posted January 06, 2012 02:33 PM            

quote:

---

The conservative recovery continues. For the last few years, the private sector, which was so aggressive in cutting jobs in 2008 and 2009, has been the engine of job growth. Meanwhile, every month, contrary to popular belief, the government has been cutting positions. In December, the private sector created 212,000 jobs, while government cut 12,000 jobs. Since it bottomed out in February 2010, at 106.772 million payroll jobs, the private sector has added 3.156 million jobs. The private sector has added 1.92 million jobs in the past 12 months, a rate of 160,000 per month. Not great, but not bad. By contrast, since April 2009, government employment has fallen by 709,000. There's been a subtle shift. In July 2009, the private sector accounted for 82.7 percent of all payroll jobs; in December 2011 it accounted for 83.3 percent. Socialism? Hardly.

---

posted January 06, 2012 10:41 PM            

O'Bomber hasn't created even 1 job.

There are fewer people working now...millions fewer...than when O'Bomber took over.

posted January 07, 2012 12:04 PM            

Santorum: Unemployment Lower Due to 'Optimism' for Obama Defeat

quote:

---

GOP hopeful Rick Santorum found a way on Friday to give Republicans credit for the lowest unemployment rate in three years.

Speaking to a crowd at a town hall event in Keene, New Hampshire, the Republican presidential candidate said that the economy added 200,000 nonfarm jobs last month because people were hopeful President Barack Obama was not going to be re-elected in 2012.

"I'm very gratified to see that in spite of President Obama's policies, the job market is beginning to pick up a little bit," the candidate opined.

"I think there might just be some optimism that maybe Republicans are going to take the White House," Santorum added with a smile. "Maybe that's spurring people to start taking some risks. I'll take that as a reason."

The Labor Department said earlier Friday that the unemployment rate dropped to 8.5 percent, the lowest since February 2009. Most analysts had expected unemployment to rise to 8.7 percent.

---

posted January 07, 2012 08:05 PM            

Take for instance...Math!

If 2.4 million fewer people are working in America now...than when O'Bomber took over on January 20, 2009...THEN acoustic, O'Bomber hasn't created ANY jobs.

posted January 07, 2012 08:08 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted January 08, 2012 02:09 PM            

That means O'Bomber could not possibly have created even one job. In fact, it means O'Bomber has lost 2.4 million jobs since he took over.

It's a phony argument to say O'Bomber is creating jobs without saying he's also losing jobs...and the number O'Bomber has lost obviously exceeds the number he claims to have created...2.4 million net lost under O'Bomber.

posted January 08, 2012 07:33 PM            

Under Obama, the country has lost 1.7 million jobs. However, if we start measuring jobs in June 2009, when economists say the recession officially ended, the nation has added 1.4 million jobs. Since February 2010, when the jobs numbers began rising instead of falling, the U.S. has added nearly 2.7 million jobs. http://factcheck.org/2012/01/new-hampshire-debates-take-2/

Obama took office at a time when the country was hemorrhaging jobs very quickly. Economists say the business recession continued for several more months, ending in June 2009. Since then, the country has added 1.4 million jobs.

And, as usual after recent recessions, businesses (and state and local governments) continued to shed jobs long after the recession ended and business began to turn up. The job slump continued for Obama’s first full year in office and finally hit bottom in February 2010. Since that bottom, the nation has added nearly 2.7 million jobs. http://factcheck.org/2012/01/romneys-shaky-job-claims/

posted January 09, 2012 12:19 AM            

I've posted the information on how many jobs have been lost under O'Bomber at least 2 times on this forum. The current number is 2.4 million. Meaning 2.4 million fewer Americans are working now than were working when O'Bomber began infesting the White House.

Now acoustic, if you can just find someone to read this to you, maybe it will sink in..finally that there's a net job loss under O'Bomber of 2.4 million US jobs.

Next time get off your lazy butt and look it up yourself.

If you're wondering why all the numbers are different....it's because the figures..and stories were taken at different times through O'Bomber's failing presidency.

Morning Bell: 1,000 Days Under President Obama

The national debt stands at $14.9 trillion–$4.2 trillion of which has been added since Obama took his oath of office. Fourteen million Americans are unemployed–that’s 9.1 percent of the workforce. The unemployment rate has been above nine percent for 840 of the 1000 days, and the average unemployed worker has been without a job for more than 9 months. All told, 2.2 million jobs have been lost under Obama’s watch, despite the White House’s claims that the President’s $787 billion stimulus would create 3.3 million net jobs by 2010.

