Says Rasmussen, reporting the daily Presidential Tracking Poll with Obama at 47% and Romney at 45%.
This is only the second time in more than two months of daily tracking that Obama has reached the 47% level of support. Prior to today, he had led Romney on only one of the preceding 34 days. Romney led by four on Friday morning just before the jobs report.
Obama needs that economic good news, so look at
this, in the NYT:
A rising number of manufacturers are canceling new investments and putting off new hires because they fear paralysis in Washington will force hundreds of billions in tax increases and budget cuts in January, undermining economic growth in the coming months.
Executives at companies making everything from electrical components and power systems to automotive parts say the fiscal stalemate is prompting them to pull back now, rather than wait for a possible resolution to the deadlock on Capitol Hill.
No one wants the economy to be bad, but Republicans have a political self-interest in the economy looking bad until after the election. That's not a normal "stalemate"!
Posts
99 comments:
Good economic news will be bad economic news for us all if it helps Obama to win. Most business people see Obama as a storm that we must simply wait to pass before stepping out and putting valuable resources at risk in the field. An empty White House would improve the economy in the long run better than four more years of class warfare stupidity.
If business owners and employers "didn't build that", should not jobs just spring forth from piles of capital and resources simply sitting idle?
If you knew that a bad economy for 6 months would improve the long term one dramatically, would you want a bad economy for 6 months?
The Jobs Created guessed number is a clear fraud conjured up from too small to report small businesses.
That Labor Dept. number is always a guess, and it has usually been 20 to 50 thousand negative every July...but low and behold a guess of 50 thousand positive for this July was issued as if it was a fact.
Obama's budget proposals have been rejected unanimously in the Senate. Not one Democrat would vote "yes".
And yet, he spends his time campaigning, not negotiating in Congress, being a leader and a President.
His self-interest lies in claiming that the Republicans are trying to sabotage the economy, because he can't exactly campaign on his huge successes in that area.
So there you go.
Could people on both sides be willing to sacrifice the country for their own self-interest?
Or are they just too far apart in many areas, and lacking a good President to help bring them together, there's a real stalemate?
Maybe both?
Wait a couple of days.
Little Zero always looks better on the weekends.
By mid-week, the Romster will be back on top. The Gray Lady is overlooking the fact that the unemployment rate went up, not down, .1%.
The BLS is also fudging the numbers on jobs added.
And, in any case, the trends aren't in Zero's favor.
The President who rushed out to say the U/E rate is 8.25566% didn't really seem serious to me.
But I'm biased.
Obama is not responsible for starting the recession - although his ideology clearly is - but he is responsible for the worst recovery since the Great Depression which was also handled with similar policies.
If the clear failure he has managed so far can be wiped from memory with a few months of good news, then we deserve what that will bring us. I don't expect that good news to come, and he still could be rehired for a job he has failed at miserably. Look around you if you want someone to blame. Maybe even look in the mirror.
By mid-week, the Romster will be back on top. The Gray Lady is overlooking the fact that the unemployment rate went up, not down, .1%
Really. It's kind of like the losing team scoring points but still falling further behind versus their opponent.
No one wants the economy to be bad, but Republicans have a political self-interest in the economy looking bad until after the election.
That's assuming that giving President Obama what he wants will improve the economy.
The evidence from 2006 to 2010 (When Democrats were able to pass any spending/taxing/cutting bills they wanted) contradicts that notion.
So, if you wanted to be accurate, the GOP is actually helping President Obama by not allowing his ruinous policies to be put into effect.
Actually, this "recovery" is the weakest measured in any country in the world since 1970.
But we saved GM!!!
300K FAKE Jobs were added by "seasonal adjustment". ALL BS. More political theater in support of the Usurper's re-election, so that he can spearhead the finishing of the destruction of America. Althouse doesn't even know much about the Constitution (as a "law prof"!!!), much less the economy. Afterall, she lives in the cushy confines of tenured academia. The economy (or reality) is a foreign language to her. Both sides of the aisle are responsible for the constitutional disaster of Obama, and the economic disaster that looms because politicians are sold out to and captured by the world central bankers, circling like vultures.
