October Surprise(s)

This is just gonna open another can of worms, but isn't this also just the number of people actively looking for work, not taking into account the number of Americans who have just given up entirely, thus skewing the percentage downward in the first place?

Or is it not as simple (possible?) as being able to take the number of jobs plus the number of unemployed in both 2008 and 2012 (or any two dates) and compare the change size of the workforce? I really don't know; I've just read about this cursorily. 

Folks don't trust anything that come out of this Administration.  We still don't know where he was really born!  This President blabs with the socialist traitors on the view but he won't talk to World leaders.  He hates the military and he hates business.  I wouldn't put it past him to plan another oil spill as an attempt to scare folks into keeping him in office and supporting his radical environmental agenda.  Folks need to be on guard.

Originally Posted by NoahJ 
It is not possible to do this as it would reflect poorly on those that have to be responsible for the actual numbers that were found. Not just Obama, but all those in power currently...

If the only reason not to do it is to "save face", screw that. I'm more interested in whether the numbers are a real representation of the unemployed of workforce age.

And so conservatism (with the exception of NoahJ) continues its descent into solipsism and nihilism. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

This is just gonna open another can of worms, but isn't this also just the number of people actively looking for work, not taking into account the number of Americans who have just given up entirely, thus skewing the percentage downward in the first place?

 

Or is it not as simple (possible?) as being able to take the number of jobs plus the number of unemployed in both 2008 and 2012 (or any two dates) and compare the change size of the workforce? I really don't know; I've just read about this cursorily. 

Yes, as I understand it, the unemployment rate always is lowered when people give up looking. But you can also look at the number of jobs added, and the last couple of (bad) reports were revised upwards, which is clearly a good thing. It's that "jobs added" metric that is probably more important than the unemployment rate which is, as you note, kind of a strange measure. But the unemployment number is the headline, and it dropped below 8%, so I'm sure Obama will be happy and his opponents unhappy.

But I think there are two important facts:

1. The added jobs numbers are still not that great. They're just barely above population growth. 

2. It's the continued loss of government jobs that are the real problem. Private sector job growth is doing very well, but states are cutting public sector jobs as fast as they can, which is leading to overall anemic job growth.

Unemployment figures are a hot button election issue and there is a long history of manipulating these statistics to garner favor with the electorate. Perhaps it happened again this time?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BRussell 

1. The added jobs numbers are still not that great. They're just barely above population growth. 

Actually, the latest numbers are not above it at all. Well below in fact. In fact (except for July) back to March they're all below population growth which, at the low end, is 150K/month. Some estimates have it higher (200K) which then has only 3 of the last 12 months above population growth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BRussell 

2. It's the continued loss of government jobs that are the real problem.

 

Actually, that's the best part of the news. It indicates that more of the economy is shifting toward the private sector.

But the numbers are still pretty dismal and suggesting that we're headed for another recession.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

Actually, the latest numbers are not above it at all. Well below in fact.

Do you have anything to back that up? One of my favorite bloggers keeps a running tally of the job numbers and subtracts out his estimate of population growth, and this is what he says:

Quote:

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Do you have anything to back that up? One of my favorite bloggers keeps a running tally of the job numbers and subtracts out his estimate of population growth, and this is what he says:

The average annual population growth in the US has been around 1% for years. But let's go with the lowest it has been in the last 10 years: 0.9%. The US population is around 311M.

311,000,000 * 0.009 = 2,799,000 (per year)

That's an average of around (not 90,000, not 150,000 (as CNN said), not even 200,000 as I have previously heard) but 233,000 a month.

EDIT: I found another source that suggest lowest recent rate of growth was 0.7%. Given this lower amount these numbers:

311,000,000 * 0.007 = 2,177,000 (per year)

That's an average of around (not 90,000, not 150,000 (as CNN said)) but 180,000 a month.

Well I don't know enough about this to come up with my own numbers, and I don't know if there's a difference between population growth and job growth - new born babies are not going into the work force, for example - but 90,000/month does seem to be a standard job growth population adjustment number. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Well I don't know enough about this to come up with my own numbers, and I don't know if there's a difference between population growth and job growth - new born babies are not going into the work force, for example - but 90,000/month does seem to be a standard job growth population adjustment number. 

