Emplyoment Numbers In....Kerry Vulnerable

[azbronco]

Early reports of numbers due tommorow are that jobs are up 150,000 and unemplyoment down in spite of the massive damage and business shutdown in South. And as is typical and vice/versa
Good News for the Nation = Bad News for kerry/edwards

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by azbronco

Early reports of numbers due tommorow are that jobs are up 150,000 and unemplyoment down in spite of the massive damage and business shutdown in South. And as is typical and vice/versa
Good News for the Nation = Bad News for kerry/edwards

So did a bird flying by drop this on you or do you have a link?

[Hogan11]

I wonder what those jobs actually pay....

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Hogan11

I wonder what those jobs actually pay....

To say nothing of AZ's simpleton assumption that those jobs somehow offset the net loss over the four years of the Smirk & Sneer misadministration.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

So did a bird flying by drop this on you or do you have a link?

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/...hes/P96487.asp

Unemployment claims sink sharply
The September employment report will dominate the markets tomorrow. Economists predict a 150,000 increase in nonfarm payrolls. This morning, claims for first-time unemployment benefits for the week ended Sept. 25 dropped sharply to 335,000 from a revised 372,000 the week before, the Labor Department said. Economists were looking for a smaller decrease to 350,000.

Jobless claims have been volatile due to the effects of hurricanes in Florida. The four-week moving average rose to 348,500 from 344,250.

“Clearly in recent weeks, the claims have been elevated by the hurricane,” Brian Wesbury, chief economist at Griffin Kubik Stephens & Thompson, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box.” “It's very good news to see them coming down. I think the job market is strong and I think we'll see that tomorrow.”

Wesbury predicts the payroll report will show an increase of 190,000. He bases his belief on recent strength in the employment component of the Institute of Supply Management’s non-manufacturing index.

[OrangeDoofus]

Originally Posted by azbronco

Early reports of numbers due tommorow are that jobs are up 150,000 and unemplyoment down in spite of the massive damage and business shutdown in South. And as is typical and vice/versa
Good News for the Nation = Bad News for kerry/edwards

Well that's at least a bit of good news. Population growth adds about 150,000 people to the workforce per month on average, so we didn't lose ground this month. From a jobs perspective, that makes it one of the best months of the Bush administration. Maybe next month job growth will actually be higher than population growth and we'll start making up some of the ground we've lost over the last four years under Bush.

[watermock]

I pray every day I don't die and wake up in China.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

First net job loss since the great depression.

Way to go, Smirk.

[watermock]

What has that to do with this months employment numbers you dimwit?

The recession was inherited, if you talk to ANYONE with grey matter, you might realize it.

You just keep going to BartCop.com and posting cartoons as they were reality.

[Rohirrim]

AT&T just announced a 7,400 person layoff to its shareholders. They must not read the newspapers.

[Mile High Shack]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

AT&T just announced a 7,400 person layoff to its shareholders. They must not read the newspapers.

I use to work for AT&T...rather an outsourced company that reported to AT&T, it's amazing that company is still in business, if it didn't have the name AT&T but had a name like Smith Telephone, it would be LONG LONG out of business it is so poorly managed.

Those layoffs have nothing to do with the economy and everything to do with how bad AT&T runs their company.

here is their motto basically...process over customers.

it's run worse than the government.

[Spider]

Í hate to be the one to piss all over this thread , but here is the truth
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6205119/
Just a few paragraphs I dont want to post the entire thing
WASHINGTON - Companies added 96,000 jobs to their payrolls in September, fewer than economists forecast for the last employment report before Election Day, highlighting a modest pace of hiring that has become an issue in President Bush’s bid for another term.



The four hurricanes striking Florida and other coastal states the past two months “appears to have held down employment growth, but not enough to change (the overall jobs picture) materially,” the Labor Department said Friday in assessing September’s national employment situation.

The nation’s civilian unemployment rate remained at 5.4 percent.

Job growth was held down by losses in manufacturing, retail and information services. September’s net increase of 96,000 payroll jobs was less than August’s rise, which was revised down in Friday’s report from 144,000 to 128,000.