The Republicans in Congress aren't holding back the economy. Millions of John Gaults are, and they are doing so not out of protest, but due to reasoned, logical self-interest. You could even argue they are doing it for altruistic motives, since the method would be the same: don't risk resources until the predatory, confused silliness in Washington is pared back, or at least looks like it heading that way. I expect a huge recovery if Romney is elected. Businesses are dying to fire up the machinery at the first sign of clearing skies.
As to who is holding back the economy, let's not forget the Pederast of Capitol Hill and his evil minions. The House has passed plenty of measures to get the economy moving, but they've all been killed in the Senate.
PS Encore showed "How The West Was Won" last night. At no point, except maybe the Mexican War, did one see the Prescotts and Rawlingses build their new lives with government help.
More likely Rasmussen just got a bad 1-day sample, but pollsters don't like to admit that their polls can go wrong, so he's pointing to the jobs report as an explanation instead. However, the report wasn't nearly good enough to justify a 4-point swing in 1 day.
This reminds of a basketball game a few years ago between UK and Florida. This was a year or 2 aftyer UF had won the NC. Uk was smoking them in the first half, up by 20 something, maybe even 30. And that's with Tubby Smith coaching. In the second half UK comes out a little flat understandibly, Florida makes a run, but UK puls away in the end to win by 20 something...6 if I wasn't too lazy to look it up.
The Floida player, came out in the interview after the game and said..."Yeah, they won they game, but we outscored 'em by 4 in the second half!"
Same kinda' mindset as a liberal. Just absolutely clueless.
Democrats had a political self interest in economic bad news in 2008, how is this "not normal"?
Damn! My typing has been for shit since my surgery...
The party out of power always has an interest in poor economic news. That is a perfectly normal stalemate.
The jobs report Friday wasn't good at all. And if the media really did succeed (even temporarily) in spinning it as good and that spin was enough to put Obama ahead (though, notably, still short of 50%), then Obama's in pretty good shape--just 1 tiny little November surprise and he squeaks through.
Never fear: the liberals' high energy prices are here!
No one wants the economy to be bad, but Republicans have a political self-interest in the economy looking bad until after the election. That's not a normal "stalemate"!
There is a difference between Republicans and business owners/business executives.
Yes. Republicans are going to benefit if the economic toilet that we are in continues to be bad up until the election. This doesn't mean that they WANT a bad economy as a policy. They don't want a bad economy. They WANT the little shit stain that is in the White House gone so we can really and substantively improve the economy. If it takes a few more months of bad news to be able to recover in the future.....so be it. Think of it like cancer treatment....you are going to feel really bad for a while, but once the cancer is gone, you will live.
Business owners and executives on the other hand make their immediate decisions based on the financial realities. They don't purposely cripple or hold back their businesses for political points. The fact that they are not buying, making capital investments, slowing down manufacturing based on demand and not hiring: those actions are all based on rational calculations of the existing conditions. No political considerations. Fiscal and economic decisions based on current conditions and their projections of future conditions assuming that there is no change.....ie the shit stain stays in power.
Once we get some sanity back into the financial and legal systems, you can expect to see a strong reversal of decision making and an economic recovery that we SHOULD have WOULD have had if not for Obama purposely trying to destroy the country and the economy.
If Obama is re-elected. Bend over and kiss your ass goodbye because we are dead dead dead as a country and will be in this economic depression (it IS a depression) for years and years to come.
Carnifex, there's nothing more common in sports than the furious comeback that falls just short.
Eventually, after many instances of outscoring his opponent in the second half by just a little less than he needed to, that player might wise up.
tim maguire said...
The party out of power always has an interest in poor economic news. That is a perfectly normal stalemate.
The jobs report Friday wasn't good at all. And if the media really did succeed (even temporarily) in spinning it as good
As I say, give it a couple of days.
Zero has always done better in weekend polling and Ras, like Gallup, uses a rolling 3 day average.
Obama has been basically immune to job reports the past couple mos.
Why?
The do nothing boehner/cantor congress er least productive congress in the history of America.
