“It is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

[The Infidel]

The Obama White House says Americans should not “read too much into” the latest bad news from the jobs front. Employers added just 80,000 new jobs in June — far fewer than needed for a healthy recovery — and the unemployment rate stayed at 8.2 percent.

Not long after the new figures were released, the White House sent out a statement from Alan Krueger, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. Facing a bleak situation yet again, Krueger said, “It is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

If that sounds familiar, it is because that is what the Obama White House has said during month after month of troubling economic reports. The White House has said it so often, in fact, that the Romney campaign has compiled a list of 30 — yes, 30 — examples, going back to November 2009, of the administration cautioning that Americans should not “read too much into” the latest bad economic news.

Obama: 30 months of excusing bad jobs numbers | WashingtonExaminer.com


He just needs more time right???

 

[Oddball]

ROMNEY'S A FLIP-FLOPPER!

ROMNEY PUT HIS DOG ON TOP OF THE CAR!

ROMNEY IS A MEMBER OF THE HORSEY SET!

ROMNEY WAS A BIG MEANIE IN PREP SCHOOL!

ROMNEY HAS A BANK ACCOUNT IN THE CAYMANS!

ROMNEY IS A RICH DUDE!

ummm...



errr...



uhhhhh....

















GEORGE BOOOOOOSH!

 

[The Infidel]

ROMNEY'S A FLIP-FLOPPER!

ROMNEY PUT HIS DOG ON TOP OF THE CAR!

ROMNEY IS A MEMBER OF THE HORSEY SET!

ROMNEY WAS A BIG MEANIE IN PREP SCHOOL!

ROMNEY HAS A BANK ACCOUNT IN THE CAYMANS!

ROMNEY IS A RICH DUDE!

ummm...



errr...



uhhhhh....

















GEORGE BOOOOOOSH!

Dont forget Ann never worked a day in her life either

 

[The Infidel]

30 months people....... 30 freekin' months!!!

Wow...!

 

[American Horse]

And the administration gets to correct monthly employment numbers down the following month with no mention or accountability by our trusty Media.

 

[The Infidel]

And the administration gets to correct monthly employment numbers down the following month with no mention or accountability by our trusty Media.

Real jounalism died years ago....





I just want to know where all Obama's little apologists are.

How come none of them are defending the fact that the POTUS is asking us to ignore the numbers.

 

[The Infidel]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg]Cricket Sound - YouTube[/ame]

 

[BluePhantom]

Infidel, my guess is that Republicans are not responding to this thread because they already know what total bullshit Obama's rhetoric is and the Democrats are not responding because they have nothing to combat it with.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

This thread doesn't seem right without Truthdon'tmatter posting in it...so I will paraphrase for her:
lying confucks!!
Bush and all you other lying sack of shits are lying!!
uselessWikipedialink.com
This is all because of republican fucks...why are you lying?
Argue with that!!

 

[The Infidel]

Infidel, my guess is that Republicans are not responding to this thread because they already know what total bullshit Obama's rhetoric is and the Democrats are not responding because they have nothing to combat it with.

Its the left that I want to hear defend this idiocy.

I would also love to know when it does become Obama's economy
How long can they keep blaming Boooosh?

This thread doesn't seem right without Truthdon'tmatter posting in it...so I will paraphrase for her:
lying confucks!!
Bush and all you other lying sack of shits are lying!!
uselessWikipedialink.com
This is all because of republican fucks...why are you lying?
Argue with that!!

 

[itfitzme]

I'm wondering why people don't get you can't read too much into ANY single economic indicator, up or down. Every economic measure has a natural variability. There are two types of variability, systematic and random. A typical systematic variability is seasonal variability. Gasoline prices tend to be higher in the summer months. Employment also tends to be higher in the summer months. Within the measure, there are some groups that are counter cyclical. While summer employment goes up for the 16 to 25 age group, the 55+ age group moves in the opposite direction. The 16 to 25 age groups is larger in effect then the 55+ so the overall employment shows higher in the summer. Even GDP is seasonal. Then on top of the seasonal variation is random variation.

