Unemployment rate rises to 7.9%

This is the last report before the election and we have once again gone backwards. 7.9% is only a little more than it was when Obama took office, so I guess he can claim he didn’t lose too much. Meanwhile there are long lines at gas stations in the NE and some reports of violence. Reminds you of the last days of Carter. The Libya situation continues to simmer, but Obama can keep it quiet until after the election. Still, things don’t look good for the president.

It takes 40.2 weeks for the average unemployed person to find a job. This is not good. There are growing numbers of unemployed.

Timing sucks for Obama. I said before that he would have been better off if unemployment has not dropped so much last month. Imagine the difference if the 7.9% had come down from 8% rather than up from 7.8%.

Meanwhile people are in lines at gas stations that are miles long. Sometimes when they get to the front, there is "no gas for you." This storm came at a bad time for Obama and not only because lots of his folks got hit by the weather. Obama would have been better off if the storm hit today. He got to look presidential. That was a plus. But now the pictures will be gas lines and desperate people going into the Tuesday election. The mainstream media will stay away from the story a little, but the pictures are powerful.

In some ways these developments are good for my liberal friends. It will give them an excuse as to why Obama lost. We know nothing is Obama's fault, but in this case that argument is stronger than usual. Still, the man shamelessly takes credit for things he didn't do, so it is just that he takes the blame too.

Posted by Christine & John at November 2, 2012 9:00 AM
Comments
Comment #356218

First of all, does anybody here have remotely any experience with graphs of unemployment? That’s right, numbers fluctuate. We had a pretty big decrease the last time.

But more important than the percentage, is the reason it increased. Was it because of poor job creation? 171,000 jobs doesn’t qualify. So what was the reason?

Simple: More people are looking for work!

At this point, Obama is doing a better job both total-wise, and in terms of all job growth combined, than his predecessor did in his first term, and that with a much worse economy. At this point, Bush was still short 347,000 jobs from where he started. Obama is ahead 194,000 jobs. But more important, Obama’s first year losses, the latter half of a 8 million job collapse in employment that he got stuck with, were much deeper, so Obama had to creat 147% more jobs than Bush did to get to that number.

If you want to hold Obama responsible for doing something, hold him responsible for doing a great job in creating jobs, and digging our way back out of the hole that his predecessors policies left him in.

Now on the agenda? Making up for the other half of the jobs lost during the Bush Administration. Should we continue the policies that created 4.8 million jobs over the last three years, or should we instead restart policies, that without a housing boom to buoy them up, only created 2.7 million jobs in similar timeframe? Obama will win by math, and because of math, and that is a lot better than winning because of wishful thinking, as Romney and his cohorts want to do.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 2, 2012 11:55 AM
Comment #356220

By the way:
U6 unemployment went down by a point, and is half a percentage point lower than it was when Obama took office.

How many people complaining about real unemployment numbers took a second to notice that U6 unemployment has declined faster under Obama than U3?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 2, 2012 11:58 AM
Comment #356228

Stephen

7.9%. Fewer % people in the job market than any year since the 1980s.

Obama has done a hell of a job.

When Romney is president and you complain about the 6% unemployment, how will this look?

Posted by: C&J at November 2, 2012 1:05 PM
Comment #356235
Obama has done a hell of a job.

In the face of a total financial meltdown, and despite an despicably obstructionist Congress? Yes indeed, Obama really has done one hell of a good job.
I think you know this too, but you just can’t admit it.
The election looms, Obama has done well, and your guy adheres to the exact same economic policies as those who brought us to financial ruin in the first place.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 2, 2012 1:59 PM
Comment #356237

Adrienne

I have been reading a lot about the financial problem. There is a good book by a Democratic analyst Nate Silver called “Signal and Noise.” He talks about the failure of predictive models. It is not simply “policies” of the Bush folks. In fact, lots of the fault lies with Fannie and Freddie, but mostly it is just a cascading failure. Such things happen.

Bush indeed failed to rein in some of the abuses. In this, his efforts were blocked by guys like Franks and Dodd.

Conditions have now changed and nobody wants to “go back” to adaptions of five years ago. If you can tell me a specific policy that you feel would return us to financial ruin, let’s talk about that.

Anyway, whether or not Obama inherited a mess, he certainly failed to fix the problem.