It might be standard, but it's not real.  The number consistently talked about is 150,000 per month over sustained period.  That is what's needed to bring down the unemployment rate.   

Quote:

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Well I don't know enough about this to come up with my own numbers, and I don't know if there's a difference between population growth and job growth - new born babies are not going into the work force, for example - but 90,000/month does seem to be a standard job growth population adjustment number. 

Your link played a clever trick. I wonder who can spot it:

P.S. The population growth rate does factor in babies born (and people dying and people coming of age to work and people going out of the work force because of age and immigration.) These things don't all absolutely balance each other out, but it is a single, reasonable metric to measure what's required.

This was the biggest one month jump in employment numbers for more than 29 years. God is being kind to someone. ;-)

"The Household Survey showed a gain of 837,000 people employed in September".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

This was the biggest one month jump in employment numbers for more than 29 years. God is being kind to someone. ;-)

 

"The Household Survey showed a gain of 837,000 people employed in September".

I guess that number is a little like "we created nearly 5,000,000 private sector jobs."   In reality, there are fewer people working in the U.S. today than when Obama took office, even despite the population growth.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

I guess that number is a little like "we created nearly 5,000,000 private sector jobs."   In reality, there are fewer people working in the U.S. today than when Obama took office, even despite the population growth.  

Plus 582,000 of those 837,000 are part-time (but full-time wannabes). Welcome to Obamanomics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

This was the biggest one month jump in employment numbers for more than 29 years. God is being kind to someone. ;-)

Yes, the U.S. economy set an almost three-decade record for job growth less than 48 hours after the incumbent president got spanked on international television over jobs, and just one month before the election. Not exactly subtle is it? Everybody - CNBC, ABC, even MSNBC, doesn't seem to understand the results. The U.S. continues its descent into banana republic status.

But the bigger question Hands, is whether this kind of hard data now causes BR to rethink his position on atheism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Well I don't know enough about this to come up with my own numbers, and I don't know if there's a difference between population growth and job growth - new born babies are not going into the work force, for example - but 90,000/month does seem to be a standard job growth population adjustment number. 

 

Your link played a clever trick. I wonder who can spot it:

 

 

Quote:

In an article on the June employment report the NYT told readers that the economy needs 150,000 jobs per month to keep pace with the growth in the population. Actually, the Congressional Budget Office projects that the underlying rate of labor force growth is now just 0.7 percent annually. This comes to roughly 1,050,000 a year or just under 90,000 a month.

 

P.S. The population growth rate does factor in babies born (and people dying and people coming of age to work and people going out of the work force because of age and immigration.) These things don't all absolutely balance each other out, but it is a single, reasonable metric to measure what's required.

The population growth rate does not factor in age or whether the person counts as part of the labor force. That's the reason for the discrepancy between the two numbers. If you are trying to assess whether a particular job creation rate will result in a positive or negative change to the unemployment rate, you have to use the labor force rate of change, not the population rate of change.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank777 

 

 

Yes, the U.S. economy set an almost three-decade record for job growth less than 48 hours after the incumbent president got spanked on international television over jobs, and just one month before the election. Not exactly subtle is it? Everybody - CNBC, ABC, even MSNBC, doesn't seem to understand the results. The U.S. continues its descent into banana republic status.

 

But the bigger question Hands, is whether this kind of hard data now causes BR to rethink his position on atheism.

Romney's supposed victory was like this, - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h17gIW9paO0&feature=related  

Just one of his many lies- 

Romney Lie- “And these [clean energy] businesses, many of them have gone out of business, I think about half of them, of the ones have been invested in, have gone out of business.”

The Truth- The loan guarantee program Romney referenced supported dozens of companies. Of those companies, four recently went bankrupt due to difficult market conditions. But that’s out of 33 companies that received loan guarantees or commitments for loan guarantees. That translates to a 10 percent failure rate representing roughly 2 percent of budgeted funds for the program — a big difference from the 50 percent failure rate that Romney claimed."

