Falling to a 44-month low, the unemployment rate of 7.8 percent—the lowest it has been since January of 2009—deprives Mittens of a valuable talking point, the one in which he reminds voters how long the number has been above 8 percent.
The economy has now added 5.2 million private sector jobs over the last 31 months, which goes to show that Republicans, who have tried their best to sabotage the economic recovery, can’t even get that right.
_________________________________
As we might expect, the relatively good news on the job front means that a conspiracy is afoot. Like Mittens’ low poll numbers, there is a diabolical plan to skew the results in Obama’s favor. From Media Matters this morning:
Unbleepingbelievable.
____________________________________
More unbleepingbelievable stuff:
The unhinged from left to right: Stuart Varney of Fox “News”; Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric; Rep. Allen West (R-Fla); Rick Santelli of CNBC, credited with starting the Tea Party movement with a rant against Obama.
____________________________________
Finally, speaking of that 7.8 percent job number, I agree with Republicans that it should be lower, and as Mark Gongloff points out, it is Congress—paralyzed by an honest-to-goodness Republican plot to undermine Obama—that is to blame:
For example, had Congress passed the American Jobs Act last year instead of letting it die, there might have been an extra 1.3 million to 1.9 million new jobs created this year, according to estimates by Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody’s Analytics, respectively…
On top of that, you could add the 575,000 government jobs that have been cut since Obama took office in January 2009…That extra 575,000 workers — again, assuming no change in the labor force — gets unemployment down to 6.8 percent. We haven’t seen 6.8 percent unemployment since November 2008.
The Erstwhile Conservative: A Blog of Repentance 
Beneath The Tin Foil Hat
/ October 5, 2012That’s it! I’m suing HuffPo for associating my good name with those wing nuts.
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ October 7, 2012!!!!! When you win, drinks are on you.
LikeLike
Kabe
/ October 5, 2012If the White House wanted to change the numbers, why would they have waited until now?
Kabe
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ October 7, 2012They could have kept the numbers low since January of 2009, right? I mean, we could have seen unemployment of, say, 4% by now! The problem is that the BLS would not have stood for any meddling. No one, and I repeat no one, has been able to corrupt them when it comes to their work product. Even Barack Obama, with all his Kenyan voodoo, could not pull off that magic math.
duane
LikeLike
Kabe
/ October 5, 2012The conspiracy that I want answers to involve gas prices. In June of 08 when we had record gas prices of nearly $4.00/gal the price of a barrel of oil was over $130.00 dollars. Now, we have nearly the same gas prices, but the cost of a barrel of oil is slightly over $90.00. What gives here? Am I the only one that thin ks the oil industry is trying to influence the election?
Kabe
LikeLike
Treeske
/ October 6, 2012Kabe, You’re so right. Yesterday (Friday) the barrel price went below $90.00. Since March of this year, the US became for the first time since 1947, a net exporter of Petroleum products. The US has ample supply of Petroleum products, the only reason for influencing the election is for the immediate approval of the XL pipeline which brings more oil to Gulf coast refineries for export, benefitting the oil companies solely.
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ October 7, 2012Kabe,
Thanks for the reply. I based an entire blog post on it.
Duane
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ October 6, 2012OK, here comes a different conservative take on all of the above.
I refuse to try to claim “foul” in how the unemployment rate numbers were concocted. I suspect they were developed the same way as for the last several, if not many, years. So yes, the politics of 7.8% versus 8.1% are great politics for Dems this month and I give them credit to claim real progress, for this month. I even say, congratulations.
But of course there is a legitimate, “but” in my view. Or really a so what.
I am out of town and thus no able to look “into the numbers” very carefully. Last month we had about 12 Million “unemployed”. What is that number today? As well how much of that 0.3% drop was created by people moving out of the civilian work force into the ubiquitous “not in the work force” category, the 88 million I have mentioned before. I don’t know for sure, do you?
The state of the U.S. economy does in no way rely to a great extent on just the unemployment rate derived by BLS each month. However a downward trend in that rate is of course good news for all Americans. I don’t think it shows anything remarkable and a lot more, a helluva lot more “numbers” are needed to assess the real trend in economic well being in America, up, down or sideways.
Has well had that number been 8.4% (instead of 7.8%) I would suggest it would not have changed a single vote from readers or followers of this blog. Same for me as well.
My vote will be determined by my basic assessment of who can do three things. First and foremost, provide real executive leadership for the divided country. Second, put the country on a track to begin to live within our means, fiscally. And third, change the basis of our international affairs, back to “Peace throught Strength” instead of “Peace throught Conciliation”.
Now we can all sit back and listen to the sound bites from both sides with this rather dramatic change in the unemployment rate.
Anson
LikeLike
Troy
/ October 7, 2012Anson, please….Fellows like Romney are who are at the heart of this divided country; I refer to his 47% comments in one of his quiet rooms. Further, he intends to give more tax cuts to the wealthy, leading to more debt. And of course Romney and his brain trust believe peace thru war…..
LikeLike
R. Duane Graham
/ October 7, 2012Troy,
I’m glad you mentioned that “quiet rooms” remark, which I will present for those who may have forgotten:
Matt Lauer: Are there no fair questions about the distribution of wealth without it being seen as envy, though?
Romney: You know I think it’s fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms. But the president has made this part of his campaign rally. Everywhere he goes we hear him talking about millionaires and billionaires and executives and Wall Street. It’s a very envy-oriented, attack-oriented approach.
And that “peace thru war” strategy, favored by Romney’s neo-con advisers, is damned frightening.
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ October 8, 2012Here we go with more sound bites. I heard Romney very clearly SAY (who knows what either Obama or Romney will really DO in the next four years), that he would NOT lower taxes on the “rich”. He SAID it and MEANT it, I am sure. But of course he must “get his way” to do so through tax code changes, not Obama’s approach to simply tinker with current tax rates on the rich only. Believe the sound bites and listen to Obama last week and sure you think Romney will cut taxes on the rich by $5 Trillion right??? Are you really that gulible???
Peace through WAR”???? Are you kidding me. I hear a dispute over “Peace through Strength” versus “Peace through Conciliation”. And yet you want us to implement our foreign policy against some real “rogues” out there in the world with a “just be nice” approach????
As for income redistribution, there are an almost infinite number of questions that can be asked about that subject. Essentially it boils down to HOW to redistribute income in America in order to be more FAIR to all Americans, right? Go ahead and ask you questions and provide the answers to THAT subject alone and there are three ways to do so. TAX THE RICH (until?), socialism or communism and all have been previously tried around the world. Now pick one and go for it if you like.
BUT don’t forget to figure a way to GROW THE ECONOMY as well and at the same time that you try to redistribute income in America. I can make a list that goes on and on to achieve that goal as can you as well.
But what neither of us can do is achieve BOTH at the same time and make either one acceptable to all Americans as well. We currently have lousy economic growth for sure and YOU think we can improve it by robbing from Peter to pay Paul, right? But in your “crowning legislation” in the past 4 years the only ones being “robbed” (opps, taxed) to support more HC are the people refusing to pay for insurance beforehand. Not many “rich” in that category!!!
Now show me a time in history where that scheme worked (rob Peter to pay Paul) on a sustainable level and everyone “was happy” at least in a country of any size and global influence/responsibilities. Forget the “Swedens” of the world, then or now. I might pick the Hawian Islands at least until the “white man” discovered it!!! And actually only a few in Hawaii robbed anyone as I have read before Captain Cook showed up!!
Anson
LikeLike