Posted by: C&J at November 2, 2012 2:06 PM
Comment #356242

Four years and $6 Trillion spent and unemployment is higher today than when obama took office. Millions more are on food stamps and millions have lost their homes. This is hardly a record to run on and ask people to rehire you for a job that is obviously over your head.

I read today, in a number of sources, that many volunteer electrical people from other states wishing to help in New Jersey were denied the opportunity as they were not members of the Electrical Workers union. I can’t verify it yet…but if true, proves once again that union leaders don’t give a damn about anything, or anyone, but themselves.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 2, 2012 3:07 PM
Comment #356244

Obama inherited economic problems from Bush, but Obama and the Democrats must be the last ones to complain about that, because they claimed, either honestly or dishonestly, that they were ready, willing, and able to meaningfully lower unemployment, reduce the budget deficit, pay off the national debt, and improve the economy.

They cannot blame anyone else if they deliberately would not, or even could not make progress on these problems.

These problems are worse after 4 years of Obama and the Democrats, and they must be judged by their performance, and not by using Bush as a scapegoat or an excuse, because they put their hand up to do the job, and they must take full responsibility for their dismal performance.

That is a full responsibility in a Democracy, and the other full responsibility in a Democracy is for the Voters not to Vote for those Individuals or Political Party that did not make progress on lowering unemployment, reducing the budget deficit, paying off the national debt, and on improving the economy.

We know that Obama and the Democrats gave their Campaign Donors much of the borrowed Trillions of Dollars in Stimulus Money that must be paid back with Interest, and it would be logical that a Secret Deal that these would employ a few People in Seasonal Temporary Employment just before the Elections, in order to make the economy look better than it really is.

Regarding Government Lies; they come in three groups with the lowest grade of Lies simply called Lies; then the higher order of Lies are called Damned Lies, and the highest order of Lies are called Statistics.

Obama and the Democrats have failed dismally to make any progress on lowering unemployment, reducing the budget deficit, paying off the national debt, and on improving the economy, and all these matters have become worse during the last 4 years, with 15 % as the real employment rate.

The Voters have a Responsibility to the Nation and a responsibility to their Families and Neighbors not to Vote for Obama and the Democrats because of these Facts.

If Voters fail to fulfill their responsibility to the Nation and to their Families, Families, and Neighbors, then it encourages the Politicians to perform poorly, and there will be consequences for that, as they can see with the last 4 years.

Obama and the Democrats say that they are taking America Forward, but forward to where, and they speak that Lie of Forward, because in reality they have taken America Downwards.

It is more correct to use the word Downwards rather than Backwards with regards to lowering unemployment, reducing the budget deficit, paying off the national debt, and on improving the economy.

We see statues of Communist Leaders, and one hand is always pointing Forward, but History proves that they have gone Downwards, while deceiving their citizens that they were going Forward.

America needs to go Backwards, and that is back to basic and proper principles of the American Constitution, and the Free Enterprise Market Economy, in order to go Upwards.

Once America follows the American Constitution, and the Free Enterprise Market Economy, then it needs to stay there, and there is no need to go ‘forward’ or ‘backward’, if America wishes to act wisely, because there is in reality just upwards or downwards, rather than the deceitful forwards or backwards.

A reliable expert on these matters has a Video Titled, The Illusion Of Economic Recovery Is Beginning To Fade at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNS24ZzY0lY , and his YouTube Channel is at http://www.youtube.com/user/GregVegas5909?feature=watch , and we can see that the economy is being propped up with Money printing because of the Elections, but this is unsustainable for much longer.

If Americans want Economic Recovery, then they will not vote for Obama or the Democrats at these Elections.

Posted by: Election at November 2, 2012 3:31 PM
Comment #356249
If you can tell me a specific policy that you feel would return us to financial ruin, let’s talk about that.

Sure. Romney’s policies are Bush part II or they’re worse —due to a non-recognition that we are no longer living in an America enjoying the economic conditions of our past before the meltdown.

1. Tax cuts for the rich. Bush pushed tax cuts without any offsets — while the budget was in surplus, and taxes were far higher. Romney is insisting on more tax cuts for the wealthy during a time of enormous deficits and record low taxes on those who should be to paying far more.