Unless the average and standard deviation is known, taking into account the seasonality, there is no real meaning in any particular month or quarter. The only meaning that can be ascribed to a single month is if the change is considerably more than the average, as measured by three standard deviations. Then, and only then, can it be said that the change is unusual.

 

[The Infidel]

I'm wondering why people don't get you can't read too much into ANY single economic indicator, up or down. Every economic measure has a natural variability. There are two types of variability, systematic and random. A typical systematic variability is seasonal variability. Gasoline prices tend to be higher in the summer months. Employment also tends to be higher in the summer months. Within the measure, there are some groups that are counter cyclical. While summer employment goes up for the 16 to 25 age group, the 55+ age group moves in the opposite direction. The 16 to 25 age groups is larger in effect then the 55+ so the overall employment shows higher in the summer. Even GDP is seasonal. Then on top of the seasonal variation is random variation.

Unless the average and standard deviation is known, taking into account the seasonality, there is no real meaning in any particular month or quarter. The only meaning that can be ascribed to a single month is if the change is considerably more than the average, as measured by three standard deviations. Then, and only then, can it be said that the change is unusual.

I hear what your saying, but.....

I can guarantee you if the numbers were favorable, Obama would be trumpeting that one report from the highest mountains.

 

[itfitzme]

I'm wondering why people don't get you can't read too much into ANY single economic indicator, up or down. Every economic measure has a natural variability. There are two types of variability, systematic and random. A typical systematic variability is seasonal variability. Gasoline prices tend to be higher in the summer months. Employment also tends to be higher in the summer months. Within the measure, there are some groups that are counter cyclical. While summer employment goes up for the 16 to 25 age group, the 55+ age group moves in the opposite direction. The 16 to 25 age groups is larger in effect then the 55+ so the overall employment shows higher in the summer. Even GDP is seasonal. Then on top of the seasonal variation is random variation.

Unless the average and standard deviation is known, taking into account the seasonality, there is no real meaning in any particular month or quarter. The only meaning that can be ascribed to a single month is if the change is considerably more than the average, as measured by three standard deviations. Then, and only then, can it be said that the change is unusual.

I hear what your saying, but.....

I can guarantee you if the numbers were favorable, Obama would be trumpeting that one report from the highest mountains.

So would you, so would I , and so would anyone else with half a brain.

So what are we interested in here, the economy or politics and social psychology?

 

[Middleoftheroad]

Obama is perfectly right. You cannot look at one month, there are always bad months.

On the other hand, this is now 3 bad months is a row. I'm not sure that the next month is going to be much better. While not recessionary numbers, they are not recovery numbers either, and by now we should be in a sustained recovery.

 

[Middleoftheroad]

And the administration gets to correct monthly employment numbers down the following month with no mention or accountability by our trusty Media.

Real jounalism died years ago....





I just want to know where all Obama's little apologists are.

How come none of them are defending the fact that the POTUS is asking us to ignore the numbers.

I don't know what you two are complaining about. Normally the numbers are adjusted up not down. And they are reported, each and every month when the next report comes out.

 

[The Infidel]

And the administration gets to correct monthly employment numbers down the following month with no mention or accountability by our trusty Media.

Real jounalism died years ago....





I just want to know where all Obama's little apologists are.

How come none of them are defending the fact that the POTUS is asking us to ignore the numbers.

I don't know what you two are complaining about. Normally the numbers are adjusted up not down. And they are reported, each and every month when the next report comes out.

If ya have to ask, you wouldn't understand my reponse.

But here goes:
The Fourth Estate has become the Fifth Column.


(From wiki)

The Fourth Estate is a political force or institution whose influence is not officially recognized. "Fourth Estate" is commonly refered to as the news media or print journalism, commonly called "The Press".