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/10/17/morning-bell-1000-days-under-president-obama/

2.19 Million Jobs Lost Under Obama

The U.S. has lost 2.2 million jobs since President Barack Obama took office. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the total number of jobs nationwide fell from 134.3 million at the end of January to 132.2 million at the end of May.
http://www.atr.org/point-million-jobs-lost-under-obama-a3342

Nancy Pelosi says more jobs created in Obama's first year than eight years of George W. Bush
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy shed almost 4.2 million private-sector jobs during the first year of the Obama administration -- January 2009 through January 2010.

Meanwhile, during eight years under Bush, the economy gained a net 188,000 private sector jobs.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/17/nancy-pelosi/nancy-pelosi-says-more-jobs-created-obamas-first-y/

Dems Disconnected From Economic Reality – 2.5 Million Jobs Lost During Obama’s Presidency (Video)

The Republican Senate Conference highlighted the failed economic policies of the Obama Administration including the fact that the country has lost 2.5 million jobs since he moved into the White House.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/06/dems-disconnected-from-economic-reality-2-5-million-jobs-lost-during-obamas-presidency-video/

Obama Presides Over Most Jobs Lost Since 1940
News media have spun rising 2009 unemployment positively, but more than 4 million lost jobs tops post-World War II high.

Unemployment shot up in 2009 from 7.7 percent in January to 10.1 percent in October before settling at 10 percent in December. Behind those percentages were more than 4.1 million people who lost their jobs during the year. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that’s the most job losses in a year since 1940. (BLS could only provide data from 1940-2009)
http://www.mrc.org/bmi/articles/2010/Obama_Presides_Over_Most_Jobs_Lost_Since_.html

September 16, 2011
Obama's Unreliable Facts From Reliable Figures

The lowest number of jobs per the establishment data over the past 32 months occurred in January of 2010 when the BLS reported non-farm employment of 129.5 million. When one compares that month to the August 2011 report a gain of 1.6 million jobs is recorded. So by pulling out of the 32 months he has been in office only those months (19) beneficial to him, Barack Obama can claim he has created nearly 2 million jobs; never mind that a net of 3.5 million jobs have been lost since he became President.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/obamas_unreliable_facts_from_reliable_figures.html#ixzz1in7BAx9E

posted January 09, 2012 10:24 AM            

So we have blog posts as your reputable source for information backing your claim? Do I have that right?

Heritage blog notes the amount of jobs lost. It DOESN'T note the jobs added. That doesn't bolster your point, nor prove that you have a handle on things.

Your Americans for Tax Reform also states jobs lost without mentioning the jobs gained. That link is from 2009, so it makes sense that it wouldn't have an up-to-date account of the facts.

Your Politifact article doesn't undo the Politifact article that I posted when suggesting you not look to Gingrich for correct information about jobs gained versus lost.

The Gateway pundit blog continues the trend of NOT acknowledging the jobs gained.

American Thinker, which is well known to us as a Conservative blog makes a claim, but doesn't cite a source. It also attempts to make the case that Obama is spinning the numbers in his favor. There are no credible factchecks that dispute the job numbers released recently. The only recent factchecks on jobs have been in regard to statements by Republicans candidates.

What we know as undeniable are these facts:

There was a recession that Obama didn't cause.

Jobs were lost as a result of that recession.

Since the recession ended there has been growth.

That's it. End of story. Obama will preside over an economy coming out of a downturn. That's how it'll go down in the books, and that will be his record.

posted January 09, 2012 11:43 AM            

If you had..gotten someone to read it to you...they would have found the job loss numbers come from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. The BLS is the official scorekeeper for the US government

Now acoustic, if you can get someone to read this chart for you...and tell you what it means...you might understand that Bush "created" about 10 million jobs...using the very same method leftist want to use now to claim O'Bomber "created" 2.5mil, 3mil or whatever number leftists are claiming.

But, the BLS chart makes it clear that at the end of year 2008..that's the last year Bush was president...there were 145,362,000 Americans over the age of 16 working in America.

At the end of 2010...the last year for which the BLS has statistics because year 2011 hasn't been compiled yet...there were only 139,064,000 employed in America.

My calculations show that to be 6.3 million fewer working at the end of 2010 than were working at the end of 2008.

So, unless you can show that O'Bomber "created" 8.8 million net jobs in 2011 then....there's no way in hell O'Bomber's numbers add up to "creating" 2.5 million jobs since he took over.