~ http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/04/960231/the-biggest-and-least-discussed-lie-of-the-debate-romneys-false-claim-about-clean-energy-bankruptcies/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Romney's supposed victory was like this, - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h17gIW9paO0&feature=related  

 

 

Just one of his many lies- 

 

Romney Lie- “And these [clean energy] businesses, many of them have gone out of business, I think about half of them, of the ones have been invested in, have gone out of business.”

 

The Truth- The loan guarantee program Romney referenced supported dozens of companies. Of those companies, four recently went bankrupt due to difficult market conditions. But that’s out of 33 companies that received loan guarantees or commitments for loan guarantees. That translates to a 10 percent failure rate representing roughly 2 percent of budgeted funds for the program — a big difference from the 50 percent failure rate that Romney claimed."

~ http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/04/960231/the-biggest-and-least-discussed-lie-of-the-debate-romneys-false-claim-about-clean-energy-bankruptcies/

1.  Supposed?  Even the liberal left admits Obama got annihilated.    When you have the New Yorker publishing things like this, you know:  

2.   Four RECENTLY went bankrupt.  Recently.  But in total:   

1. Abound Solar (Loveland, Colorado), manufacturer of thin film photovoltaic modules.
2. Beacon Power (Tyngsborough, Massachusetts), designed and developed advanced products and services to support stable, reliable and efficient electricity grid operation.
3. Ener1 (Indianapolis, Indiana), built compact lithium-ion-powered battery solutions for hybrid and electric cars.
4. Energy Conversion Devices (Rochester Hills, Michigan/Auburn Hills, Michigan), manufacturer of flexible thin film photovoltaic (PV) technology and a producer of batteries and other renewable energy-related products.
5. Evergreen Solar, Inc. (Marlborough, Massachusetts), manufactured and installed solar panels.
6. Mountain Plaza, Inc. (Dandridge, Tennessee), designed and implemented “truck-stop electrification” technology.
7. Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsens Mills Acquisition Co. (Berlin, Wisconsin), a private company producing ethanol.
8. Range Fuels (Soperton, Georgia), tried to develop a technology that converted biomass into ethanol without the use of enzymes.
9. Raser Technologies (Provo, Utah), geothermal power plants and technology licensing.
10. Solyndra (Fremont, California), manufacturer of cylindrical panels of thin-film solar cells.
11. Spectrawatt (Hopewell, New York), solar cell manufacturer.
12. Thompson River Power LLC (Wayzata, Minnesota), designed and developed advanced products and services to support stable, reliable and efficient electricity grid operation.

Let's see, that's closer to 30 percent.  And Romney said I think about half.   Not exactly an earth shattering allegation, there Hands.  Face it, your guy was utterly embarrassed in unprecedented fashion.  

Wow. When the Democratic ticket is being openly mocked by The New Yorker, it's an all-out bloodbath.

Obama must be lost considering he thought it was his greatness that put the media in his pocket when really it was just that they liked his racial quota and politics.

Oh, and Hands?  The margin of error in the Household Survey?  FIFTY PERCENT.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

 

1.  Supposed?  Even the liberal left admits Obama got annihilated.    When you have the New Yorker publishing things like this, you know:  

 

 

 

 

2.   Four RECENTLY went bankrupt.  Recently.  But in total:   

 

1. Abound Solar (Loveland, Colorado), manufacturer of thin film photovoltaic modules.
2. Beacon Power (Tyngsborough, Massachusetts), designed and developed advanced products and services to support stable, reliable and efficient electricity grid operation.
3. Ener1 (Indianapolis, Indiana), built compact lithium-ion-powered battery solutions for hybrid and electric cars.
4. Energy Conversion Devices (Rochester Hills, Michigan/Auburn Hills, Michigan), manufacturer of flexible thin film photovoltaic (PV) technology and a producer of batteries and other renewable energy-related products.
5. Evergreen Solar, Inc. (Marlborough, Massachusetts), manufactured and installed solar panels.
6. Mountain Plaza, Inc. (Dandridge, Tennessee), designed and implemented “truck-stop electrification” technology.
7. Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsens Mills Acquisition Co. (Berlin, Wisconsin), a private company producing ethanol.
8. Range Fuels (Soperton, Georgia), tried to develop a technology that converted biomass into ethanol without the use of enzymes.
9. Raser Technologies (Provo, Utah), geothermal power plants and technology licensing.
10. Solyndra (Fremont, California), manufacturer of cylindrical panels of thin-film solar cells.
11. Spectrawatt (Hopewell, New York), solar cell manufacturer.
12. Thompson River Power LLC (Wayzata, Minnesota), designed and developed advanced products and services to support stable, reliable and efficient electricity grid operation.

