Leon Troutsky Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 http://finance.yahoo.com/news/february-jobs-gains-seen-strong-060614362.html227,000 new jobs added. Unemployment remained at 8.3%, but this is the third straight month of 200,000+ jobs added to the economy.If this keeps up, Obama's a favorite for reelection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SYD Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 CASE CLOSED!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leon Troutsky Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share Posted March 9, 2012 Check out the unemployment rate...it is back to where it was when Obama took office. And look at the trend in jobs gain. It's hard to argue that the economy is worse than it was two years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eatcorn Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Slow and steady. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leon Troutsky Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share Posted March 9, 2012 Slow and steady.Not as good as it could be, but better than it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SYD Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Not as good as it could be, but better than it was.As long as it slowly is trending upward then that would usually mean these are real jobs and not fly by night changes with little long term impact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kicker Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I think it's great news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eatcorn Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Not as good as it could be, but better than it was.I suppose. I have a more comfortable feeling about slow and steady recovery, though. It just seems more stable for some reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Deisel Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I guess Gallups poll yesterday was a mirage. Dude, the Govt website is Obama's website. The real unemployment #'s are back to 9% and now gas prices are going to flash fire inflation and more jobs are going to be lost to make up for that increase. Lets also consider the costs of Everything, Excluding my cadillac, is going up and up, which means people drive less, go on vacations and business trips less, which means peoples spending decreases and the overall mood of the country continues to spiral. Best of luck selling that to the electorate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kicker Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 And more importantly, government jobs fell by 6,000. Let's hope that trend continues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leon Troutsky Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share Posted March 9, 2012 I guess Gallups poll yesterday was a mirage. Dude, the Govt website is Obama's website. The real unemployment #'s are back to 9% and now gas prices are going to flash fire inflation and more jobs are going to be lost to make up for that increase. Lets also consider the costs of Everything, Excluding my cadillac, is going up and up, which means people drive less, go on vacations and business trips less, which means peoples spending decreases and the overall mood of the country continues to spiral. Best of luck selling that to the electorate.Ah, I see. So under Reagan, all of the job gains were an illusion because "the govt website is Reagan's website" and Reagan manufactured those number. Is that what you're saying?And let's take a look at Gallup:So even with Gallup, unemployment is dropping. Are you ready to credit Obama for reducing unemployment?And more importantly, government jobs fell by 6,000. Let's hope that trend continues.But, but, but...Obama is a BIG GOVERNMENT LIBERAL! How can this be??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Deisel Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Wait till they add in all the military cuts. Thats gonna put alot of good men and women out of work and I'm sure the Govt website will find a way not to count them. They are also cutting military health care programs/services. Cuts on the backs of our Military. Thats just great. On a more positive note: Fed-Subsidized 'Green' Light Bulb Hits Market -- Cost: $50...I'm sure glad to have this to spend on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Deisel Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Ah, I see. So under Reagan, all of the job gains were an illusion because "the govt website is Reagan's website" and Reagan manufactured those number. Is that what you're saying?And let's take a look at Gallup:So even with Gallup, unemployment is dropping. Are you ready to credit Obama for reducing unemployment?But, but, but...Obama is a BIG GOVERNMENT LIBERAL! How can this be???Thats pretty funny Acworth. But, ah, Acworth there were NO websites to be had during Reagans years and we all KNOW how the Govt can put out #'s to obfuscate their corruption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leon Troutsky Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share Posted March 9, 2012 Oh, as for the mood of the country...consumer confidence is up: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leon Troutsky Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share Posted March 9, 2012 Thats pretty funny Acworth. But, ah, Acworth there were NO websites to be had during Reagans years and we all KNOW how the Govt can put out #'s to obfuscate their corruption.Good catch. However, the Bureau of Labor Statistics was the department that calculated the numbers. They control the website and they are the ones who calculated the numbers under Reagan. So can we dismiss those job gains under Reagan because his gov't department were cooking the numbers? Or do we only dismiss numbers that disagree with our political views as fabricated when the other party holds the presidency? Just trying to figure out how the game works.In the meantime, even the "neutral" Gallup poll shows a drop in unemployment. Plus, consumer confidence is way up as well. The evidence just doesn't support your narrative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kicker Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Ah, I see. So under Reagan, all of the job gains were an illusion because "the govt website is Reagan's website" and Reagan manufactured those number. Is that what you're saying?And let's take a look at Gallup:So even with Gallup, unemployment is dropping. Are you ready to credit Obama for reducing unemployment?But, but, but...Obama is a BIG GOVERNMENT LIBERAL! How can this be???Public sector jobs are across the board, meaning state and local jobs are included. It doesn't change the fact that Obama is a big government liberal. Or are you going to try to dispute that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Radical Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 But, ah, Acworth there were NO websites to be had during Reagans yearsThat's the most hilarious attempt at a dodge I think I've ever seen you make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cali_fan420 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Enter the Republican cheerleaders rooting for the economy to fail. Why do you guys hate America? