Posted on 10/14/2004 4:47:29 PM PDT by IndianPrincessOK
Link?
Agreed. Algore (in his better moments) came off as a petulant child. Kerry can be downright snide and covertly hostile to us "masses".
Not sure if there is a link, it was on one of the talk shows after the debate, a focus group of undecideds (on MSNBC I think), out of 23 people they said Kerry won the debate but 17 would now vote for President Bush, 5 for Kerry, and one libertarian.
Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.
Here is how I see it. In case no one noticed the Dems and the media have pulled a fast one on this topic. Jobs have always been reported by stating the unemployment figure, which if I'm not mistaken is about 5.6% right now. In any election in my memory that is a figure to be touted not bashed. Anywhere between 4% and 7% is within normal ranges. Full employment is a fantasy and not realistic.
Considering that in the weeks after 9/11 well over a million jobs were lost the economy has remained somewhat stable. Add to that high oil prices and still we remain resilient. I think it is really hard to beat up on the economy during this election, hence the play on numbers.
How do I love you TayRayZah? Let me count the ways? Is it because of the gleaming way that you look in the morning when we awake or is it how you slouch in your seat during my presidential debate? Could it possibly be because you are worth so many $$$$? Oh well, I really love my mom and she has meant a lot to me!!!!!!
I love it............
I agree .. because the poll internals have been giving Bush an extremely high edge. As far as ability to lead the country, ability to fight the WOT, trustworthy, means what he says, etc. Most of the scores I've seen on FOX say Bush is in the high 50's, and Kerry is in the middle 30's.
When Rush was talking about this (last week I think), he said that with these numbers in the internals, he cannot understand why the main poll is so close. I agree with Rush.
Also .. IIRC there was a thread today about the dems using the 2000 election model on which to base their polls for 2004. Evidently, they did the same thing in 2002 - and that's why they were so far off. If this is true .. Bush is way ahead.
Here, here! I thought his convention speech was awful but it got good marks, then his poll numbers tanked. Other factors were involved, I know, but am hoping same thing will happen after this debate.
In my wildest politico moments [most of the time], I'm yelling/saying about/to Kerry that he's just an empty suit.
I've simply never seriously considered that one such as Kerry can win the vote of the American people - - if I'm wrong....
And your opinion is to the contrary?
Lol, you're NOT in court, Socrates.
The conclusions of this report state:
ConclusionMy summary of this:The payroll survey may be systematically undercounting job growth, creating an unprecedented job growth gap between its total employment measure and the household survey's. In the past six months, the BLS has approved new techniques to smooth the household survey's measure of total employment in order to make month-to-month comparisons. Analysts can now point with confidence to the employment of a record number of Americans as of January 2004 and the employment of an additional 2.2 million workers since the recession ended.
Why has the payroll survey missed so much recent job creation? The BLS is skeptical of the start-up explanation, and recent benchmarks confirm the BLS's position. Self-employment is a different matter, and the latest statement by the BLS commissioner confirms the appearance of a new class of contractors. The evolution of the workforce--specifically, the demographic emergence of consultants and contractors who do not consider themselves self-employed--is a likely wedge between the surveys. Self-employment has grown by over 600,000 in two years, and misidentification by the LLC and consulting workforce implies a much higher number.
Finally, a new hypothesis quantified in this report is that decelerating turnover is artificially deflating company payrolls, creating an illusion of 1 million jobs lost since 2001. The heightened insecurity since September 11, the Iraq war, and the specter of outsourcing are logical explanations for reduced turnover. Here again, innovative new data series on employment dynamics from the BLS allow economists to confirm this hypothesis.
Policymakers and analysts should treat payroll data with caution when making comparisons to employment levels in 2001 and earlier years. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, the best measure of job growth now comes from smoothed total employment reported in the household survey. Consequently, policies aimed at protecting illusory lost jobs are ill-advised. Employment in America is rebounding strongly, and the increasing dynamism of U.S. job markets should not be clogged by misguided and misinformed cures.
It concludes:
The economy has added more than 1.5 million payroll jobs over the past year and nearly 2 million jobs on the household survey. Most indicators point towards continued growth. Output is booming, the manufacturing outlook is positive, business confidence is high, and productivity continues to set records. Even such favorites among economic pessimists like data on long-term unemployment, manufacturing employment, and worker discouragement are showing marked improvement. Unfortunately for the pessimists, these are the facts that frame the debate on the economy today.
Another trick the Poodle uses is that he only uses the establishment survey for his jobs numbers. The establishment survey counts only payroll jobs at large to medium sized companies. It does not count jobs held by people who work as independent contractors such as consulting positions, realators, etc. It also does not count people who are self-employed. The household survey simply asks people if they are employed and thus counts people with jobs that are not counted by the establishment survey. I don't have the data, but I believe that the household survey indicates that there has been a net increase in the number of jobs during the last 4 years.
Excellent posts - #35 and #36!
VP Cheney gave the answer to your question in his debate with Edwards: Kerry/Edwards are using 2003 numbers that don't reflect the 1.9 CREATED this year. Also, they may be showing ONLY jobs lost and not new jobs created.
Hey, I've been "unemployed" for over a year, and making a fat living doing consulting work on my own for companies for which I formerly worked as an employee. I am one of Kerry's "1.3 million".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.