Let's see, that's closer to 30 percent.  And Romney said I think about half.   Not exactly an earth shattering allegation, there Hands.  Face it, your guy was utterly embarrassed in unprecedented fashion.  

Obama was brilliantly subtle. Did you notice him mention that $300 million plane? Pure class.

If you can get the time to read the following link it'll help to explain things truthfully more than Romney ever would. If you think a bunch of lies will pay off for Romney, I think you deserve what you get, nothing.

"Mitt Romney made numerous bogus claims in the Oct. 3 debate about the $90 billion in grants, guaranteed loans and tax breaks for energy projects in the stimulus bill:

• Romney falsely claimed “about half” of the clean-energy companies that received U.S.-backed loans “have gone out of business.” But 26 companies received loan guarantees under a loan program cited by Romney, and three of those have filed for bankruptcy. The three firms were approved for about 6 percent of the loan guarantees.
• Romney incorrectly claimed the “$90 billion in breaks to the green energy world” was provided “in one year.” It was two.
• He stated at one point that Obama put $90 billion “into solar and wind.” But only $21 billion went for renewable energy projects, “such as the installation of wind turbines and solar panels,” according to a White House document cited by the Romney campaign. The spending also included $18 billion for transit projects and $10 billion to upgrade the nation’s electrical grid.
• He falsely claimed the $90 billion was equal to “about 50 years’ worth of what oil and gas receives” in tax breaks, which he estimated at $2.8 billion. By his own figures, it would have been 32 years’ worth. But it’s even less than that. The administration estimates that eliminating oil and gas tax preferences would raise about $3.9 billion a year (23 years’ worth). The industry itself says the administration would increase its taxes by $8.5 billion a year (10.5 years’ worth).
• He falsely claimed Obama “put $90 billion into green jobs … that would have hired 2 million teachers.” But that $90 billion included loan guarantees, not just grant money, and the government can’t hire teachers with loan guarantees."
• ~ http://factcheck.org/2012/10/romneys-clean-energy-whoppers/

If you don't want to read the link here's the bit about Romney's 50% LIE-

"We were surprised by the claim that “about half” of the companies went out of business. As we have written before, an independent review of the Department of Energy loan and loan guarantee programs found that the failure rate was lower than Congress had expected.

When we asked the Romney campaign for information on this claim, we were told that it refers only to companies that received so-called section 1705 loans — a program created by the stimulus. A second program — the so-called section 1703 loan program — was created under the Bush administration, but loans were approved by the current administration. Also, Romney counted only section 1705 loan guarantees approved in the Obama administration’s first two years — ignoring the past two years.

Romney did not say any of that during the debate.

By limiting his scope to just the first two years of the program, Romney arrives at seven companies and three of them — including Solyndra — have filed for bankruptcy protection. The others were Beacon Power, which received a loan guarantee of $43 million, and  Abound Solar, which was approved for a $400 million loan but borrowed only $70 million against that. So, combined the three companies were approved for a total of $978 million in U.S.-backed loans and borrowed $648 million of that.

But there were a total of 26 companies that received approval for $16 billion in loan guarantees under the section 1705 program. So, 11.5 percent of the companies — not half — have filed for bankruptcy. And those companies were approved for a little more than 6 percent of the $16 billion in total loan guarantees.

Two other companies were awarded a total of $10.3 billion in loan guarantees by the Obama administration under the section 1703 program. So, if you count them, the bankruptcy rate would fall to under 11 percent, and the money at risk drops to about 4 percent."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

 

Obama was brilliantly subtle. Did you notice him mention that $300 million plane? Pure class.

