Why should it be so important and be so earnest in your wish to see American failure that you can't celebrate some good news? I have my suspiscions about the numbers too, but I suspect the flaws in the numbers are the same flaws that were around a month ago, six months ago or six years ago and therefore, this does represent a good positive change.
When confronted by things you don't want to hear (like, say, the economy getting better), immediately try to find an excuse to ignore it.
Even when, as people pointed out, it isn't necessary. The GOP reaction should have been "Not good enough!" (Or, more subtly, "Well, if the American People think things are Good Enough, then I guess they'll vote Democrat".)
Also observing that ES appears to be back in the Twilight Zone, with the clocks being off in some of the servers.
We're having posts show up out of sequence, again.
it is good news that full time hires are down and 600K supposedly found part time work?
Oh, you mean the 7.8 talking point is good news ....and it is unpatriotic not to celebrate a empty number
2) Ah, so your definition of "down" is "not getting better as quickly as they got better in this one month, here"? I'm assuming (since you didn't say), that the numbers you're showing here are the number of new jobs gained?
3) And, if we do take those numbers, and that definition of "down", does that mean that the numbers are lower than they have been, in general? Or does it mean "twa picked the best number we've seen, recently, and then complained that the next two numbers didn't set even bigger records"?
the number is trending down and is not much higher than last septembers of 103,000, with the private sector hiring actually doing worse than last year at this time
Ah, got it.
So now, the complaint is that the private sector isn't getting better as quickly as it was, when it was getting better at it's highest rate.
"Look! If I look enough, I can find one of Obama's months, where things got better even faster than they're getting better, this month!"
But I seem to remember some analysis I did about the private sector job numbers, a while back, that I seem to remember you running away from. I'll see if I can find it.
Ah, here it is.
The important part. (The actual post explains where the data came from).
So, please. Tell me that the proper way to judge a President's managing of the economy, is the number of private sector jobs created.Quote:
In Feb, 2001 (The month W took office), private sector employment was 111,623,000
In Feb, 2009 (The month W left office), private sector employment was 110,260,000
(Net change: A loss of 1,363,000 jobs)
In Feb, 2009 (The month O took office), private sector employment was 110,260,000
In May, 2012 (The most recent month for which we have actual data, rather than projections), private sector employment was 111,072,000
(Net change: A gain of 812,000 jobs.)
I will observe that, if you assume that the "Presidential grace period", the time between when a President takes office, and when the economy officially becomes "his", as opposed to his predecessor, is six months, then the "score" becomes:
W: loss of 3,131,000 jobs
O: gain of 3,654,000 jobs
In short, the only way to even imply that Obama hasn't been massively better (on the scale of "total number of private-sector jobs) than W, is to pretend that, when Obama took office, he retroactively become responsible for all of the jobs lost during his predecessor's watch.
twa my offer still stands.
"The trend of the last year" is "it's getting better".
(The trend of twa's posts is "Look! I found something to complain about! It's not getting better as quickly as it got better, this one time, here! See, that means it's down!")
Watch the video. It explains why the numbers can't be manipulated by the WH.