2. Bush said he’d balance the budget, and so does Romney. Both were specific about tax cuts for the wealthy, and huge increases in military spending, but vague about their spending cuts. The result was, and will be, higher deficits. That’s good news for the Rich and the Military Industrial Complex, but means more pain for a Main Street already in enormous pain.

3. Bush promised and Romney promises to “champion small business” and by this they really mean big business. Like Bush, Romney will to keep taxes low for the rich and will deregulate like crazy. After the meltdown, Congress passed Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank laws to toughen financial regulations. Romney promises to roll back both.

4. Like Bush, Romney promises to do nothing about healthcare. He gives some empty lip service to “state solutions” to this serious national problem, and promises to repeal Obamacare, even though the CBO says that it will lower the deficit by about $124 billion over 10 years. He refuses to address healthcare, yet we all know that serious deficit reform absolutely must confront rising health care costs.

5. On energy, (Romney just like Bush) promises during the debate to give us “a very robust policy to get all that energy in North America — become energy secure.” When he says this he means continuing and intensifying America’s reliance on fossil fuels. We can’t afford that AT ALL, since fossil fuels are too expensive in numerous ways. Too expensive for our economic situation, for our foreign policy and homeland security situation, and most definitely for our environmental situation. Following Hurricane Sandy, those who want to elect a president who chooses to ignore science, and says “I’m not in this race to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet” clearly aren’t using their heads. All of us need to recognize that this nation and our people can’t possibly afford this kind of incredible stupidity.

Anyway, whether or not Obama inherited a mess, he certainly failed to fix the problem.

Please. There’s no whether or not here. We all know Obama inherited a mess, and we know it was caused by incredibly unwise Republican policies that we cannot afford to return to. Obama has been slowly but surely fixing the problem, but it would sure would help if the GOP would just grow up, acknowledge how much their obstructionism has been hurting Main Street, and quit trying to sabotage the president from getting things properly done.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 2, 2012 4:23 PM
Comment #356265

Adrienne

“Tax cuts for the rich. Bush pushed tax cuts without any offsets” - Romney wants to cut rates and loopholes. He said that he will not cut taxes if it raises the deficit and the rich will not pay less than they do today. His plan is very different from Bush’s. Romney reforms the tax code.

BTW - when Obama was president and Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress, they extended the cuts. So I don’t think we can any longer call them Bush cuts.

2. Bush said he’d balance the budget, and so does Romney. Both were specific about tax cuts for the wealth - Romney is not specific about tax cuts for wealth. He has a general plan for both cuts and taxes. Obama has also said he would balance the budget. We know that Bush and Obama did not tell the truth. Maybe Romney will be more truthful than Obama; maybe not, but he cannot be worse.

4. Like Bush, Romney promises to do nothing about healthcare - Romney promises to reform health care and put most of it on the states. He has experience with this. The CBO figures show what the information given them indicates. These figures show cuts in spending that so far have not appeared and probably will not.

5. On energy, (Romney just like Bush) promises during the debate to give us “a very robust policy to get all that energy in North America - Romney wants “all of the above” as Obama says he wants.

The natural gas boom has created an opening. The U.S. has reduced its CO2 emissions in the last six years (yes before Obama) than any other country. Our CO2 emissions are down to 1992 levels and we will probably reach our Kyoto targets w/o having to sign the dumb treaty.

So it looks like the things you don’t like about Romney are not really about Romney.

Posted by: C&J at November 2, 2012 6:05 PM
Comment #356268
So it looks like the things you don’t like about Romney are not really about Romney.

Actually they are, but I knew you’d blow it off and make a bunch of excuses for Romney and his stale old conservative/plutocratic platform based on a bunch of trickle down nonsense.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 2, 2012 6:14 PM
Comment #356273

Adrienne

I am familiar with the study. It was done by one guy freelancing, which is not how CBO works. The methodology was so bad that the CBO management thought it didn’t reach their quality standard.

I didn’t make excuses for Romney; I simply pointed out that the things you don’t like were not things Romney actually advocated.