   I don't think that's an opinion any analyst or pundit has put forth.  In fact, that's the first time I've seen that---anywhere.  He got destroyed.  

Hey can anyone find an article where the media fact checked Obama at the debate? I haven't seen one yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

 

   I don't think that's an opinion any analyst or pundit has put forth.  In fact, that's the first time I've seen that---anywhere.  He got destroyed.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uh, which program did he refer to?  He was talking about green energy loan guarantees in general.  

 

 

 

 

Oh my God!  

 

 

 

He was referring to the stimulus bill in general, not literally just solar and wind.  

 

 

 

 

 

Once again, "ABOUT" 50 years.  He used a bit of hyperbole.  This is not exactly something new for debates.   

 

 

 

 

Now we're just splitting hairs.  It was a rhetorical point.  

 

 

 

 

Well, that should do it, Hands.  Once the other candidate resorts to openly calling his opponent a liar (which the campaign did today), there is no coming back.   

 

 

 

lol.

I'm actually kind of digging this.  The right is so far up its own ass they're speaking in tongues. The jobs numbers must be a lie!  The polls must be a lie!  "The media" are in the bag for Obama!  Romney is a man of honor and integrity, despite having reversed himself on virtually every position he's ever held, many of them in the last week!  No he didn't!  Don't care if you can cite facts, facts lie!  50% is too 30%, close enough!  His tax numbers don't work, math lies!  He never said he'd cut taxes for the rich, except when he did, the world is a shifting palimpsest of mystery, you liar!  And anyway, Chicago style politics!  Which probably means something!

Obama is going to win, and you all are going to lose your fucking minds.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by signal1 

I'm actually kind of digging this.  The right is so far up its own ass they're speaking in tongues. The jobs numbers must be a lie!  The polls must be a lie!  "The media" are in the bag for Obama!  Romney is a man of honor and integrity, despite having reversed himself on virtually every position he's ever held, many of them in the last week!  No he didn't!  Don't care if you can cite facts, facts lie!  50% is too 30%, close enough!  His tax numbers don't work, math lies!  He never said he'd cut taxes for the rich, except when he did, the world is a shifting palimpsest of mystery, you liar!  And anyway, Chicago style politics!  Which probably means something!

 

Obama is going to win, and you all are going to lose your fucking minds.  

And I can't wait! ( wink if I could )

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Hey can anyone find an article where the media fact checked Obama at the debate? I haven't seen one yet.

Barack Obama doesn't lie. He doesn't need to be fact checked. He is in complete unity with the truth. In fact, he is the way and the truth and the life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by signal1 

I'm actually kind of digging this.  The right is so far up its own ass they're speaking in tongues. The jobs numbers must be a lie!  The polls must be a lie!  "The media" are in the bag for Obama!  Romney is a man of honor and integrity, despite having reversed himself on virtually every position he's ever held, many of them in the last week!  No he didn't!  Don't care if you can cite facts, facts lie!  50% is too 30%, close enough!  His tax numbers don't work, math lies!  He never said he'd cut taxes for the rich, except when he did, the world is a shifting palimpsest of mystery, you liar!  And anyway, Chicago style politics!  Which probably means something!

 

Obama is going to win, and you all are going to lose your fucking minds.  

Actually as someone who has lived his entire life basically watching one bubble after another, it is easy to see the signs and they are all very bad for Obama.

I mean when you've watched a couple real estate bubbles pop, a stock bubble pop, and are currently watching a bond, commodity and college loan bubbles form and begin to pop, you see a lot of the same signs.

The conventional wisdom never catches it. The variables always show strength until they magically don't since they are all trailing indicators.

I can remember 2007... housing prices never fall. They only ever go up. You can take a loan out for 7 times your income with negative am teaser rate for the first two year and no payment of principle because....housing prices never fall. Etc.....

It's not just that the job numbers are a lie. It's that they are being spun into something acceptable when they aren't. The polls are using turn out models that declare 2008, a historic year for a historic candidate, to be the low expectation for 2012.