And then he has the good fortune to be runnin' against mittens.
Again, turdblossom, koch boys and other con billionaires Super Pac $$$ have been carpet bombing Ohio w/negative Obama/Sherrod Brown campaign ads to no effect. Such is the current Rep reality. Two words ~ Diminishing returns!
Ohio~Ohio~Ohio
>
As always, elections come down to choices:
No Toss Up States
Romney's conundrum as Obama can lose OH/VA/FL/NC and still win ie mittens has to run the table.
And Obama ain't gonna lose Ohio and Virginia!
Happy trails ...
There will be no recovery until Obama and his party are retired. Hopefully, that will be in 2113 but it could take until 2017. The Depression took ten years to clear.
I don't think even most Democrats believe that Obama will create jobs.
They want jobs to be created, but not if it means anybody gets rich from it. They want jobs, but not if it means Republicans get credit. They want jobs, but not if it's due to capitalism.
They are just silly, partisan people.
I'm still a registered Dem. I would be fine with Democrats getting the credit, and even Obama if he did the things that work, and stuck with that, but they can't fix this, because they refuse to. I even believe they know how, but not without admitting they are wrong about everything they say. They must save face, because on the left appearances are everything. Style over substance.
Using RCP, which employs many of the most skewed polls around (Pew, Q-pac), is pure desperation.
There is a zero-point-zero chance of our small company purchasing a $250,000 or $300,000 machine tool between now and November 6.
That's not because I think this will somehow hurt the economy and help Romney; that's absurd.
It's because I don't know if Obama will win on November 6; and if he does, and the Dems retain control of the senate, I anticipate things getting much, much worse, when Obama no longer has to worry about re-election, and the mask can completely come off.
And many of my customers are probably thinking the same thing: No one wants to put money into equipment that uses electricity when the most powerful man in the world has stated as his goal to make electricity prices "necessarily skyrocket." So orders are down, and will be down til the gun is no longer pointed at our foreheads.
This has nothing to do with businesses manipulating the economy to get their way -- that's some Cedarford-grade conspiracy-crazy right there.
If you want to go north, but your opponent wants to go east, you can compromise and head of in a northeasterly direction.
However, if your opponent wants to go straight south, and in no other direction, then no "compromise" is possible; then it is either fight or surrender.
Further, the hold-up here seems to be Harry Reid solo blocking any substantive votes on anything whatever in the Senate simply by Senate procedural rules, which would seem to indicate that "the Democrats" are not confident of their own troops either.
It appears that the Democrat leadership is not any more anxious than the Republicans to have any substantive votes in Congress before the election and are content to blame the hold-ups on Republican "obstructionism," while the actual "obstructionist" is their very own Harry Reid.
And it is going to be a mess, since regardless of which party "wins" in November, the lame duck Congress is going to be part immobilized by shock, part inchoate with outrage, and no way is anything going to begin to be accomplished until after January 20th, and then it looks kind of iffy as to just what course Congress will take off in then.
I suggest reading Shiloh's comment above to see where the leftie mind is on the future of this country and the economy. It's not on it at all.
It's all about partisan bullshit, and who's side wins. Bragging rights all the way to the bottom of the abyss. To hell with everything else.
Republicans trying to tank the economy to defeat Obama? Huh? Wha?
"No one wants the economy to be bad, but Republicans have a political self-interest in the economy looking bad until after the election."
What? Republicans in Congress want the US economy to flounder for political profit. Period.
Traitorous Sabotage!
bagoh20
Indeed partisanship ie Obama vs. the do nothing Rep congress. Reps pass legislation which has no chance to get thru the senate ie political posturing. And yes both side do it, but w/Reps it has become a science.
Mitch McConnell: Top Priority, Make Obama a One Term President
Capital is waiting on the sideline to see how our election goes and what Angela does about the Euro.
90 days is a short time.
PS: BarryD hit it early. The guy who's phoning it in with budgets that dont get a "single" Dem vote
Senate 0-97
House 0-414
The House passed a budget again this year
The Senate didn't even try for the third year
Who's creating a Stalemate?
machine said...