Posted by: C&J at November 2, 2012 6:27 PM
Comment #356287


Stamkos carried on to guide they in endeavors through 16, not to mention overtook some pts guide you for 26,Martin saint, Louis was basically suffering perfect Cheap Northface Jackets good quality promise a loss down mid-day office along with December 8, where it nighttime that she had likely to play in their 500th consectutive board game. Stamkos carried on to guide they in endeavors through 16, not to mention overtook some pts guide you for 26,Martin saint, Louis was basically suffering a loss down mid-day office along with perfect north face coupons good quality promise December 8, where it nighttime that she had likely to play in their 500th consectutive board game.

Posted by: cheap northface jackets at November 2, 2012 8:26 PM
Comment #356295

Well Jack, you can’t be that familiar with that study, since it is not the CBO as you claim, but the Congressional Research Service which produced that study.
As for your claims that “it was done by one guy freelancing, and that “the methodology was so bad that the CBO management thought it didn’t reach their quality standard”, those are bold-faced lies.

To quote from the link:

Thomas Hungerford, the CRS researcher who produced the report, told HuffPost that he stands by it. “Basically, the decision to take it down, I think The New York Times article basically got it right, that it was pressure from the Senate minority to take it down,” Hungerford said. “CRS reports go through many layers of review before they’re issued and as far as the tone and the conclusions go, people who specifically look at the writing and the tone said it was okay. So it’s not going to be that and as I can tell you outright, I stand by the report and the analysis in the report.”
I didn’t make excuses for Romney

Yes, you are. Romney’s stated policies are the same, or worse than Bush’s economic policies. In other areas, such as spending cuts, they are laughably vague, but will no doubt hurt average Americans.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 2, 2012 9:33 PM
Comment #356296

“I read today, in a number of sources, that many volunteer electrical people from other states wishing to help in New Jersey were denied the opportunity..”

Royal Flush,

Power companies have mutual regional and national agreements with established plans for sharing resources, personnel and equipment in the case of disasters. These plans are updated on an annual basis.

In this case, power companies outside of the effected areas were staging equipment and personnel well before the disaster. They have now moved into the affected areas and are fully engaged in the repair and reconstruction work under mutually agreed command and control structures with clearly delineated responsibilities.

In 1992, our home was destroyed by Hurricane Andrew. The power system infrastructure was completely destroyed. The response of the power companies was truly amazing. Hundreds of personnel and a massive amount of equipment from the Southeast states converged on the area and began a well coordinated effort to repair and reconstruct the entire system. It was a well staged and coordinated effort.

I suspect if there has been any rejection of “volunteer” electrical workers from other areas, it is simply because the companies are implementing their joint plans which provide for injection of additional personnel and equipment as needed from other states. The issue of union vs. non-union workers is ridiculous. These are partnership agreements between companies. It is not some voluntary ad hoc effort. Lets let the professionals do their job. They do it well. I saw them in action. It was truly awe inspiring.


Posted by: Rich at November 2, 2012 9:41 PM
Comment #356301

Adrienne

Sorry, I miswrote. I read about that study.

There are, of course, two sides. The guy who wrote the study talked to your source.

A study finds that tax cuts are not associated with economic growth. Unfortunately, the study also finds nothing is associated with economic growth, including all the standard factors such as education, population growth, and government spending. This indicates a problem with the methodology.

If the study cannot associate anything with economic growth, it is not much use, is it?

Beyond that, it looks at the wrong time frame. A one year change in the rate of growth or productivity is ignores time lags. Another big error is that it does not hold other factors constant.

You can see that these are big problems.

The meta-problem is that when the inputs or methods are wrong, the conclusions are incorrect.

Posted by: C&J at November 2, 2012 10:25 PM
Comment #356307

Unemployment certainly seems high now….though I did read that in order to have growth, we need 150K jobs to be added each month. At least we did hit that number this month, unlike last month when only 114K jobs were added.

Posted by: Jacquelyn F. Gerlach at November 2, 2012 10:54 PM
Comment #356309
A study finds that tax cuts are not associated with economic growth. Unfortunately, the study also finds nothing is associated with economic growth, including all the standard factors such as education, population growth, and government spending. This indicates a problem with the methodology.

The methodology sounds pretty straightforward to me.

The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie.

The entire study is located in my link if you want to take a closer look.

Beyond that, it looks at the wrong time frame. A one year change in the rate of growth or productivity is ignores time lags. Another big error is that it does not hold other factors constant.

