Unemployment drops to 9.7%
posted at 8:55 am on February 5, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
For once, the AP uses its favorite adverb correctly:
The unemployment rate dropped unexpectedly in January to 9.7 percent from 10 percent while employers shed 20,000 jobs.
The Labor Department says the rate dropped because a survey of households found the number of employed Americans rose by 541,000. The job losses are calculated from a separate survey of employers.
The report also included an annual revision to the estimates of total payrolls, which showed there were 930,000 fewer jobs last March than previously estimated. The department also revised down its estimates for April through October of last year, adding another 433,000 job losses.
However, November’s numbers got a boost from 11,000 jobs created to 64,000 jobs created. The net losses in December went from 85,000 to 73,000. Another indicator doesn’t look as good, though. Tax collection on payroll dropped sharply in January, in the same way as last year (via Dog Soldier):
Taxes are another indicator of payrolls, specifically withheld income taxes. The daily Treasury Department statement tracks withheld income taxes. In January, income taxes withheld dropped about 9.4% from December, about the same as the drop from December 2008 to January 2009. December withholdings are sometimes inflated due to end-of-year bonuses. That the decline from December to January this year was the same as last argues that the direction of payroll jobs will track year-year.
Moving out of the double-digits on unemployment will be a political boost for Barack Obama, but the improvement is less dramatic than that. The civilian employment population (ie, looking for jobs) finally increased by 111,000 people, the first increase in several months, but over 1.5 million left the job force in 2009. Furthermore, the hiring mostly took place in the government sector:
Construction employment declined by 75,000 in January, with nonresidential specialty trade contractors (-48,000) accounting for the majority of the decline. Since December 2007, employment in construction has fallen by 1.9 million.
In January, transportation and warehousing employment fell by 19,000, due to a large job loss among couriers and messengers (-23,000).
Employment in manufacturing was little changed in January (11,000). After experiencing steep job losses earlier in the recession, employment declines moderated considerably in the second half of 2009. In January, job gains in motor vehicles and parts (23,000) and plastics and rubber products (6,000) offset small job losses elsewhere in the industry.
In January, temporary help services added 52,000 jobs. Since reaching a low point in September 2009, temporary help services employment has risen by 247,000.
Retail trade employment rose by 42,000 in January, after showing little change in the prior 2 months. Job gains occurred in January among food stores (14,000), clothing stores (13,000), and general merchandise retailers (10,000).
Health care employment continued to trend up in January. Ambulatory health care services added 15,000 jobs over the month.
In January, the federal government added 33,000 jobs, including 9,000 temporary positions for Census 2010. Employment in state and local governments, excluding education, continued to trend down.
It’s not as bad as people feared, but it’s not really good news, either. The bounce in retail suggests that people may be ready to spend, but the declines in most other areas show that there are still fewer of them who can.
Update: This passage seems like a key to understanding why the rate dropped:
In January, the number of persons unemployed due to job loss decreased by 378,000 to 9.3 million. Nearly all of this decline occurred among permanent job losers. (See table A-11.)
The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) continued to trend up in January, reaching 6.3 million. Since the start of the recession in December 2007, the number of long-term unemployed has risen by 5.0 million. (See table A-12.)
As before, shrinking the denominator of the population of jobseekers has the same effect as increasing the nominator of people holding jobs — it decreases the ratio of unemployment to the population. Also, according to this chart, December’s losses got adjusted to 150,000, not 73,000. We’re still trending downward.
Update II: The civilian employment population increased by 111,000, not the employment level as I originally wrote. Thanks to BizzyBlog for pointing out my error.
Update III: Here’s a relatively new chart from BLS to look at differing measures of unemployment:
U-3 is the published unempl0yment rate, while U-6 has become a lot more popular over the last couple of months as a measure of “true” unemployment. Both improved month on month when seasonally adjusted, which is good news. Without the seasonal adjustment, both jumped rather significantly. Most people use the seasonally-adjusted numbers when comparing for progress.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6 7 Next »
Which will read “GOP rep says: the economy will modestly improve…” in every paper. It’s about message, and as long as liberals are the gatekeepers they will parse our message anyway they choose. The future success of conservatism is going to rely heavily on eroding that gate keeping system.