What? Republicans in Congress want the US economy to flounder for political profit. Period.
You tell 'em dummy!
I mean, you have all sorts of examples of this, I'm sure.
Because as we all know the only thing we need to make the economy better is legislation!
Mitch McConnell: Top Priority, Make Obama a One Term President
I like how you stupids pretend that Democrats never wanted GW Bush to be a 1 term President or something.
Watching you idiots and your dumb talking points is passe
"substantively improve the economy."
Oh, you mean like when it was bleeding 700K jobs a month?
No thanks...
Jobs Report a lie
Somebody tell the trolls the Pederast and his party control the Senate.
If it's a do-nothing Congress, both Houses are to blame.
However, if one House - The House - has passed plenty of measures and the Pederast's House has passed none, it's not a do-nothing Congress, but one house is a do-nothing house and it's pretty obvious which one is the do-nothing House.
PS Don't see any trolls rebutting the fact that Zero's BLS added 377K seasonal jobs out of thin air, but who cares about facts, right?
Spreading that FUD is what's important.
machine said...
substantively improve the economy.
Oh, you mean like when it was bleeding 700K jobs a month?
Yes, because losing only 200k jobs a month is such an improvement, right?
machine said...
Oh, you mean like when it was bleeding 700K jobs a month?
At no point was the US losing 700,000 jobs per month.
Your talking points are so stupid they boggle the mind.
Jay,
There's a difference between preferring that your party holds the White House and doing everything possible to obstruct the capabilities of the sitting president from achieving policies that will benefit American citizens, merely to gain political advantage, which is what the Republicans in Congress are accused of doing.
I don't doubt they are doing that, but I also don't doubt that they have no idea--and care less--what policies will help American citizens, as they are in office to serve the interests of their bosses on Wall Street, or to fulfill their own fantatical Ayn Rand-engendered delusions.
That said, they haven't had to work very hard, as Obama's own inclinations and actions have been to meet the Republicans with unseemly readiness to appease.
Obama's failures can be laid squarely at his feet.
HAHAHAHA Kookie's link started out OK debunking the jobs report, then it descended into:
Nuclear annihilation is the necessary outcome of the neoconservatives’ drive for US world hegemony. Syria can fall, and Iran can fall, but Russia and China are unlikely to accept their reduction to puppet state status.
Jay,
There's a difference between preferring that your party holds the White House and doing everything possible to obstruct the capabilities of the sitting president from achieving policies that will benefit American citizens, merely to gain political advantage, which is what the Republicans in Congress are accused of doing.
I know what they're accused of doing.
I reject the premise that legislative action by Congress will improve the economy.
How much did the "stimulus" and TARP help, for example?
If you are not happy with the current state of the economy, then I suggest not voting for the people who have been there regulating and taxing it, unless you actually think that helps the economy. If so, your task is much easier.
A jobs report where 100% of the growth is due to manipulation of data is good (Zerohedge.com obliterates the report)?
The do nothing boehner/cantor congress er least productive congress in the history of America.
Ironically, Boehner and Cantor have been quite active. It's the pederast who runs the Senate who is bottle necking everything.
Oh, you mean like when it was bleeding 700K jobs a month?
You ARE aware that during no month were 700,000 jobs lost, right?
Or are you really as ignorant as you seem?
PS Don't see any trolls rebutting the fact that Zero's BLS added 377K seasonal jobs out of thin air, but who cares about facts, right?
...or that the birth/death adjustment was about 1000% higher than it was LAST July.
Can we trust ANYTHING the government says (I almost said "our government" but I ain't taking blame for that moron in the WH)
I love the fact that machine, garage, and shiloh think that Obama, who ran in 2008 as this post-partisan uniter, is going to run this great campaign against a "do nothing" Speaker of the House.
In other words, the President is going to run around the country admitting he can't lead, bring people together, or over come obsticles.
Winning!
There's a difference between preferring that your party holds the White House and doing everything possible to obstruct the capabilities of the sitting president from achieving policies that will benefit American citizens, merely to gain political advantage, which is what the Republicans in Congress are accused of doing.
