If I were 0bama, I would run for the hills.
But it is still a long way to November 2012.
Barack Obama will probably get re-elected in 2012
- Thread starter Icarus27k
- Start date
If I were 0bama, I would run for the hills.
But it is still a long way to November 2012.
I don't know about the premise which says the economy took a tumble these last two weeks. Part of the examples people gave for that narrative was (1) a one-day fall in the Dow Jones Industrial Average of over 200 points and (2) a drop in consumer confidence. The rule of thumb is that those two things don't say that much about economic trends. Another thing that the narrative was based on was that monthly job gains for May 2011 was a disappointing 54,000 when economists had expected more than that, but it was still a monthly gain in jobs that was undercut by several temporary factors such as the Japan earthquake/tsunami and high commodity prices.
Also, if you had asked me a couple weeks ago, I would of agreed with you. However, there are some signs now that Romney will not be actively competing in the Iowa caucuses, which, if true, would make the nomination a little harder for him.
Is Sarah driving her bangbus to Iowa? Not to campaign but to extol the greatness of America to Americans in case they were ignorant and needed a history lesson from the Diva Deer Slayer?
Dude have you seen the Dow today? A bleeping nose dive.
Added 54,000 but lost 37,000 in May. Unemployment went up in May.
Not good.
He's decided not to participate in the straw polls.
They have to come up with some new blood or it will be same ol same ol.
The economy will decide the election in 2012 if it keeps doing this roller coaster ride it is taking us on. Looks like we are heading for a real depression, not a recession. Be 10+ years before we see light again, unless something unspeakable happens to force us to produce.
Yeah, the Dow's below 12,000 (which is the big news apparently), where it was a few months ago (don't remember the exact date). I don't remember a lot of people jumping for joy when it first rose past 12,000 either. And neither should they, because the Dow doesn't tell people that much about economic trends.
"but lost 37,000 in May"? Don't know what you're talking about. According the the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. added 54,000 jobs in May overall.
BLS's employment report for May 2011:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
In May, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over)
increased by 361,000 to 6.2 million; their share of unemployment increased to 45.1
percent. (See table A-12.)
May 2011 was overall a nothing month as far as new jobs lost and gained.
Employment Situation Summary
increased by 361,000 to 6.2 million; their share of unemployment increased to 45.1
percent. (See table A-12.)
May 2011 was overall a nothing month as far as new jobs lost and gained.
Employment Situation Summary
"Long-term unemployed" is a different stat than monthly job gains/losses. In fact, it's an entirely different survey. Determining the population of the long-term unemployed is a stat that comes from the monthly household survey, the same one that determines the unemployment rate. Job gains/losses comes from the payroll, or establishment, survey, the survey of a selection of businesses.
The long-term unemployed is just the stat that says, among the currently unemployed, how many of them have been unemployed for 27 weeks or more. It is possible to add jobs overall, and still have the long-term unemployed population rise. It's like, two different methods of determining the health of the labor force. Like checking a patient's body temperature and then checking to see how much the patient's broken arm has healed. Both are good barometers of overall health, but the outcome of one doesn't really determine the outcome of the other.
The long-term unemployed is just the stat that says, among the currently unemployed, how many of them have been unemployed for 27 weeks or more. It is possible to add jobs overall, and still have the long-term unemployed population rise. It's like, two different methods of determining the health of the labor force. Like checking a patient's body temperature and then checking to see how much the patient's broken arm has healed. Both are good barometers of overall health, but the outcome of one doesn't really determine the outcome of the other.
The unemploment rate climbed in May to 9.1% did it not?
Edit... according to this stat only 28,000 lost their jobs.
Overall? 54K were added... 28K were lost... overall.
Enjoy!
National Employment Monthly Update
The unemploment rate climbed in May to 9.1% did it not?
Edit... according to this stat only 28,000 lost their jobs.
Overall? 54K were added... 28K were lost... overall.
Enjoy!
National Employment Monthly Update
28,000 (changed from your previous stated figure of 37,000) is the number of public sector jobs lost in May 2011. Gains and losses from the two sectors (public and private) are added together to get an overall figure. That overall figure is the number of jobs gained or lost (whichever the case may be) in the U.S., and in that case, the number is 54,000 jobs gained in May 2011.
In May 2011, 82,000 private sector jobs were gained and -28,000 public sector jobs were gained. 82,000-28,000=54,000 overall.
Also, there are a lot of factors that go into what makes the unemployment rate go up or down. (Not to mention that the unemployment rate and monthly jobs gained/lost figure are compiled in two different surveys.) It's not uncommon for the monthly job gains/losses and the unemployment rate to go in opposite directions.