In reality, O'Bomber has lost 2.4 million net jobs since the O'Bomber Porkulus Bill was passed.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf

posted January 09, 2012 12:57 PM            

Everything I've posted says that jobs were lost before they were gained. Using your own chart, check the unemployment percentage. It says 9.6 for 2010. http://www.bls.gov/cps/ says 8.9 in 2011. How did it go down without any job creation? Now if you look at the link I just posted again, it says:

Unemployment Level:
13,747,000 for 2011

What was the number in 2010 on your chart? 14,825,000. That's a 1,078,000 difference in the positive direction.

Jobs are being created.

Further, it's bogus thinking to believe you can spin the numbers at the end of Bush as being the numbers to compare to for Obama. The job losses under Obama were not a result of Obama. Of this there is NO question. The point of measure HAS TO BE the point that was the lowest. No one is ever going to credibly blame Obama for the jobs lost, so the measurement inevitably is the growth since the hemorraging stopped. You only have a case against Obama if recovery weren't happening, but it is.

posted January 11, 2012 11:40 AM            

My experience is that due to your bubble world confusion, your lack of language skills and your refusal to pull your head out...almost everyone here...and elsewhere knows more than you do...about just about everything!

Your other point is an example of what I'm talking about.

You wonder why the unemployment number has come down...if no new jobs are being created.

This has been explained to you before acoustic. Not only explained but backed up with authoritative sources. Further, the explanation makes perfect sense. Perhaps that's the reason you can't get it.

The unemployment number has come down because...fewer people are looking for work. When people stop looking for work...they drop off the rolls of "Unemployed".

As people get discouraged in finding a job they stop looking. When people are not actively looking for a job, the government no longer considers them "Unemployed".

That means that the next report shows a decrease in the number of people looking for work...unemployed AND, the unemployment number goes down.

posted January 11, 2012 11:58 AM            

Much more than a single job have been created.

Quoting myself:

quote:

---

Unemployment Level:
13,747,000 for 2011

What was the number in 2010 on your chart? 14,825,000. That's a 1,078,000 difference in the positive direction.

---

And while I'll grant you that the percentage of the available workforce has gone down moderately, it doesn't account for unemployment going down. The percentage of the available workforce that are working still beats most of the 80's as a percentage. Even as of Dec 2011 it was 64%.

You like to claim that the stimulus did nothing, though the CBO disagrees with you. You don't seem to understand that even while jobs were being lost all over the country, jobs were being added as well. That's how the CBO came to it's number despite the fact that unemployment went up since the stimulus. The jobs created didn't outnumber the jobs that were lost. Jobs continue to be created as noted above. Are you completely incapable of analyzing the data correctly? Do I need to post more article from this recovery for you to understand that it is indeed underway?

posted January 11, 2012 12:49 PM            

Everything I've said here is true...and backed up by US government sources.

You're off in the weeds and don't even know how you got there. Perhaps if you could think objectively...instead of subjectively and ideologically.....?

posted January 11, 2012 01:20 PM            

quote:

---

Everything I've said here is true...and backed up by US government sources.

---

Nope. The part where you claimed no jobs have been created is wrong as confirmed by government sources.

quote:

---

Perhaps if you could think objectively...instead of subjectively and ideologically.....?

---

Those aren't MY issues. (Still)
Projection, dear Jwhop.

quote:

---

It is patently...and mathematically impossible for O'Bomber to have created a single net new job when....more than 2 million fewer Americans are working in America today than when Bush left office and O'Bomber walked into a job he can't handle.

---

posted January 11, 2012 03:03 PM            

Fed's Plosser: Economy May Drive Fed To Hike Before Mid-2013

By Michael S. Derby
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--The Federal Reserve may have to tighten monetary policy before many now expect, a central bank official said in a speech that also said the U.S. economy will do better in 2012 amid improved labor markets.

"I believe economic conditions may require the Fed to raise rates before mid-2013," Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia President Charles Plosser said in the text of a speech to be delivered an audience in Rochester, N.Y.

Plosser held a voting role at monetary policy setting Federal Open Market Committee meetings in 2011. He was a persistent critic of the policies pursued by the central bank through much of the year, joining with a cadre of other policy makers to oppose some of the stimulus the Fed provided last year.

The central banker said he remains uncomfortable with the Fed's current conditional commitment to keep interest rates very low through the middle of 2013. He fears markets view this as a fixed pledge, rather than something tied to policy makers' expected path of economic development.

In his remarks, Plosser was upbeat about the economy's prospects. He welcomed the Fed's very recent decision to join the publication of its economic forecasts with a summary of Fed officials' monetary policy projections. The official also worried about the longer-run inflation implications of the current course of monetary policy.