Uh, no.

Hungerford said that he had never experienced suppression like this before, and he pushed back on the GOP argument that he had only looked at the effect of tax cuts in the year immediately following enactment. Regardless, he said, Republicans argue that tax breaks for the rich will bring an immediate benefit to the economy, so their criticism is inconsistent. “I checked out three years and then five years and found that no, it doesn’t change the results or the conclusion of my paper. So in a way, I find it interesting that they keep talking about the need to lower the top tax rate in order to stimulate the economy now,” he said. ‘It sounds like they’re being a little inconsistent here.”
Posted by: Adrienne at November 2, 2012 10:58 PM
Comment #356316
I did read that in order to have growth, we need 150K jobs to be added each month. At least we did hit that number this month, unlike last month when only 114K jobs were added.

The jobs report today said that since July, the economy has created an average of 173,000 jobs per month, up from 67,000 per month from April to June.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 3, 2012 12:25 AM
Comment #356321

Adrienne

How is it useful to do a study that shows no associations? It shows no association for taxes, but also not for spending (i.e. stimulus) population growth etc. I suppose, that would be a true conservative position. If nothing works, government should do nothing.

We are talking two different things. You are arguing that the study was suppressed. You have the author arguing that he did a good job and was picked on.

My point is that the study is no good. There are plenty of bad studies out there. The problem is that this one had the imprimatur of the CRS.

People who work for official organization might be in two situations. The one is when they are speaking for themselves. They can say whatever they want. The problems is that nobody cares. The other is when they speak in the name of the organization. In those situations, their personal opinion is meaningless. They have no right to speak for their organization unless the organization authorizes it.

So if you are talking about Mr Hungerford’s opinion, fine. We would check his credentials and then the methodology and see if we believed him. If we are talking about CRS, we are making an appeal to authority. Mr Hungerford has no right to invoke this authority. That is what was taken away from him.

I don’t know where you work, but think of it in these terms. You have a right to express your opinion here because you speak for yourself. You would have no right to list your affiliation under your comments if that implied the support of the organization.

Posted by: C&J at November 3, 2012 6:38 AM
Comment #356325

C&J-
It’s all a matter of consistency. If you’re gaining 171 thousand jobs in a month, how does unemployment tick up? Are more people out of work? By definition, no. Does it make sense in terms of consumer confidence rising, or home starts improving?

No. What does make sense is that more people are now looking for work. You say it’s the lowest number in a long time, but I’d point out to you that we’ve had two straight months, at least, of people going back into the workforce, rather than coming out of it, so by the transitive property of inequalities, if a is greater than b, and b is greater than c, then both a and b are greater than c.

So, you’re not just wrong if you say these are the worst numbers every, you’re wrong twice over.

The rational reason for unemployment to tick up a tenth of a point, aside from the fact that all such results are noisy, is that more people are looking for work than before, in the expectation of finding it.

Instead of acknowledging or ignoring the numbers, the Romney people instead choose to deliberately misstate their meaning, and avoid acknowledging the substantial number of people finding work.

Oh, by the way, if you’re looking to replay Carter, I’m afraid that ship sailed. Carter didn’t merely deal with weak job growth, Carter dealt with a full-blown recession that cost a million jobs, right in the middle of campaign season. That, within the same year, a million jobs came back, or that within his Presidency, he created ten million jobs net, doesn’t figure into things. No, people were dealing with what they felt.

What people feel is that the economy is recovering, that the jobs situation is thawing out. Not to mention the fact that Obama is now a net job creator. Your party hitched its wagon to this nation’s economic suffering, hoping that if you didn’t allow him to implement his liberal, but growth creating policies, that people would ditch him in November 2012.

But now people feel better, and feeling, as Jimmy Carter found out to this chagrin, is at least as important as the numbers. We not only added jobs, we add a lot of jobs. This wasn’t the Summer’s weak growth, this is robust growth, and if this keeps up, Obama will have half a million jobs net by the time he reaches January. Because of your people, Obama couldn’t do enough, but because of what Obama did do, he’s the odds on favorite to win.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 3, 2012 8:27 AM
Comment #356326

As for the Hurricane Sandy thing? Look, it’s only been four or five days since the storm struck, a storm that made the last “storm of the century” look tame. Meanwhile, your side seems intent on turning people’s frustration into some kind of Katrina narrative.