I have highlighted the problem with your statement. Very few, almost NONE of the President's policies are to benefit American citizens.
Shovel money to his cronies
Subsidize industries and companies that have no chance of survival without a massive transfer of tax money
Create programs like Obamacare that are guaranteed to kill jobs and to destroy the insurance industry.
Create a ginormous bureaucracy in Obamacare that will fine/tax/whatever the living bejesus out of people and cause the cost of health CARE to rise and be rationed.
Actively prevent industries like oil, coal and gas to be able to survive much less hire people.
Purposely cause energy costs to "necessarily" skyrocket at the expense of the ordinary person.
Bent on pushing gun control, refuses to provide a budget that ANYONE in Congress will vote for.
Refuses to allow a cessation of burning up our food for fuel in the aim of promoting 'green' energy, while food prices skyrocket world wide and we are in the midst of the worst drought since the Dust Bowl times.
Spends about 70% of his time campaigning and golfing and vacationing instead of governing
I could go on and on with examples of how none of his actions benefit the American citizen and are purposely and maliciously harming people and the country.
So yes there is a difference. One party, the Dems want to hold onto power and act for partisan purposes despite the obvious and painful evidence in front of their eyes. The other party, sees the destruction and is trying to stop it. Although I must admit that many Republican/RINO's are just as much at fault because the just want to compromise and get along.
It is too late for compromise and that weenie wimpy action is what has brought us to the brink.
I'll take President Obama over Romney the Liar any day...
Seriously, can he go one day without telling a whopping lie? One day?
Actually, Jay, what's really hysterical is watching idiots like our resident trolls gin up fake outrage over something demonstrably wrong (yes, of course Republicans want a bad economy, just like they want dirty air and polluted water!), yet conveniently ignore their actual, documented sabotage of the Iraq war because of their incandescent hatred of Bush.
machine said...
I'll take President Obama over Romney the Liar any day...
Seriously, can he go one day without telling a whopping lie?
You can't name a single "lie" Romney has allegedly told.
I'll take President Obama over Romney the Liar any day. Seriously, can he go one day without telling a whopping lie? Can he?
I don't know. Can you?
yet conveniently ignore their actual, documented sabotage of the Iraq war because of their incandescent hatred of Bush.
Oh come on Christopher, what they did re: the Iraq war was good and just!
They were on the side of patriots by dissenting!
Thomas Jefferson said it!
So you are actually bragging about lying the country in to an totally unfunded war?
Wowza...no wonder you all like Romney so much...
Oh, how about this one:
“President Obama’s lawsuit claiming it is unconstitutional for Ohio to allow servicemen and women extended early voting privileges during the state’s early voting period is an outrage,” Romney said in a statement Saturday.
DBQ...you obviously did not read the rest of my statement.
"...there is a difference. One party, the Dems want to hold onto power and act for partisan purposes despite the obvious and painful evidence in front of their eyes. The other party, sees the destruction and is trying to stop it."
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
Very funny, DBQ! For a minute you had me fooled into thinking you really believed this assload o'malarkey! It took me a moment realize you're being sly and subversively snarky.
Well played.
So you are actually bragging about lying the country into an totally unfunded war?
Poor machine. Once you've guzzled the BDS kool-aid, you never sober up.
So, you are saying the Iraqis did have weapons that could threaten our interests (even though they were never found) and we didn't pay for the war with totally borrowed funds for the first time in our country's history (which we did the same again for the Afghan war)?
Yes. And no.
Afghanistan? I thought that was the good war, the one the left caterwauled about all the time? Why concern yourself with money there?
And as far as "borrowed funds". . .get back to me when you've taken the Crackhead in chief to the woodshed.
machine said...
and we didn't pay for the war with totally borrowed funds for the first time in our country's history
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
This idiot actually believes the US didn't borrow money to finance WWII.
Good grief, where to you idiots come from.
machine said...
So, you are saying the Iraqis did have weapons that could threaten our interests
Notice the bubble of ignorane and lies you live in.