DFCtomm on February 5, 2010 at 2:04 PM
DFCtomm on February 5, 2010 at 2:04 PM
blink actually declares that if he is permitted to craft the message, the newspapers and such will put it out exactly the he wants it put out.
MarkTheGreat on February 5, 2010 at 2:07 PM
I think one of the issues here is that you’re defining ‘short term benefit’ differently than most of the others.
You’re calling it a benefit no matter what the costs are. Living in a house that you can’t afford might be fun, but the financial havock it’s going to cause doesn’t seem to make it any kind of a benefit to the individual.
BadgerHawk on February 5, 2010 at 2:08 PM
Once again idiot, you avoid the part of the post that I highlighted, because you cannot defend it. Take your own suggestions and a) research then b) think, and finally c) post.
No. I’m saying that it’s dangerous to preach that teen pregnancy is awful AND that sex sucks
Now explain why its dangerous to preach that teen pregnancy is awful.
Odie1941 on February 5, 2010 at 2:08 PM
To the economy, no. If all you are concerned with is does the individual feel better off, you might as well start arguing that bank robbery is a good idea.
MarkTheGreat on February 5, 2010 at 2:09 PM
I am making no definitive claims regarding what the economy will or won’t do. I will say that the odds very much favor a continued decline in the economy, perhaps even a full scale route.
MarkTheGreat on February 5, 2010 at 2:10 PM
Maybe you aren’t brain numbingly stupid. Perhaps you are just unbelievably naive.
MarkTheGreat on February 5, 2010 at 2:11 PM
Well if you’re worried about them changing the word “might” to “will” then I really don’t understand your confidence that continued unemployment and GPD reports won’t be over spun!
blink on February 5, 2010 at 2:14 PM
I think what he envisions is more like the episode from “X-files” where Mulder gets the three wishes from the genie in the rug, and then attempts to type up the perfect wish that cannot be taken out of context, and then after several pages of the wish contract realizes it’s a fools errand.
DFCtomm on February 5, 2010 at 2:14 PM
That’s not what I claimed.
And your continued attacks are petty.
blink on February 5, 2010 at 2:15 PM
I took you out of context, but I didn’t misquote you.
DFCtomm on February 5, 2010 at 2:16 PM
It sure is. They are saying “Don’t pee down my back and tell me it’s raining.”
Obama and his clown posse have poisoned the private sector. Employers have dug in to deep underground bunkers. There is no evidence of recovery. In fact, every bit of real evidence shows the situation getting worse.
dogsoldier on February 5, 2010 at 2:17 PM
Don’t limit your answer to the economy.
Would YOU experience any near term benefit to purchasing a house you can’t afford?
blink on February 5, 2010 at 2:18 PM
You might be 100% right about this.
That depends on your definition of recovery.
The last two GDP reports certainly show evidence of an expanding gross domestic product.
blink on February 5, 2010 at 2:20 PM
doubling down on stupid before the weekend officially begins?
daesleeper on February 5, 2010 at 2:20 PM
Again, I can’t understand your confidence that this media won’t play up improving unemployment and GDP reports – no matter how bogus they are.
blink on February 5, 2010 at 2:22 PM
I’ll repeat my question for the 4th time.
MarkTheGreat, are you definitively claiming that the economy will not grow prior to the November election unless taxes are lowered, regulations are eliminated, OR other nation’s economies starts improving?
blink on February 5, 2010 at 2:23 PM
Are you even capable of answering a simple question, or has your brain been fried by screaming idiots on shout radio?
Dark-Star on February 5, 2010 at 2:23 PM
I’m confused are you trying to agree with me?
DFCtomm on February 5, 2010 at 2:24 PM
Blink –
I didnt think you would try to answer and justify this 13 year old comment. Also why you can’t list 1 job or roll you have held. Or anything else relative.
Your gig is up. At best 18 year old kiddie, trying really hard to appear “smart” and knowledgeable.