Can we step aside for a moment, so I can point something out here? Why are Republican failures always the template for laying some sort of negative attack on Democrats? Whitewater and the Monica Lewinsky thing were supposed to be getting back at us for Watergate, a number of disasters are supposed to be our Katrina, etc.

Well, getting back to the point, do we see FEMA doing nothing? No. My feeling is, the Obama Administration knows what it’s doing, and will do its utmost to make sure that it’s not caught with its pants down right as its going to be held accountable for its performance.

Too many Republicans dispute assessments that conflict with their predetermined narrative, but don’t do much to change those assessments for the better. Democrats, who support government being an active aid to the interests of the people, cannot afford to play that game, so we do our best instead. This is nothing Republicans can’t imitate, but they have to take resisting government expansion and intervention as a preference subject to the requirements of reality, rather than insisting on it as an unbendable principle.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 3, 2012 8:38 AM
Comment #356327

Stephen

I understand how the stats work. I also understand that we just need to be consistent in how we use them. When unemployment rates were dropping because people were leaving the job market, you thought the stats were okay. Now it is reversed, as I predicted months ago, BTW. Live with it.

You guys lived by these stats and now you must lose by them. I will continue to use them, as you did.

There are some differences between us. Both of us are partisan (you a little more) but I am consistent in how I use data, whether good or bad. You tailor it to your ideology.

The thing to remember in these last days is that unemployment today is higher than it was the day Obama took office and unemployment today is higher than it was last month.

Posted by: C&J at November 3, 2012 8:41 AM
Comment #356389

C&J-
You know, since I live by stats, I’m likely better aware of what the differences in policies has meant than you are.

I’ve totaled the BLS numbers for each administration since Carter. I’ve done the math myself. I’ve seen the momentum that they respresent, the GDP numbers that the losses come from and contribute to.

And do you know what I did when you referenced workforce participation? I looked it up. Let’s see what the trends are. First, Obama is dealing with the lowest participation rate since… Well, Reagan! Reagan had participation numbers at or around that level for much of his administration. Second, this downward trend didn’t begin with Obama, but rather with Bush.

Third, do you recall what your party’s position on unemployment benefits were? No? You realize that continued unemployment benefits means that people remain in the workforce. So, Republicans basically rejected keeping people in the workforce. So, why then complain when the unemployment rate lowers to suit that?

Fourth, you realize your generation is retiring, and that will add to the number of people who aren’t participating, right?

Fifth, Republican policies on the state and local level have been absolutely brutal when it comes to job retention, and it’s arguable that a lot of unemployment is coming out of your party’s starve the beast strategy on the local level. You talk about devolving government back to the states, but you’re slashing it there, too. Hooray for consistency.

And now you’re about to do the same for the Federal Government, and nearly ever economist who has credibility tells us that this will result in a dramatic slowdown of growth, and the loss of many, many jobs. Congratulations! And of course, Romney would do even “better” at this. Right?

Overall, Obama’s improved the economy, prevented the worst of a recession from hitting us. And right now, the economy is truly improving. But you’ll cite a technicality of the numbers, one which you would have dismissed had it been under Bush, in order to say unemployment is higher.

Fact is, U6 is lower, which means that however many people are dropping out of the workforce, the ones who want fulltime jobs, and aren’t getting them are getting more work. That number is in fact diminishing faster than U3. Fact is, workforce participation has been up for the last three months in a row. Fact is, the drop in unemployment is expected to continue, and your candidate’s numbers represent no difference from what is expected to unfold over the next few years anyways under Obama.

Fact is, Republicans have acted to reduce workforce participation, to discourage people from looking for jobs, and also to reduce employment in a key sector of the economy. Republicans have also obstructed much of any additional employment oriented legislation, and rebranded much of their ideological bills in an effort to avoid looking like they’re doing absolutely nothing to get people re-employed.

Republicans are defying what the public wants in terms of government acting to restore employment to Americans, deceiving them so they can use resentment over the economy to win elections, and further other aims, while they have no intention of using government to aid job recovery.

