The 144,000 was almost to the forecasted level of 150,000.
Still, the president is the only president to have a net loss of jobs during his tenure since Herbert Hoover and he ain't gonna be able to hide that fact. And he gave us the largest budget deficit ever. But look at the bright side - at least he gave himself and Dick Cheney hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax cuts.
Still, the president is the only president to have a net loss of jobs during his tenure since Herbert Hoover and he ain't gonna be able to hide that fact. And he gave us the largest budget deficit ever. But look at the bright side - at least he gave himself and Dick Cheney hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax cuts.
Karl Rove would tell Bush to put a positive spin on a 1,000 job gain. I can just hear it: "Hey some folks might complain about a small job gain, but go ask the people who got a newly created job if they are happy". Spin is everything.
Here is something they don't mention, straight out of the jobs report. The category "not in labor force" jumped by 408,000. So if you ever wonder how unemployment rates go down when the job creation numbers are mediocre, there is your explicit answer.
You can see for yourself at:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
Here is something they don't mention, straight out of the jobs report. The category "not in labor force" jumped by 408,000. So if you ever wonder how unemployment rates go down when the job creation numbers are mediocre, there is your explicit answer.
You can see for yourself at:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by eltonio:
When you get to those details, find out how many of these 144,000 new jobs pay enough to support a family. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If your job doesn't pay enough to make ends meet, then get TWO jobs and work 50 or 60 hours a week. It's called "Doing what it takes."
When you get to those details, find out how many of these 144,000 new jobs pay enough to support a family. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If your job doesn't pay enough to make ends meet, then get TWO jobs and work 50 or 60 hours a week. It's called "Doing what it takes."
Absolutely insane Wildbill and frankly irresponsible of you to make a statement like that without at least pasting it in for people to make their own decision.
This CLEARLY says that these people HAD NOT LOOKED FOR WORK in the PAST MONTH.
There is a reason they dont count and its not because GEORGE BUSH told them not to LOOK FOR WORK!
And dont tell me for a second that this category was created by the bush administration to trick people into thinking things are better than they are. Clinton surely had the benfit of excluding these people as well.
Considering the fact that the country was sliding into recession before bush even took office combined with the economic impact of 9-11 on ALL industries things are going pretty well - and I dont really think it has to do with the policies of either president over the last 12 years...
"Persons Not in the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)
The number of persons who were marginally attached to the labor force was
1.6 million in August, about the same as a year earlier. (Data are not sea-
sonally adjusted.) These individuals wanted and were available to work and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted
as unemployed, however, because they did not actively search for work in the
4 weeks preceding the survey. There were 534,000 discouraged workers in
August, also about the same as a year earlier. Discouraged workers, a subset
of the marginally attached, were not currently looking for work specifically
because they believed no jobs were available for them. The other 1.1 million
marginally attached had not searched for work for reasons such as school or
family responsibilities. (See table A-13.)"
This CLEARLY says that these people HAD NOT LOOKED FOR WORK in the PAST MONTH.
There is a reason they dont count and its not because GEORGE BUSH told them not to LOOK FOR WORK!
And dont tell me for a second that this category was created by the bush administration to trick people into thinking things are better than they are. Clinton surely had the benfit of excluding these people as well.
Considering the fact that the country was sliding into recession before bush even took office combined with the economic impact of 9-11 on ALL industries things are going pretty well - and I dont really think it has to do with the policies of either president over the last 12 years...
"Persons Not in the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)
The number of persons who were marginally attached to the labor force was
1.6 million in August, about the same as a year earlier. (Data are not sea-
sonally adjusted.) These individuals wanted and were available to work and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted
as unemployed, however, because they did not actively search for work in the
4 weeks preceding the survey. There were 534,000 discouraged workers in
August, also about the same as a year earlier. Discouraged workers, a subset
of the marginally attached, were not currently looking for work specifically
because they believed no jobs were available for them. The other 1.1 million
marginally attached had not searched for work for reasons such as school or
family responsibilities. (See table A-13.)"
Calm down Jaypaw, why did what I say turn into some indictment? I just said Bush and his people are spinning this into something more than it was, a mediocre report. It isn't disaster, but it isn't that good. But Bush's team will tell you it is good because the number wasn't negative and the rate went down. The rate went down because people left the workforce, it really is as simple as that. Nothing irresponsible or "insane" saying that. You just are sounding like typical Bush supporter right now, if you infer anything bad you just get jumped.
I have refrained from saying much in this forum for this reason, trying to be reasonable and stick to basic fact, but obviously that isn't good enough anymore. Quite simply this has become a case of you are either with us or against us posturing by Bush and his supporters. Some avowed Kerry supporters surely do the same thing. I think most of us whose sentiments are in the middle are deeply turned off by it all.
I have refrained from saying much in this forum for this reason, trying to be reasonable and stick to basic fact, but obviously that isn't good enough anymore. Quite simply this has become a case of you are either with us or against us posturing by Bush and his supporters. Some avowed Kerry supporters surely do the same thing. I think most of us whose sentiments are in the middle are deeply turned off by it all.
Sorry I did say it a little harsh
My point is that you make the statement like a "typical anti-bush supporter"
The fact is that if more people are out of the workforce because they arent looking for work - then its no fault of any of bush's policies.
I think the bush "team" can make a fair case that in the wake of the economic impact of 9-11 EVEN any slightly above average news is good news overall and I dont see anything wrong with that.
I got angry probably by mistake - but on my initial read of your statement it seemed like you were slamming them for trying to spin anything positive out of this jobs report - when in reality there is nothing to slam... Even if they say its good news and its only 'slightly above average'
I feel the same way about this forum - I fear saying anything out of fear of getting railed on by a bunch of blowhards. But I dont think that pointing out some positive news as patriot did, is a bad thing at all, and I felt someone should say something to what seemed to be you trying to bash it.
Sorry if I read you wrong
My point is that you make the statement like a "typical anti-bush supporter"
The fact is that if more people are out of the workforce because they arent looking for work - then its no fault of any of bush's policies.
I think the bush "team" can make a fair case that in the wake of the economic impact of 9-11 EVEN any slightly above average news is good news overall and I dont see anything wrong with that.
I got angry probably by mistake - but on my initial read of your statement it seemed like you were slamming them for trying to spin anything positive out of this jobs report - when in reality there is nothing to slam... Even if they say its good news and its only 'slightly above average'
I feel the same way about this forum - I fear saying anything out of fear of getting railed on by a bunch of blowhards. But I dont think that pointing out some positive news as patriot did, is a bad thing at all, and I felt someone should say something to what seemed to be you trying to bash it.
Sorry if I read you wrong