The Fifth column is a group of people who clandestinely undermine a larger group such as a nation from within. A fifth column can be a group of secret sympathizers of an enemy that are involved in sabotage within military defense lines, or a country's borders. A key tactic of the fifth column is the secret introduction of supporters into the whole fabric of the entity under attack. This clandestine infiltration is especially effective with positions concerning national policy and defense. From influential positions like these, fifth-column tactics can be effectively utilized, from stoking fears through misinformation campaigns, to traditional techniques like espionage.


You cant deny that the MSM has been very kind to Mr. Obama... they are, for the most part, in his pocket.
Just look at how the ones who step out and ask a hard hitting question or two.... again if ya hadn't noticed it, you wont see it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

He just needs more time right???

when you count all those BO has driven out of the work force since he took office unemployment is 12%!

 

[Rshermr]

He just needs more time right???

when you count all those BO has driven out of the work force since he took office unemployment is 12%!

More dogma. The real unemployment rate is always higher than what is posted. But it relative. Just compare it to other rates on other dates, and the numbers are relative.
If you have some research saying that obama has been chasing workers out of employment, lets see it, ed, me boy.
When reagans unemployment rate was about 11 percent, were you griping that it was actually 15 percent becaus he had been chasing people out of their jobs???

 

[The Infidel]

He just needs more time right???

when you count all those BO has driven out of the work force since he took office unemployment is 12%!

More dogma. The real unemployment rate is always higher than what is posted. But it relative. Just compare it to other rates on other dates, and the numbers are relative.
If you have some research saying that obama has been chasing workers out of employment, lets see it, ed, me boy.
When reagans unemployment rate was about 11 percent, were you griping that it was actually 15 percent becaus he had been chasing people out of their jobs???

Unemployment peaked in 1982-3 (the same time the tax cuts were being implemented)
Then it steadily dropped off... so WTF are you talking about 11%???

Unemployment Rates: 1980-9

1980 ~ 7.0%
1981 ~ 7.5%
1982 ~ 9.5%
1983 ~ 9.5%
1984 ~ 7.4%
1985 ~ 7.1%
1986 ~ 6.9%
1987 ~ 6.1%
1988 ~ 5.4%
1989 ~ 5.2%


Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States. Table 608.
http://books.google.com/books?id=jI...QGzlfWKCQ&ved=0CFYQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[Rshermr]

when you count all those BO has driven out of the work force since he took office unemployment is 12%!

More dogma. The real unemployment rate is always higher than what is posted. But it relative. Just compare it to other rates on other dates, and the numbers are relative.
If you have some research saying that obama has been chasing workers out of employment, lets see it, ed, me boy.
When reagans unemployment rate was about 11 percent, were you griping that it was actually 15 percent becaus he had been chasing people out of their jobs???

Unemployment peaked in 1982-3 (the same time the tax cuts were being implemented)
Then it steadily dropped off... so WTF are you talking about 11%???

Unemployment Rates: 1980-9

1980 ~ 7.0%
1981 ~ 7.5%
1982 ~ 9.5%
1983 ~ 9.5%
1984 ~ 7.4%
1985 ~ 7.1%
1986 ~ 6.9%
1987 ~ 6.1%
1988 ~ 5.4%
1989 ~ 5.2%


Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States. Table 608.
Statistical abstract of the United States - United States. Dept. of the Treasury. Bureau of Statistics, United States. Dept. of Commerce and Labor. Bureau of Statistics, United States. Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, United States. Bureau of

Well, lets see. How about the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
From June of 82 through Sept of 83, unemployment rates were above 10%. Reached 10.8% in Nov and Dec of 82. So, what I said was the rates was about 11%.
So that is WTF.

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

And, if you will remember, the tax decrease was in 1981 (August). So, 15 months later, the unemployment rate went from 7.4% to 10.8%. thereafter, he raised taxes 11 times and borrowed more than all the presidents before him, combined. Tripled the national debt. And most of the resultant revenue was used for STIMULUS.