And people are figuring this out. You should realize it’s not good enough to simply discourage people about my party, that your party has to step up to the plate and actually improve things. My President improved the situation he was given, a situation that was dynamically stacked against job creation, and did a better job that George W. Bush did in his first term at job creation. Those are objective numbers. If you want to bash me about workforce participation dropping, why don’t you look at your own President’s drop, and reconsider all your confidence on that number?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 4, 2012 8:19 AM
Comment #356391

Stephen

“You know, since I live by stats, I’m likely better aware of what the differences in policies has meant than you are.” This is a very funny statement. Where did you get your MBA? When did you work in opinion research? Where did you do economic analysis that others read?

You really think you can sum up these things and come up with meaningful statistics. I suppose that is one reason you are a Democrat.

So you want to include u6. Okay, U-6 - un/underemployment rate for October was 14.6%, down from 14.7% in September. I suppose that is the kind of progress Obama supporter think is good.

Posted by: C&J at November 4, 2012 8:42 AM
Comment #356555


coach outlet online This will eliminate the somewhat papery flavor from the coach handbag outlet you brew, enhancing the taste significantly.
coach outlet online Attempt adding spices for your coach handbags factory outlet online grounds to make your personal “artisan” flavors.
coach outlet Feel about issues you’d add to chocolate in case you are possessing difficulty deciding what to try.
coach outlet Commence with simple issues like cinnamon and nutmeg.
coach factory outlet It is possible to also do items like adding just a little vanilla abstract for your cup to enrich the flavor of the coach outlet store locations.
coach outlet online Do not leave coffee, within the pot, sitting on the burner for any extended time.
coach factory outlet online The heat from the burner can scald the coach factory outlet coupons really swiftly.
coach factory This so impacts the flavor of the coach outlets that trustworthy coach handbags sale shops pour out any coach purse outlet online that’s been sitting on a burner for 20 minutes.
coach purses outlet For the freshest coach factory store lacator, get fresh beans.
coach outlet online In case you have the decision, acquire from a professional roaster and ask the roaster the time given that roasting on the beans you are taking into consideration.

Posted by: coach1 at November 6, 2012 2:54 AM
Comment #357279


You have to do their best in your Louis Vuitton canada goose collection therefore you have the capacity to experience the returns which can be involving checklist canada goose. For those who comply with while in the path of the web canada goose and other (larger) canada Louis Vuitton UK goose enterprises, you add ones canada goose within a evident area to ensure that everyone is able to view as well as, perhaps, ignore it. The following is a thing you can look at at this time when you take the time to still do it. Market your subscription as well as your Louis Vuitton Outlet canada goose giveaway–that free stuff that you need to present. Discover certain how to go about the item, basically publish a bit of pre-sell copy or possibly limited sales copy for the each of them. Set them up because only one little clone and see exactly what do transpire. After that, in
UGG UK lieu of getting the particular canada goose that everyone needs, you’ll be able to set up a little advertisement making men and women need to on just what exactly you have to give. This may not be a technique that you’ll be possibly UGG Boots
quite familiar with. Which kind of canada goose perhaps you’ve developed pertaining to pre-selling; or maybe have you seen that will time period before? Should you are lacking expertise in the definition of, you have to discover the idea as this is a variety of canada goose you’ll want to understand. Preselling is actually copy which isn’t actively promoting whatever
UGG Sale
because it is coded in any natural firmness and design. You want to do their best to keep the canada goose out of emotion like getting attempt to bought to be able to after they look at this content. This tends to turn into a problem, it really is more difficult laptop or computer appears to be! In case you are brand-new to help pre-selling, you will understand what we should tend to be talking about soon. Pre-sell backup are often very efficient at relation to its helping wide open your thoughts of your canada goose. It is also very useful in cutting the particular amount of resistance you might get to potential sales replicate.

Posted by: UGG at November 17, 2012 4:06 AM
Comment #357617

Her stylish page can be Coach Factory Online demonstrated with good handcraft and great quality.Coach Factory Money overall appearance is normally going by having a outrageous exposed wood, involving well known creative designers. Louis Vuitton Canada I like devices designing patterns from historical for high betas and even seek out.Canada Goose Sale For ladies who seem to enjoy totes, Mentor is your backpack dreamland.

Posted by: Coach Factory Online at November 22, 2012 7:44 AM
Post a comment