BAGHDAD (AP) — Britain will help the Iraqi government dispose of what's left of deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons, still stored in two bunkers in north of Baghdad, the British embassy in Baghdad announced Monday.
PS: the Civil War was not "paid for" you abject imbecile.
machine said...
So you are actually bragging about lying the country in to an totally unfunded war?
Except there were no lies.
You claiming something was a "lie" doesn't make it so.
For example:
President Obama’s lawsuit claiming it is unconstitutional for Ohio to allow servicemen and women extended early voting privileges during the state’s early voting period is an outrage,”
Is not a lie.
You are terribly unfamiliar with the defintion of "lie"
Of course that is mainly because you're dumb.
"Executives at companies making everything from electrical components and power systems to automotive parts say the fiscal stalemate is prompting them to pull back now, rather than wait for a possible resolution to the deadlock on Capitol Hill.No one wants the economy to be bad, but Republicans have a political self-interest in the economy looking bad until after the election. That's not a normal "stalemate"
!
HELL of a leap there, not-at-all-partisan NY Times!
I presume that this is the signal for blaming business executives for the bad economy?
Evil, evil, evil motherfuckers.
machine said...
and we didn't pay for the war with totally borrowed funds for the first time in our country's history
At the end of World War II, the US Dept/GDP ratio hit 109 percent.
You sir, are a moron.
Uh, even HotAit admits the Ohio voting claim is a lie...
And yes, we borrowed some for every war...Iraq was the first time we put the whole tab on credit (which of course is totally President Obama'a fault)...
That's what "totally" means...
machine said...
Uh, even HotAit admits the Ohio voting claim is a lie...
Bullshit.
You can't make a post without lying.
...Iraq was the first time we put the whole tab on credit
Except we did no such thing.
Don't you find it funny that your "facts" are lies and the things you say are "lies" are actual facts?
You sir, are a moron.
President Obama’s lawsuit claiming it is unconstitutional for Ohio to allow servicemen and women extended early voting privileges during the state’s early voting period is an outrage
Um, here is what the Obama people said:
Obama for America, the U.S. president’s re-election campaign committee, sued two Ohio officials over changes to state law that limit in-person early voting for some people and not others.
Under the law, families of armed forces members and civilians overseas can vote through the Monday before an election, while early voting for all other Ohio residents ends on the preceding Friday, a disparity Barack Obama’s campaign claims is unconstitutional. The 2012 election will be held on a Tuesday.
“This lawsuit, at bottom, seeks to treat all Ohio citizens equally under the law,” Donald McTigue, general counsel for the Obama campaign in Ohio, said today on a conference call with reporters after the complaint was filed in federal court in Columbus, the state capital.
Please prove this is a lie.
Thanks in advance.
I find this electoral analysis to be most astute.
Saying that Republicans have an interest in the economy looking bad is no more insightful than saying the Democrats have an interest in the economy looking good.
The main difference is that the Democrats have to find ways to cover up the facts in order to advance their agenda.
Actually, Jay, what's really hysterical is watching idiots like our resident trolls gin up fake outrage over something demonstrably wrong (yes, of course Republicans want a bad economy, just like they want dirty air and polluted water!), yet conveniently ignore their actual, documented sabotage of the Iraq war because of their incandescent hatred of Bush.
Or their also documented attempts to sabotage Reagan's foreign policy in re the USSR.
“President Obama’s lawsuit claiming it is unconstitutional for Ohio to allow servicemen and women extended early voting privileges during the state’s early voting period is an outrage,” Romney said in a statement Saturday.
Obama is, in fact, filing a lawsuit alleging that.
Funny hearing Democrats whine that Republicans are "lying", isn't it?
The main difference is that the Democrats have to find ways to cover up the facts in order to advance their agenda.
The hypocritical part is that Obama, while in the Senate, felt the law he is trying to strong arm contractors into ignoring wasn't harsh enough.
Thanks, assorted morons, for electing this dunce.
Why do you pepole insist on wrestling pigs? Shiloh, machine et al can no more admit that they and their ilk lie with every utterance than they can not admit they actually worship Zero? That the halo's and angel wings are there, you just have to believe! No! Don't look with your eyes...look with your heart.