Though 1.8 million jobs have been added to the payrolls of U.S. businesses since August 2003, there are about 800,000 fewer jobs — overall — than when Bush took office in January 2001

[Mile High Shack]

thanks for pointing that out Spider...the unemployment rate is lower than it has been in years

thanks!

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Mile High Shack

thanks for pointing that out Spider...the unemployment rate is lower than it has been in years

thanks!

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Mile High Shack

thanks for pointing that out Spider...the unemployment rate is lower than it has been in years

thanks!

When Bush came into office it was at 4%. Now it's 5.4%. Job growth figures for September are lower than they were for August. And the net loss since Bush came in is still 800,000 jobs. You really have to be wearing the Bush colored glasses to think this hurts Kerry. But I have noticed, when the news doesn't agree with the Bushies, they just pretend it said something else.

Now we invaded Iraq because of Saddam's "intent."

[Mile High Shack]

I didn't say it hurt Kerry, someone else posted that, I made a comment that employment is lower than it has been...I think it's lower than the 90's I seem to remember reading.

There are many factors that lead to unemployment and usually the president plays a very minute role in that.

[OrangeDoofus]

Originally Posted by Mile High Shack

There are many factors that lead to unemployment and usually the president plays a very minute role in that.

It's true that there are a lot of things that go into employment, but tax policy is a big one. When Bush was pushing his tax cuts, the promise was that they would generate millions of new jobs -- in other words, at that time he was claiming that he did have at least some control over job creation. So I really don't think it's unfair to hold him accountable for the poor job situation now.

[bendog]

WTF? Jobs suck.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._nm/economy_dc

Not that that is going to have much bearing on the election other than what we see. There's no change.

But, if you heard Greenspan yesterday praising Volker for raising rates high enough to give us TEN PERCENT UNEMPLOYMENT cause two idiot presidents kept pumping money into the system (one dem one goper - two if you count nixon and ford) you outta wonder what the boy genius's deficits will do to us in 2-4 years.

[Mile High Shack]

Originally Posted by OrangeDoofus

It's true that there are a lot of things that go into employment, but tax policy is a big one. When Bush was pushing his tax cuts, the promise was that they would generate millions of new jobs -- in other words, at that time he was claiming that he did have at least some control over job creation. So I really don't think it's unfair to hold him accountable for the poor job situation now.

ok, then I'll blame Clinton for the internet bubble burst that caused that caused the greatest job less in 2000, also the Dow being over inflated all through the 90's......

fair?

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Mile High Shack

ok, then I'll blame Clinton for the internet bubble burst that caused that caused the greatest job less in 2000, also the Dow being over inflated all through the 90's......

fair?

I see so Bush pushes this tax break to create Millions of Jobs , and when it doesnt , lets blame Clinton ......... Being a Republican is so damn confusing

[OrangeDoofus]

Originally Posted by Mile High Shack

ok, then I'll blame Clinton for the internet bubble burst that caused that caused the greatest job less in 2000, also the Dow being over inflated all through the 90's......

fair?

As long as you give him credit for generating 20+ million new jobs during his two terms and bringing the unemployment rate down to 4% by the time he left office, sure. Fair's fair.

[OrangeDoofus]

By the way... the real job numbers are in... +96,000. Not so hot.

http://bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

[bendog]

Clinton was able to continue the fiscal sanity that Poppy gave him (though his tax hike pissed off the Forbes wing, but cutting spending in the wake of the savings and loan and Gulf WarI wasn't in the offing), and BushII has been able to enjoy low rates despite deficits partly because WJC got them so low BEFORE the recession. BushII is gonna leave someone with a fiscal pile of dog****e

[Mile High Shack]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

I see so Bush pushes this tax break to create Millions of Jobs , and when it doesnt , lets blame Clinton ......... Being a Republican is so damn confusing

I don't blame him, I was just showing the hypocracy.

[OrangeDoofus]

Originally Posted by Mile High Shack

I don't blame him, I was just showing the hypocracy.

What's hypocritical about it? Every time Bush promised tax cuts, he promised that they would lead to more jobs. It hasn't happened. Where's the hypocrisy in holding him accountable for that?