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Deisel Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 And here we have a story abt Govt being concerned about leaking Jobs data to the press, before they(govt) have a chance to massage the data, manipulate the data, as they see fit. The article even cites Obama's approval ratings and poll #'s as a concern. This is all about vetting the data to specifically control the information the media gets. Gov't concerned people could leak jobs data... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leon Troutsky Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share Posted March 9, 2012 Public sector jobs are across the board, meaning state and local jobs are included. It doesn't change the fact that Obama is a big government liberal. Or are you going to try to dispute that?Yet there's been a DECREASE in public sector jobs under Obama. Take a look at the interactive graph on this website:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/10/business/economy/us-added-227000-jobs-last-month-rate-at-8-3.html?_r=1&hpI can't copy the image because it's interactive, but it gives the option to show only private sector job growth. Notice that private sector job growth has been more positive than total job growth precisely because under Obama the public sector jobs have declined (due to the recession, but nonetheless..). The narrative that he has expanded government jobs is false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leon Troutsky Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share Posted March 9, 2012 And here we have a story abt Govt being concerned about leaking Jobs data to the press, before they(govt) have a chance to massage the data, manipulate the data, as they see fit. The article even cites Obama's approval ratings and poll #'s as a concern. This is all about vetting the data to specifically control the information the media gets. Gov't concerned people could leak jobs data...Where in that article does it claim that the concern is about having "a chance to massage the data, manipulate the data, as they see fit"? Here is what the article says:The jobs report can move the market strongly in a blink. If traders had advance notice of what the government numbers were going to be, they would have an unfair advantage that could net them millions of dollars in profit.The concern is about insider trading. You keep making this claim that the numbers are being manipulated, so why shouldn't we discount all of the job growth under Reagan? Same bureau. Same calculations. Same opportunity for political manipulation. Also, how do you explain the decline in unemployment using the Gallup poll and the increase in consumer confidence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SYD Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 That's the most hilarious attempt at a dodge I think I've ever seen you make.There were no websites but there surely were airliners in 1800's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kicker Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Yet there's been a DECREASE in public sector jobs under Obama. Take a look at the interactive graph on this website:http://www.nytimes.c...-3.html?_r=1I can't copy the image because it's interactive, but it gives the option to show only private sector job growth. Notice that private sector job growth has been more positive than total job growth precisely because under Obama the public sector jobs have declined (due to the recession, but nonetheless..). The narrative that he has expanded government jobs is false.Obama has added 123,000 federal employees since taking office. State and local government jobs are the ones being axed.I blame Obama specifically for 3 things: Trying to pin our revenue collection on the backs of the rich. Not fixing Social Security and Medicare when he had the mandate.Inserting Obamacare which has already proven that it won't lower costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
achilles return Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 What makes this extremely ironic were Snake's comments in 2008 - decrying the recession as a mythical creation of the 'MSM' to make the Republicans look bad before the election that year. He's literally doing the opposite now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leon Troutsky Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share Posted March 9, 2012 Obama has added 123,000 federal employees since taking office. State and local government jobs are the ones being axed.I blame Obama specifically for 3 things: Trying to pin our revenue collection on the backs of the rich. Not fixing Social Security and Medicare when he had the mandate.Inserting Obamacare which has already proven that it won't lower costs.So you blame Obama for the jobs lost in February, when he had only been in office a few days? And the jobs lost in March and April before his policies had a chance to go into effect?The 8.3 percent unemployment number is a cooked number. The numbers are massaged, as Deisel pointed out, and do not include those who have dropped out of the work force, meaning that they are no longer looking for employment and are therefore not counted in the unemployment statistics.And the statistics are not calculated now the way they were under Reagan.Do you have any evidence to support these claims? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.