In other words, they're retards.
So what were the job numbers?
I heard some numbers (don't know if these are the same numbers) and I thought...
Wow...
We added fewer jobs to the economy than the probable increase in population due to the birth of babies.
Lets have a party!
I was in Fargo last week. It was weird. All the stores had kids working at them. Teens and early 20's and one bagger at a grocery store must have been 12.
It was weird in the way that the military creates pocket populations without elderly, but you don't notice until you go someplace that has old people.
Teenagers don't have jobs in Albuquerque.
So what were the job numbers?
The fact that you don't already know is a sufficient statistic.
If they were any good, they'd have been in your face 24/7 on every MSM outlet.
and we didn't pay for the war with totally borrowed funds for the first time in our country's history (which we did the same again for the Afghan war)?
I take it you are unaware of war bond drives that took place during WW2 to finance the war.
With every comment it generates, "machine" demonstrates that it is not programmed to output facts.
I clicked through from a link in the article and found:
"July’s jobless rate ticked up slightly to 8.3 percent, about the same as it has been all year. A broader measure of unemployment — including part-time workers who want full-time jobs, and people who have given up looking for work — rose to 15 percent."
As well as a number in the 160,000 range for July.
The number of babies born in the US is about 4 million a year... divide by 12... 333K-ish in one month.
Real unemployment is around 15% and we added fewer jobs, significantly, than we added additional population.
As I said... party!
I don't believe these polls anymore. I highly suspect that Romney is so far ahead of Ukrel that to report it would discredit polling services from ever being hired again.
Or get them audited.
The headline of a Guardian article...
"US economy added 163,000 jobs in July as Obama handed major election boost"
Unemployment went up, anyway, because more people are out of work. And that's NOT counting those who have given up in despair.
If job growth doesn't at the least keep EVEN with growth of population entering the labor market, how is this about Republicans favoring the *appearance* of a bad economy?
Sure, 163,000 jobs added is better than going into the hole even FASTER, huzzah! But this slow going into the hole is the best in, what, five months?
And it's *politics* not to pretend that it's all gonna be okay now?
The unemployment rate went up on Friday. I have not heard one single person outside the media say that the news was good.
The truth is Obama and Romney have mostly stayed within a point or two on Rasmussen for months..Romney had only been ahead by 4 for a day or two anyway.
I doubt if the unemployment rate going from 8.2 to 8.3 will be seen as good news to most people.
Of course, the joblessness that you all are complaining about is a direct result of the "free market" you all extol: as long as employers can profit by sending jobs overseas and paying pennies on the dollar in labor costs, they're going to contiue to do so. After all, as you all love to point out, they're in business to make money, not to be provide jobs out of charitable impulses!
"Of course, the joblessness that you all are complaining about is a direct result of the "free market" you all extol: as long as employers can profit by sending jobs overseas and paying pennies on the dollar in labor costs, they're going to contiue to do so."
Except that the expense of domestic labor is caused by.... government.
Otherwise, as the economy tanked, the free market would adjust wages according to supply of labor. Yes, downward, but production costs would also go down while production itself went up and the free market would adjust, again, according to supply, and competition would reduce the price of goods (in a *free* market, not one restrained by government cronyism or pseudo-monopoly) so that people making less money would retain more buying power.
You can dispute that this would actually happen the way I've said, but honestly, Cook, the rest of it isn't my opinion. Nothing about our labor market or the choices businesses make to outsource is done in anything like a free market. It's done with government setting wages and conditions, taxes and regulations that inhibit growth or rational decision-making.
The theory seems to be... better unemployed all together than underpaid. Better, too, to restrict and even ban energy production than have people employed. It's priorities, and priorities set by government and enforced by law.
Unemployment in North Dakota is low, almost *normal*.
But we have priorities.
And when/if the economy eventually claws it's way out of the hole it's in, there will be millions of youth without any experience working or employment history whatsoever.
That should alarm people.
But hey... at least no one paid them less than minimum wage.
So there is that.