Basically you build up a bullshit detector for people who refuse to address foundational issues. For internet stocks it was asking about profits and revenue. For housing it was noting how housing can somehow be uncoupled from income. People spout all manner of nonsense to ignore the foundational issues. For this economy it is going to be about jobs. Household incomes are down. Fuel costs are up. Health care costs are up. No amount of propaganda and distractions will change that fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Quote:

Originally Posted by signal1 

I'm actually kind of digging this.  The right is so far up its own ass they're speaking in tongues. The jobs numbers must be a lie!  The polls must be a lie!  "The media" are in the bag for Obama!  Romney is a man of honor and integrity, despite having reversed himself on virtually every position he's ever held, many of them in the last week!  No he didn't!  Don't care if you can cite facts, facts lie!  50% is too 30%, close enough!  His tax numbers don't work, math lies!  He never said he'd cut taxes for the rich, except when he did, the world is a shifting palimpsest of mystery, you liar!  And anyway, Chicago style politics!  Which probably means something!

 

Obama is going to win, and you all are going to lose your fucking minds.  

 

Actually as someone who has lived his entire life basically watching one bubble after another, it is easy to see the signs and they are all very bad for Obama.

 

I mean when you've watched a couple real estate bubbles pop, a stock bubble pop, and are currently watching a bond, commodity and college loan bubbles form and begin to pop, you see a lot of the same signs.

 

The conventional wisdom never catches it. The variables always show strength until they magically don't since they are all trailing indicators.

 

I can remember 2007... housing prices never fall. They only ever go up. You can take a loan out for 7 times your income with negative am teaser rate for the first two year and no payment of principle because....housing prices never fall. Etc.....

 

It's not just that the job numbers are a lie. It's that they are being spun into something acceptable when they aren't. The polls are using turn out models that declare 2008, a historic year for a historic candidate, to be the low expectation for 2012.

 

Basically you build up a bullshit detector for people who refuse to address foundational issues. For internet stocks it was asking about profits and revenue. For housing it was noting how housing can somehow be uncoupled from income. People spout all manner of nonsense to ignore the foundational issues. For this economy it is going to be about jobs. Household incomes are down. Fuel costs are up. Health care costs are up. No amount of propaganda and distractions will change that fact.

Actually the next bubble you'll witness popping is I'm afraid yours trumpy. The guy has just screwed the pooch too many times.

This jobs report rained on the Right's so-called "victory" from the day before and they don't like it.  This can't be happening.

To paraphrase Ann:  It's hard.  Stop it (releasing figures basically good for the country because they hurt the Republican meme).

The figures were a good signal for the health of the country.  Not great, but a good signal.

And the Right can't be happy for the country.

Sick.

After reading around for a while:

The numbers are wrong!  They can't be that low!  That means fewer people are suffering and less support for us!  How in the world could people want the nation to suffer?  If the figure had been over 8% or even gone up, they would have jumped for joy, while thousands suffered?  

The claim is the numbers are cooked.  Right.  Why not until now?  There's a pretty steady decline in the graph since the first year.  Also, the last political appointee to the commission that determines the rates left not long ago... he had been appointed by the War President, GW himself.  Also, isn't this data, which has till now been over 8% for many months, the source data for a large part of Mittens' attacks?  The data is only good when it helps us; as soon as it starts helping Obama, it's cooked. 

Chicago politics.  The Right wants the WH, to be president over the entire country.  That includes Chicago.  Way to alienate a large city, where there are also likely GOPpers.  Ring bells of 47%...or "real Amerika"?  The GOP enjoys alienating large portions of the populace in fell swoops.

Many of the critics claim to be good Christians; Romney is supposedly a bishop.  I would hope that the words ushering forth from them would be more positive and supportive of people and less derogatory and critical.  In theory, Christians should be positive and try to spread the love...  to raise people up.  

The president didn't do anything to change the jobless rate.  Private businesses do that.  But Romney claims he will create 12 million jobs.  By enlarging the government? 

- - - - -

Things are getting better after a hard time.  That is good news.  The bad year was Obama's first, when the world was still in free fall after the reign of Bush.  There has been improvement ever since.  The job's not done yet, but things are getting better.  That is good.  

