Author Topic: More Bad News George (Read 1086 times)

rpm · « **on:** March 05, 2004, 02:42:02 PM »

Quote

Figures out Friday showed that employers added just 21,000 jobs to payrolls in February, far below the 125,000 economists had projected. To compound the bad news, January new-jobs figures were revised downward from 112,000 to 97,000.

The overall unemployment rate remained steady at 5.6 percent, below the 1990s average, but with 8.2 million workers looking for employment, the numbers could become a liability for Bush.

"At this rate the Bush administration won't create its first job for more than 10 years," Kerry told reporters on his way to New Orleans.

"Americans have a clear choice in this election," he continued. "They can either suffer more and more job losses, or give George Bush a new job in November and start putting Americans back to work."

"Today's jobs numbers show how far we are from any of the president's promises being kept," Kerry added. "The fact is that every new job created this month was for government employees. There were zero private-sector jobs created — no manufacturing jobs."

"As alarming as these statistics are," chimed in Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, "they don't even count the 392,000 workers who have dropped out of the labor force because they have lost all hope of ever finding a job."

Eagler · « **Reply #1 on:** March 05, 2004, 02:51:39 PM »

"As alarming as these statistics are," chimed in Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, "they don't even count the 392,000 workers who have dropped out of the labor force because they have lost all hope of ever finding a job."

LOL

what, did they receive 392,000 letters:

"I give up"

signed

Hopeless

what a crock

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #2 on:** March 05, 2004, 02:51:57 PM »

Figures out Friday showed that employers added just 21,000 jobs to payrolls in February, far below the 125,000 economists had projected. To compound the bad news, January new-jobs figures were revised downward from 112,000 to 97,000.

21,000 new jobs in one month = bad news?

The overall unemployment rate remained steady at 5.6 percent, below the 1990s average, but with 8.2 million workers looking for employment, the numbers could become a liability for Bush.

So 5.6% is good, but the corresponding 8.2M is bad?

"At this rate the Bush administration won't create its first job for more than 10 years," Kerry told reporters on his way to New Orleans.

I thought they did 21,000 in February? Im confused.

"Americans have a clear choice in this election," he continued. "They can either suffer more and more job losses, or give George Bush a new job in November and start putting Americans back to work."

Because private employers will hire new employees if Bush leaves.

"Today's jobs numbers show how far we are from any of the president's promises being kept," Kerry added. "The fact is that every new job created this month was for government employees. There were zero private-sector jobs created — no manufacturing jobs."

Well then ***** at them for not hiring people.

"As alarming as these statistics are," chimed in Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, "they don't even count the 392,000 workers who have dropped out of the labor force because they have lost all hope of ever finding a job."

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

midnight Target · « **Reply #3 on:** March 05, 2004, 02:59:11 PM »

I must agree with Saur on this one. The economy ain't the place to attack Bush's record. It's too good. We can't find enough warm bodies to build the product we've sold.

This is as bad as the reps attacking Kerry's war record. His war record is good, so is the economy. Now what else have you got?

Gman · « **Reply #4 on:** March 05, 2004, 03:18:13 PM »

MT, if you keep making sense, you're going to have to turn in your Democrat membership card.

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #5 on:** March 05, 2004, 03:20:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gman
MT, if you keep making sense, you're going to have to turn in your Democrat membership card.

Thanks - I was having trouble typing and breathing.

What he said.

midnight Target · « **Reply #6 on:** March 05, 2004, 03:33:00 PM »

Ignore the previous post... MT has been kidnapped by members of the Young Republicans and is being tortured as we speak.
One can only imagine the horrors he is living through......

supply side water torture
Pro-choice fingernail pulling
Lawrence Welk music blaring into his ears!

poor guy.

miko2d · « **Reply #7 on:** March 05, 2004, 03:43:26 PM »

Saurdaukar: 21,000 new jobs in one month = bad news?

Very bad - or would be if that number ment anything. Around 150,000 were expected.

Anyway, I learned sabout methodology on how they come up with those numbers. It's crap and totally unrealiable.
In one method they question just 60,000 households and extrapolate the results to the whole american population. In another method they question a certain small number of companies. Those two methods often yield widely differing results.

The statistics itself is crap. How good are 100,000 monimum-wage jobs? Is that better than 50,000 top-notch jobs?
Much better statistics would be increase in average hourly wage and average hours worked.

miko

Rolex · « **Reply #8 on:** March 05, 2004, 03:48:35 PM »

'As alarming as these statistics are," chimed in Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, "they don't even count the 392,000 workers who have dropped out of the labor force because they have lost all hope of ever finding a job.'

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't understand the ROFL, miko. I'm sure you know that unemployment data uses those applying for first-time unemployment benefits. If someone does not find a job within 6 months, they are dropped from the data completely and defined as having dropped out of workforce.

If someone is laid off for more than 6 months or fails to find a job in 6 months, they are still unemployed, but are no longer counted as unemployed.

I know Daschle is using a little political hyperbole, as all politicians do, but he is not wrong about the numbers.

miko2d · « **Reply #9 on:** March 05, 2004, 03:50:50 PM »

^ That was not me.

miko

midnight Target · « **Reply #10 on:** March 05, 2004, 04:01:27 PM »

They move back home and mooch off their parents... dammit!

Ripsnort · « **Reply #11 on:** March 05, 2004, 04:19:22 PM »

Not included in this number is the number of part time jobs that companies have picked up, an indicator for the corporations to "test the water with their big toe", and many of these part time employees become full time. It usually a prelude to full time hiring.

Another thing, they've never counted those that dropped off the unemployment lists, in this administration or prior ones. Some of those who stop claiming unemployment take jobs under the table, I certainly did for a year when my benefits ran out after 6 months in 1982.

john9001 · « **Reply #12 on:** March 05, 2004, 04:28:19 PM »

lets look at this another way, bad news for the USA is good news for kerry.

the only chance kerry has of winning is for the USA economy and iraq all the other stuff to go bad.

it must be sad that the only way kerry can win is to hope for everything to go bad for the USA so kerry can come in and "fix" it

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #13 on:** March 05, 2004, 08:56:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by miko2d
Saurdaukar: 21,000 new jobs in one month = bad news?

Very bad - or would be if that number ment anything. Around 150,000 were expected.

So if one bought a lottery ticket and hoped to win the 128.4 million jackpot, but missed one number and collected $100,000 instead, one would fall into deep depression over the bad news and blow the 100 grand on therapy and prozac.

okay, got it.

Just an aside, in Jan 2001, DOL reported 136 million jobs held in America. In Jan 2004, DOL reports 138.5 million jobs.

Somehow, according to election year rhetoric, GW Bush will be the first president to preside over a net job loss while in reality 2.5 million jobs were created.

rpm · « **Reply #14 on:** March 05, 2004, 09:26:27 PM »

What this is about is a failure of Bush's economic plan. They had all these rosy projections and failed to meet them. If this were a company, it's stock would plummet.