Cook, you've outdone yourself with that comment.
When you get on track toward full Europeanization of the economy, you get European unemployment rates and income levels.
Over a year ago, Nobel laureate Robert Lucas said:
Is it possible that by imitating European policies on labor markets, welfare, and taxes U.S. has chosen a new, lower GDP trend?
If so, it may be that the weak recovery we have had so far is all the recovery we will get.
This is what liberals wanted. Own it.
This is what businesses--the so-called "job creators"--want.
They're "creating jobs" overseas.
Robert Cook said...
"Of course, the joblessness that you all are complaining about is a direct result of the "free market" you all extol: as long as employers can profit by sending jobs overseas and paying pennies on the dollar in labor costs, they're going to contiue to do so. After all, as you all love to point out, they're in business to make money, not to be provide jobs out of charitable impulses!"
Indeed so. The Soviet Union's employment rate was the envy of the world.
No telling what happened to it though, eh Comrade?
This is what businesses--the so-called "job creators"--want.
Of course. That's why we regularly had 15% of the potential workforce unemployed for most of US history, when businesses were free to do whatever the hell they wanted.
Oh, wait. That's only become the norm under Obama's reign of regulatory diktat.
Robert Cook said...
"This is what businesses--the so-called "job creators"--want.
They're "creating jobs" overseas."
Why is that, Comrade?
As far as can be discerned from his comments, all the economics Robert Cook knows he learned from Howard Zinn.
Chip S. said...
"As far as can be discerned from his comments, all the economics Robert Cook knows he learned from Howard Zinn."
i.e., nothing at all. Aggressively so.
"This is what businesses--the so-called "job creators"--want.
They're "creating jobs" overseas."
Because businesses are too stupid to understand that they need to sell their product to someone.
Wonder how they function. It's amazing. Probably even proof of god.
Of course, when businesses don't make it by supplying goods to a market, but instead make it by having government chose the winner, then it's most rational to be certain that when government chooses the winner, that they chose you.
This, Cook, is also not a free market.
as long as employers can profit by sending jobs overseas and paying pennies on the dollar in labor costs, they're going to contiue to do so. After all, as you all love to point out, they're in business to make money, not to be provide jobs out of charitable impulses!
You act like all jobs are created by large corporations and are being outsourced.
MOST jobs in the US are created by small to medium sized business and most don't have the ability to outsource to another country even if they wanted to do so.
Kind of difficult to have small businesses outsource......your beautician, carpentry firm, plumbing company, local restaurant, auto repair shop, retail store, paving company, landscaping crew, dry cleaning establishment, trucking firm, local bar....etc.
The fact that the cost of employing people is made expensive by government regulations, exorbitant taxes, fees and licensing, uncertainty about what new rule or tax will be coming down the pike, the inflated cost of buying any new equipment, tight or nonexistent credit.... and the cost of all operating expenses/supplies are also sky high...
Nope....none of that makes people slow down on their business and hiring. Nosiree
BUT...if you want to believe that the reason there are fewer jobs is mainly due to outsourcing, go ahead and have your fantasy.
Robert Cook said...
This is what businesses--the so-called "job creators"--want.
They're "creating jobs" overseas.
Why do you care where a job is created?
Pastafarian said...
There is a zero-point-zero chance of our small company purchasing a $250,000 or $300,000 machine tool between now and November 6
What do you do?
Robert Cook said...
Of course, the joblessness that you all are complaining about is a direct result of the "free market" you all extol: as long as employers can profit by sending jobs overseas and paying pennies on the dollar in labor costs, they're going to contiue to do so. After all, as you all love to point out, they're in business to make money, not to be provide jobs out of charitable impulses!
Seriously, Bob. Quit digging. You're embarrassing your education.
Indeed so. The Soviet Union's employment rate was the envy of the world.
No telling what happened to it though, eh Comrade?
" They pretend to pay us, so we pretend to work."
Interesting factoid; The Soviet Union believed that a countries prestige was measured on their steel output. They beat every other country in steel production. Consequently they had the heaviest locomotives in the world.
Post a Comment