McConnell said his job was to make sure Obama served only one term.  Last I checked, his job was to serve the American people and work as a part of one branch of the government (of which the president is another) to serve the people as a whole, not his party.  

How closely did Boehner work with Obama to improve the lives of Americans?  The US's credit rating was reduced... why?  

- - - - -

Anybody got data for: which states are the poorest, which have the highest unemployment, which have the lowest number of insured, which have the lowest number of high school graduates, which take the most in government handouts, which states are primarily Republican or Democrat?  Usually, these graphs are pretty telling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister 

After reading around for a while:

 

The numbers are wrong!  They can't be that low!  That means fewer people are suffering and less support for us!  How in the world could people want the nation to suffer?  If the figure had been over 8% or even gone up, they would have jumped for joy, while thousands suffered?  

 

The claim is the numbers are cooked.  Right.  Why not until now?  There's a pretty steady decline in the graph since the first year.  Also, the last political appointee to the commission that determines the rates left not long ago... he had been appointed by the War President, GW himself.  Also, isn't this data, which has till now been over 8% for many months, the source data for a large part of Mittens' attacks?  The data is only good when it helps us; as soon as it starts helping Obama, it's cooked. 

 

Chicago politics.  The Right wants the WH, to be president over the entire country.  That includes Chicago.  Way to alienate a large city, where there are also likely GOPpers.  Ring bells of 47%...or "real Amerika"?  The GOP enjoys alienating large portions of the populace in fell swoops.

 

Many of the critics claim to be good Christians; Romney is supposedly a bishop.  I would hope that the words ushering forth from them would be more positive and supportive of people and less derogatory and critical.  In theory, Christians should be positive and try to spread the love...  to raise people up.  

 

The president didn't do anything to change the jobless rate.  Private businesses do that.  But Romney claims he will create 12 million jobs.  By enlarging the government? 

 

 

- - - - -

 

Things are getting better after a hard time.  That is good news.  The bad year was Obama's first, when the world was still in free fall after the reign of Bush.  There has been improvement ever since.  The job's not done yet, but things are getting better.  That is good.  

 

McConnell said his job was to make sure Obama served only one term.  Last I checked, his job was to serve the American people and work as a part of one branch of the government (of which the president is another) to serve the people as a whole, not his party.  

 

How closely did Boehner work with Obama to improve the lives of Americans?  The US's credit rating was reduced... why?  

 

- - - - -

 

Anybody got data for: which states are the poorest, which have the highest unemployment, which have the lowest number of insured, which have the lowest number of high school graduates, which take the most in government handouts, which states are primarily Republican or Democrat?  Usually, these graphs are pretty telling.

The numbers simply don't make sense.  114,000 jobs with more people dropping out of the labor force does not equal a .3% employment gain.  That's the issue.  

Mittens debates... Mittens!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/08/mitt-romney-debates-himself-video_n_1949414.html

Yep.  A mashup of Mittens' comments where he virtually contradicts himself (standard operating procedure).

Link is to Huffingtonpost.

Video mashup courtesy of Daily Kos.

Please explain.

Ryan walked out of an interview when he got a question he didn't like.

If he serves in Congress or as VP, he will get lots of questions he won't like.  Will he walk out?

Will he walk out of the debate?  I think they need to ask him.. before each question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister 

Mittens debates... Mittens!

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/08/mitt-romney-debates-himself-video_n_1949414.html

 

Yep.  A mashup of Mittens' comments where he virtually contradicts himself (standard operating procedure).

 

Link is to Huffingtonpost.

 

Video mashup courtesy of Daily Kos.

 

 

Please explain.

Sure, it's called selective editing of out of context information and quotes can be used to do whatever and represent whatever you want.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister 

Ryan walked out of an interview when he got a question he didn't like.

 

If he serves in Congress or as VP, he will get lots of questions he won't like.  Will he walk out?

 

 

 

Will he walk out of the debate?  I think they need to ask him.. before each question.

I think you show exactly why various leftist politicians, when not in a position where their helpful media allies can toss them softballs do so poorly on defending their records and their policies. Snark, caricature, strawmen that you knock down and false outrage do not work as logic.