Plosser said the economy is growing at a "moderate pace," and explained he expects "annual growth to gradually accelerate to around 3 percent in 2012 and 2013."

Inflation will be "moderate" over the short run, and inflation expectations are currently "stable," Plosser said. He noted "we need to proceed with caution as to the degree of monetary accommodation we supply to the economy" because what the Fed has done "could translate into a steady rise in inflation over the medium term even without much of a drop in the unemployment rate."

The current unemployment rate is "uncomfortably high," the official said. But he added recent months' jobs reports had left him "encouraged." Plosser said he expects "further modest declines in the unemployment rate to around 8% or, in my more optimistic moments, maybe a little less, by the end of 2012."

The official said Europe's debt crisis remains a threat to the U.S. Also, "Until the economic environment becomes clearer, firms and consumers are likely to postpone significant spending and hiring decisions--posing a drag on the recovery, even as economic developments in the U.S. continue to improve," he said.

Plosser also said when it comes to housing, "I expect to see stabilization but not much improvement in 2012."

The policy maker also offered a big thumbs up to the Fed decision to release its monetary policy projections. "I fully support this move toward increased transparency," and providing this information "conveys much more useful information about the likely future path of policy" than the current 2013 rate pledge. He added "these policy projections are not unconditional commitments" of the FOMC.

posted January 11, 2012 10:54 PM            

That's mathematically impossible considering there are fewer people working in America today than when O'Bomber took over.

posted January 19, 2012 06:56 PM            

January 19, 2012, 5:59 PM EST

By Bob Willis and Shobhana Chandra

(Updates with closing market prices in fifth paragraph.)

Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Claims for jobless benefits last week dropped to the lowest level in almost four years, pointing to an improvement in the U.S. job market that may help bolster spending in the new year.

Applications for unemployment insurance payments plunged by 50,000 to 352,000 in the week ended Jan. 14, less than forecast and the fewest since April 2008, according to data from the Labor Department issued today in Washington. Other reports showed consumer prices were little changed in December for a second month and builders started work on the most single-family houses in more than a year.

Jobless claims, which tend to be volatile week to week around holidays, have trended down over the past month, a sign employment may pick up after payrolls grew by 200,000 in December. Gains in incomes, combined with less inflation, will probably underpin household spending, which accounts for about 70 percent of the world’s largest economy.

“We’ve had fundamental improvement in the labor market in the past few months,” said Ellen Zentner, a senior economist at Nomura Securities International Inc. in New York. “Moderate inflation will certainly help households spend more in the face of slower wage growth.”

Stocks climbed on the drop in claims and as Bank of America Corp. showed a profit last quarter. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index rose 0.5 percent to 1,314.5 at the close in New York. Treasury securities fell, sending the yield on the benchmark 10- year note up to 1.98 percent from 1.90 percent late yesterday.

Less Confidence

In Europe today, consumer confidence in the U.K. dropped in December as rising unemployment and Europe’s debt crisis sapped Britons’ expectations for an economic recovery. An index of sentiment fell to 38 from 40 in November, the Swindon, England- based Nationwide Building Society said today. It reached 36 in October, the lowest since the survey began in 2004.

Elsewhere, Australia unexpectedly lost jobs in December for a second straight month, capping the nation’s worst year for employment in almost two decades.

The cost of living in the U.S. was little changed in December for a second month as stores cut prices to boost holiday sales, other figures from the Labor Department showed. Excluding volatile food and fuel costs, the so-called core index rose 0.1 percent.

Retailers from Williams-Sonoma Inc. to Macy’s Inc. used discounts to attract customers during the holidays. Less inflation means Federal Reserve officials have leeway to take additional steps to spur growth should the economic expansion stumble.

Little Inflation

“There are no signs of budding inflationary pressures,” said Stuart Hoffman, chief economist at PNC Financial Services Group Inc. in Pittsburgh, who accurately forecast prices would remain steady. “The core index is going to be pleasing to the Fed.”

The lack of inflation is helping preserve household buying power. Hourly earnings adjusted for prices rose 0.2 percent on average in December, the Labor Department figures also showed. They were up 2.4 percent at an annual rate over the past three months, the best performance since June 2010, according to Bloomberg News calculations.

Last week’s drop in jobless claims was the biggest since September 2005, when applications first surged then plunged in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

The median forecast of 41 economists in a Bloomberg survey projected a decrease to 384,000. Estimates ranged from 363,000 to 405,000. The Labor Department revised the previous week’s figure up to 402,000 from the 399,000 previously calculated.

