people who have given up looking for work, the people who have been unemployed for over 24 months and factor in that the labor force is smaller in 2012 than it was in 1984.
Conservatives have been complaining about the jobs reports numbers since 2009 - when this administration discontinued the practice of counting persons out of work for longer than 24 months and those who no longer sought work.
The biggest problem with this newest jobs report is it is avoiding one simple fact: There are less people working and fewer jobs available. That little fact doesn't fit with the "narrative" that the economy is recovering.
Frank;"Conservatives have been complaining about the jobs reports numbers since 2009 - when this administration discontinued the practice of counting persons out of work for longer than 24 months and those who no longer sought work.
".
So the conservative started complaining in 2009??? And the reason they started complaining is because they thought the Obama administration was responsible for not counting DISCOURAGED WORKERS?
"The United States Department of Labor first began tracking discouraged workers in 1967 and found 500,000 at the time.[12] Today, In the United States, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics as of April 2009, there are 740,000 discouraged workers".
So, since the "present administration" is "NOT" responsible for a practice that began in 1967, please expalin why would they wait until 2009 to start complaining? The misinformation you've been given by the "complaining conservatives" has to have a motive? You should ask them why are they lying to you.
Frank;"The biggest problem with this newest jobs report is it is avoiding one simple fact: There are less people working and fewer jobs available. That little fact doesn't fit with the "narrative" that the economy is recovering".
I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on the economy. However, I do know that the people who track and report on it use a myriad of factors, calculations, surveys, pollings and observations to report their findings.
Honestly, I have for years (since I began paying attention to the BLS figures) thought them to be a bit erratic and fickle. Seeing that I'm no expert on how they compute their numbers, I like everyone else should expect and demand that they report as factually as possible.
P Allen "So the conservative started complaining in 2009??? And the reason they started complaining is because they thought the Obama administration was responsible for not counting DISCOURAGED WORKERS?"
I see that you don't keep up with economic issues allen. Yes allen, discouraged workers. It's now a conservative buzz term belive it or not. You might want to tune in CNBC, Fox Business, Bloomberg or some other financial source to bring yourself up to speed. Let me help you get started. Goggle the two words "discouraged workers". You will discover that the media has been using these words for nearly four years along with the term "jobless recovery".
I'll try this again...
I put a link on DISCOURAGED WORKERS in my previous post. It shows that, as I said, the term has been used by the United States Department of Labor since 1967.
CB;"Goggle the two words "discouraged workers". You will discover that the media has been using these words for nearly four years along with the term "jobless recovery".
Obviously you didn't Google the term, so let me bring you "up to speed." If you had, you would have found out the term, "discourages workers", was used by the "media" In this Time Magazine article in 1991.
Allen, "So, since the "present administration" is "NOT" responsible for a practice that began in 1967.
Mr. Allen, I believe the question is, "when was the practice of counting discouraged workers discontinued", not when it began. The practice has indeed been discontinued, meaning that persons not looking for work are no longer counted as unemployed.
You're right, the practice began in 1967, but was ended in 1994. So you're wrong to claim it's not being used because this administration is using the tactic to deliberately under count the workforce.
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/johnransom/2012/01/07/obama_unemployment_magic_trick_indefinitely_detain_4_million_people_from_workforce
-John
Even if the 7.8% Unemployment Rate is true, that's still far, far off from where Obama promised after he was elected that he'd turn the rate to (5% to be exact.)
In fact he said that he'd do that AND half the deficit (instead he added 6 trillion more) or "this is a one-term proposition."
I say we hold him to his word.
Post a Comment
<< Home