Yes, did I not say that? I guess I could hunt the link down again that gave the break down. Nevertheless, unemployment went up... did it not?
So 54k were added... with 13.9 MILLION STILL out of work. 13.9 MILLION.
And unemployment rising from 9% to 9.1%... true?
Oh JOY!
Just ask these "Long-term unemployed" if they should be counted differently. The government can play with figures all they want, and nothing will change the fact that there are 18%+ people unemployed in the United States, not 9.1% as they want us to believe.
I'm pretty sure you just said, "I don't care about things such as math and facts."
flip flop Romney?
know nothing & laughable Palin?
serial adulterer Gingrich?
if the Pukies wanna win, they need to send our friend Alfred to the White House:
Math and facts can be manipulated to what ever you want a person to see. Over all what the government did was very simple. They created groups they need to arrive at that 9.1%. All they needed was take total percentage of people capable of working and divide it between those working and those not. If they used math and facts (not their facts, but real facts) I wouldn't be annoyed about it. At one time they never counted the military in the unemployed category, but I think Johnson or Nixon was having some problems with unemployment so they concluded the military as being employed just to make the figures look a little better and show the people that unemployment figures were going down.
This is a article that a friend of mine wrote.
"Liberalism is not what it use to be.
Today, a liberal is a naive idealist, achieving his ends by often harming others in the process.
The neo-liberal's main philosophy is wealth distribution. In reality, it's spreading poverty by reducing the achievement of those who contribute to society in order to enhance the station of the unproductive.
a one-to-10 scale, before the neo-liberal invasion, 10 was the number of the productive. Slackers could only garner a two. After the invasion, these neo-do-gooders wanted to level the field to six apiece. That's a loss of four for excellence, and a gain of four for mediocrity. It will cost us four points toward keeping America on top.
If this is difficult to understand, perhaps the following comparison will give you a clearer picture:
Working diligently, avoiding debt, keeping your nose clean and living within your means represents a full glass. The slackers' glass will show half-empty. The neo-liberals want the producers to siphon off some of their toils into the slackers' glass to fill it up.
Unfortunately, our present progressive administration, for fear of offending its voter base, will not lead them to the well; show them how, or make them fill their own glass. If they refuse to put in the effort themselves, let their glass remain empty.
Increasing government jobs, as opposed to in the private sector, is detrimental to the economy. It drains the treasury. The private-sector jobs replenish the treasury and serve as the true measure of the state of the economy. Not Wall Street, posting figures from many global companies with outsourced productivity, benefitting foreign labor markets and diminishing ours.
Stern measures must be taken to alter this imbalance. Levy a heavy import tax on the global outsourcing of American firms and reward the ones keeping their operations in the United States with tax breaks.
Rein in unions with ridiculous demands, which is one of the major factors in companies outsourcing their labor force. These measures will create jobs.
George Giftos is a resident of Boca Raton
"Liberalism is not what it use to be.
Today, a liberal is a naive idealist, achieving his ends by often harming others in the process.
The neo-liberal's main philosophy is wealth distribution. In reality, it's spreading poverty by reducing the achievement of those who contribute to society in order to enhance the station of the unproductive.
a one-to-10 scale, before the neo-liberal invasion, 10 was the number of the productive. Slackers could only garner a two. After the invasion, these neo-do-gooders wanted to level the field to six apiece. That's a loss of four for excellence, and a gain of four for mediocrity. It will cost us four points toward keeping America on top.
If this is difficult to understand, perhaps the following comparison will give you a clearer picture:
Working diligently, avoiding debt, keeping your nose clean and living within your means represents a full glass. The slackers' glass will show half-empty. The neo-liberals want the producers to siphon off some of their toils into the slackers' glass to fill it up.
Unfortunately, our present progressive administration, for fear of offending its voter base, will not lead them to the well; show them how, or make them fill their own glass. If they refuse to put in the effort themselves, let their glass remain empty.
Increasing government jobs, as opposed to in the private sector, is detrimental to the economy. It drains the treasury. The private-sector jobs replenish the treasury and serve as the true measure of the state of the economy. Not Wall Street, posting figures from many global companies with outsourced productivity, benefitting foreign labor markets and diminishing ours.
Stern measures must be taken to alter this imbalance. Levy a heavy import tax on the global outsourcing of American firms and reward the ones keeping their operations in the United States with tax breaks.
Rein in unions with ridiculous demands, which is one of the major factors in companies outsourcing their labor force. These measures will create jobs.
George Giftos is a resident of Boca Raton
Do any of the Republicans have better numbers? Obama will win because the repubs are in disarray because the fruit loop teabaggers are in charge.