Seasonal Volatility

A Labor Department spokesman said the drop reflected volatility seen during this time of year. Claims tend to jump around during holidays as the government has difficulties adjusting the data for seasonal swings in employment.

The four-week average, which smoothes out fluctuations, decreased to 379,000 last week from 382,500.

Last week correlated with the period surveyed by the Labor Department to calculate monthly payrolls. The four-week average was down from 380,800 during the comparable period in December, a sign employment will keep growing.

Initial jobless claims reflect weekly firings and tend to fall as job growth -- measured by the monthly non-farm payrolls report -- accelerates.

The increase in payrolls last month followed a 100,000 gain in November, Labor Department data showed earlier this month. The jobless rate fell to 8.5 percent in December, the lowest in almost three years.

Housing Stabilizing

Another report added to evidence the housing market was starting to stabilize. Builders broke ground on 470,000 single- family houses at an annual rate, the most since April 2010, according to figures from the Commerce Department.

A 20 percent drop in construction of multifamily units, like apartment buildings, which tends to be volatile, paced a 4.1 percent decline in total housing starts last month, the report showed. For all of 2011, work on multifamily dwellings jumped 78 percent as more Americans opt to rent rather than own.

Conversely, construction of single-family houses last year was the weakest in data going back to 1959.

Also today, reports showed consumer confidence retreated last week from a six-month high and manufacturing in the Philadelphia Fed region accelerated this month.

The Bloomberg Consumer Comfort Index declined to minus 47.4 in the period ended Jan. 15 from a reading of minus 44.7 the prior week. An almost 20-cent per gallon increase in gasoline costs over the past month may be starting to counter the benefits of an improving job market.

Philadelphia Fed

The Fed Bank of Philadelphia’s general economic index increased to a three-month high of 7.3 from 6.8 in December. Readings greater than zero indicate expansion in the area covering eastern Pennsylvania, southern New Jersey and Delaware.

Manufacturing is among industries hiring. The Elgin, Illinois, based-U.S. unit of Germany’s Harting Deutschland GmbH, a maker of industrial connectors, will probably hire 20 people this year after doubling the workforce to 120 since the recession, Chief Executive Officer Rolf Meyer said.

“We have a couple of large orders that we’re negotiating on in the broadcast and medical industries, and these will likely hit in the next five or six months,” said Meyer, who, supplies customers such as General Electric Co. and Siemens AG.

--With assistance from Alex Kowalski, Timothy R. Homan, Kristy Scheuble and Chris Middleton in Washington. Editors: Carlos Torres, Vince Golle

To contact the reporters on this story: Bob Willis in Washington at bwillis@bloomberg.net; Shobhana Chandra at schandra1@bloomberg.net

posted January 19, 2012 11:07 PM            

Therefore, O'Bomber hasn't "created" a single new job. O'Bomber has lost approximately 2 million jobs for America.

Only simpleton proponents of Marxist Math would think otherwise.

posted January 21, 2012 10:28 AM            

The sharp rise in unemployment coincided precisely with demoscats taking over the US House and US Senate in January 2007.

LOOK-LOOK-LOOK...and LEARN!

Notice the unemployment numbers had been trending DOWN-DOWN-DOWN under Bush since 2003!

Oh, and do stop trying to argue apples and oranges with me acoustic.

I don't give a rat's ass how many quarters some small, minuscule numbers of Americans have found jobs under the "Destroyer of the US Economy", O'Bomber.

The fact is that O'Bomber has a net deficit of Americans working under his rule of mismanagement compared to Bush. That net deficit is approximately 2 million.

Here's another FACT for you.

The real unemployment number, U3, is about 11%..not 8.5%. This is depression territory. Millions more Americans are simply "INVISIBLE" to the Bureau of Labor Statistics because they've stopped looking for work and no longer qualify as
"unemployed" under the definition.

Here's another fact for you acoustic.

The U6 number is the real number which should be used to track unemployment.

"The U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate), but also counts "marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons." Note that some of these part-time workers counted as employed by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week. And the "marginally attached workers" include those who have gotten discouraged and stopped looking, but still want to work. The age considered for this calculation is 16 years and over"
http://www.portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

Notice, the U6 number was trending DOWNWARD under Bush right up until demoscats took control of both Houses of Congress in 2007. AND, under O'Bomber, the U6 number skyrocketed.

The fact is acoustic that Americans DO NOT agree with the spin you're spouting here.