I, too, would like to celebrate a decrease in the jobless rate. To me that should mean more Americans returning to work and providing for their loved ones. Unfortunately I see, again, where someone is lying with numbers.
The big drop in the jobless rate, which stood at 9.0% in October, stemmed mainly from a decline in the size of the labor force. Some 315,000 people stopped looking for jobs last month, which is usually not a good sign.
I found this on Marketwatch and have to wonder if 315,000 people falling completely off the radar screen is really something to celebrate. That's a lot of people. I hope this "statistics" exercise isn't another attempt to make someone look good in the upcoming election season. If I was one of the 315,000 who just essentially became a non-person...I'd have a case of the ass right now. :faint:
Another interesting note I missed first time I read the same article:
The increase in hiring took place entirely in the private sector, with employment rising by 140,000.
Looks like businesses are trying to get it together despite the efforts of our President and Congress to cut the businessperson's throat. You have to love the tenacity of the American businessperson.
LadyJazzer wrote: It didn't seem to bother any of you during the previous 8-year administration... Why now?
I think it has something to do with the warm tingling feeling I'm getting from the author of these numbers blow smoke up our asses and calling it sunshine. It's more than a little unsettling. It feels sort of nice but then when I think about it...... :VeryScared:
LadyJazzer wrote: It didn't seem to bother any of you during the previous 8-year administration... Why now?
Bush was creating jobs, Obama had added a record amount of families to the food stamp rolls.
And when President Barack gets the chance to make the tough call and approve a new pipeline that will create jobs, he kicks the can down the road.
tongue:
Looks like those new jobs will go on the tally sheet of BHO's replacement.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
LadyJazzer wrote: It didn't seem to bother any of you during the previous 8-year administration... Why now?
Bush was creating jobs
Before Obama took over we were losing 40,000 jobs a month every month and the economy was in the death spiral into depression..Did you forget that Fred?
No, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month before Obama was sworn in....
Bush created 3 million...in 8 years.... vs. 23.1 million by Clinton in the prior 8 years... The usual Bush apologists can try to slice and dice that and chalk it up up to sunspots, the existence of Democrats, or anything else they like... It doesn't change the numbers.
LadyJazzer wrote: No, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month before Obama was sworn in....
Bush created 3 million...in 8 years.... vs. 23.1 million by Clinton in the prior 8 years... The usual Bush apologists can try to slice and dice that and chalk it up up to sunspots, the existence of Democrats, or anything else they like... It doesn't change the numbers.
LadyJazzer wrote: Uh-huh... Try to float that during election season...
Like I said, since the GOP has yet to pass ANYTHING related to jobs, (contenting itself with renaming Post Offices, and anti-abortion garbage), I'd love to see them try to take credit for ANYTHING job-related.
I'm not saying it'd help in an election, because I hold a very dim view of the general population's ability to understand what the federal government's role should be in a properly balanced free market.
There are some that simply cannot grasp the basic ideas of the market, and there are others - like yourself - that refuse to accept that a free market can work with minimal government intervention, preferring instead to put all their eggs into the federal government's basket.
What part of "I DON'T WANT THE PROFIT MOTIVE (free market) DICTATING MY HEALTH CARE" are you having trouble understanding? I don't want the insurance company telling my doctor what tests they can run; what medications they can prescribe; what treatments I can get. Yes... I'd RATHER have the government, i.e., a Medicare-like plan, letting me make those decisions with my doctor instead of some $10/hour flunky on the phone at the health-plan phone-bank, whose job it is to say 'no' as much as possible.
You want to talk about "death panels"?... Try Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Humana, ad nauseum... THERE are your "death panels."
My, my - lost the argument within 3 pages of posts regarding jobs, time for the "progressive" shift of topic to focus in on telling another batch of lies - this time regarding healthcare.
The insurance company doesn't tell your doctor what tests they can run, what medications they can prescribe, what treatments you will receive. What they do say is that, according to the contract that you or your employer has entered into with their company, these are the tests, medicines and treatments that the insurance company is obligated to pay all or a portion of according to the terms of the contract. You can have any test, medicine or treatment you want regardless of whether or not your contract obligates the insurance company to pay for it LJ.
And if you think that Medicare covers every test, medicine or treatment, I think you need to do a little more research into Medicare - because they don't cover every possibility either.
