Obama Administration Overstated Employment by 902,000 Jobs in 2009

[bigdavediode]

And the unemployment rate remained unchanged, as well the BLS report only marginally changed any numbers.

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

So does Obama "get credit" and "own" the unemployment rate holding stable instead of increasing?

 

[jem]

yes he does own this economy. that unemployment rate is a number only a socialist could be proud of owning.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from jem:

yes he does own this economy. that unemployment rate is a number only a socialist could be proud of owning.

So if the unemployment rate rises drastically under his administration you'd crucify him with posts here? Like if it rises 80%, say, or is it the raw number that matters?

 

[bugscoe]

Quote from bigdavediode:

So if the unemployment rate rises drastically under his administration you'd crucify him with posts here? Like if it rises 80%, say, or is it the raw number that matters?

No, Obama and Nancy would:

"In March 2004, when Barack Obama was a candidate for the U.S. Senate in the Illinois Democratic primary, he excoriated President George W. Bush for creating a "jobless recovery." The month he said that, 334,000 new jobs were created—none of them temporary Census ones—and unemployment was 5.8%.

That was then. Now the unemployment rate is 9.6%, and tomorrow's jobs report is unlikely to be much better.

Many other Democrats piled on Mr. Bush at the time. "Mr. President, where are the jobs?" Rep. Nancy Pelosi asked on CNN in October 2003. "The American people will not settle for—nor should the Republicans celebrate—a jobless recovery." That month saw 203,000 new jobs and 6% unemployment. Her party would kill for such a rate today."

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from bugscoe:

Many other Democrats piled on Mr. Bush at the time. "Mr. President, where are the jobs?" Rep. Nancy Pelosi asked on CNN in October 2003. "The American people will not settle for—nor should the Republicans celebrate—a jobless recovery." That month saw 203,000 new jobs and 6% unemployment. Her party would kill for such a rate today."

Getting a straight answer out of you guys is almost impossible.

I'm just asking if it's the raw unemployment rate that you guys care about or the rate of change of the unemployment rate (ie. delta).

 

[trefoil]

Quote from Trader666:

Wrong. Obama is responsible for it. You're confused by Obama's incessant blaming of everyone else for his failures. The BLS is a unit of the Department of Labor which is a cabinet department so Obama owns them.

...and most of the time period covered by your article, even assuming the above is correct, which it's not, was under the previous Administration.
But neither Admin has any control over how this number is reported.

 

[Trader666]

Let's use Obama's yardstick for Bush... Obama harshly criticized Bush for creating a "jobless recovery" the month that 334,000 new jobs were created and unemployment was 5.8%.

So based on where things stand now, yes, Obama absolutely deserves credit for a FAR WORSE "jobless recovery."

Quote from bigdavediode:

And the unemployment rate remained unchanged, as well the BLS report only marginally changed any numbers.

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

So does Obama "get credit" and "own" the unemployment rate holding stable instead of increasing?

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Trader666:

Let's use Obama's yardstick for Bush... Obama harshly criticized Bush for creating a "jobless recovery" the month that 334,000 new jobs were created and unemployment was 5.8%.

So based on where things stand now, yes, Obama absolutely deserves credit for a FAR WORSE "jobless recovery."

Oh, okay, so we're not using unemployment numbers then and we need to focus on employment numbers, on a month-to-month basis? Fair enough. The government laid off 179,000 people, which were subtracted from the numbers for September -- you're in favor of smaller government, right?

 

[trefoil]

This is just too stupid for words, but I'll try anyway:

Numero uno: the period covered is to March 2009, and starts at least a year before, if not longer. Obama only got into office in January. Therefore, the overstatement, if you're going to say it was done by anyone, would have been done by the Bush Administration.
To be absolutely clear, I'm not saying that. I'm simply pointing out that logically this would be true.

Numero dos: the interests of the Obama Administration, for the period covered, would be to understate, not overstate, the numbers. If you need to think about why for more than one second, you need to bone up on the term "self-interest".

I hope that covers it.
The OP is both a liar and stupid.

Selah.

 

[Trader666]

Let's not obfuscate Obama's finger pointing and total failure when given his chance:

Bush's "jobless recovery" the month Obama criticized him for it:
Nonfarm payroll employment +334,000
Unemployment: 5.8%.

Obama's jobless recovery most recent month after being in office almost 2 years:
Nonfarm payroll employment -95,000
Unemployment: 9.6%.

Quote from bigdavediode:

Oh, okay, so we're not using unemployment numbers then and we need to focus on employment numbers, on a month-to-month basis? Fair enough. The government laid off 179,000 people, which were subtracted from the numbers for September -- you're in favor of smaller government, right?