You know, arrogance and cockiness arent exactly bad things, but have some meat to back it up; performance, results, etc. – and well, you may be taken seriously.
Or adult-like. Or conservative-like.
Odie1941 on February 5, 2010 at 2:24 PM
I’m sure I won’t get an answer to this question either.
His comments on here have been completely disingenuous.
blink on February 5, 2010 at 2:25 PM
No. As I said upthread, I think you just define ‘short term benefit’ differently than most of the other commenters on this thread do. That’s fine; we all appear to be mostly on the same side of this argument.
But I don’t really know anyone who would call living in a house you know will bankrupt you a year down the road a benefit. Actually, I’m sure I don’t know anyone who thinks like that.
So, again, I think the approach you’re advocating is unwise. It effectively agreeing to argue the stimulus on the Dems’ turf, which is an argument you will lose no matter how articulate you are.
BadgerHawk on February 5, 2010 at 2:25 PM
He already answered that.
BadgerHawk on February 5, 2010 at 2:26 PM
Exactly. And while doing that, explain why the government has to do a household survey to find out about joblessness.
.
A household survey is a poll. The data is then weighted and that is where disingenuousness gets its name. A survey of households, a survey of employers, and revisions to estimates
So useful to revise estimates after the fact
IMHO the new hire tax credit for small employers in the jobs bill is just another way to pump numbers into ‘surveys’ and ‘estimates’
As for doom and gloom. The doom part is real. I think they are stringing out the public on a sucker rally over the financial fate of the nation. Talking about the rise in GDP, Roubini states
.
If the DEMs continue their plan to spend their way out of this with bought jobs, we will spiral ever downward. The mortgage crisis is not half over, and the credit collapse will hit when the Fed raises interest. There is an assumption the Fed will have to soon stop printing money and borrow some real coin, and for that they need interest > 0.
entagor on February 5, 2010 at 2:27 PM
I not arguing that, “The future success of conservatism is going to rely heavily on eroding that gate keeping system.”
But what does this have to do with anything?
The same gate keepers you’re worried about now will be there in November. There’s very little risk now and huge risk later.
blink on February 5, 2010 at 2:28 PM
Gee you are the clever type. And persuasive too.
daesleeper on February 5, 2010 at 2:29 PM
A lot have benefited. The banks aren’t wanting to take the write downs, so they aren’t foreclosing. This is allowing people to live in houses they can’t afford for years paying neither rent nor mortgage. In the end it’s a hit to their credit rating, but their credit rating might have been crap to start with.
DFCtomm on February 5, 2010 at 2:29 PM
Another place where the liberal socialists are ‘hiding the decline’?
docdave on February 5, 2010 at 2:29 PM
Yes, I’m sure it helps for you to claim that I’m 18 years old at best.
Now answer my question.
Are you claiming that no pregnant teen or teen mother would acknowledge that they found the sex temporarily pleasurable?
blink on February 5, 2010 at 2:31 PM
Which I thought was implied from my post, and is why I’m not sure why you directed that question at me, but I’ll play your game. I agree with this statement:
DFCtomm on February 5, 2010 at 2:33 PM
The household survey is how they normally track unemployment. I was wondering why they did that also, but the bls site has a pretty good breakdown. It’s a 60,000 house survey that captures info on about 110,000 people, so it should be pretty accurate as far as surveys go.
I just haven’t found anything that even tries to explain the numbers for this month. They’re so far off from both employer data and analyst projections that it’s hard not to think something funky is going on.
BadgerHawk on February 5, 2010 at 2:34 PM
No, the reports merely state a stat that is unsupported by facts. They are not evidence in and of themselves. All the supporting information is suspect, since they keep getting revised downward and every major market segment is crashing.
The politically engineered stats are not mapping into reality and its pretty obvious. It would be funny in an ironic way, if it wasn’t so bad.
dogsoldier on February 5, 2010 at 2:34 PM
From a pure analytical perspective, I don’t know how anyone couldn’t think like that.
Wouldn’t it be considered a benefit to stay in a nice hotel room for a period of time even though you know you have to give it up down the road?
blink on February 5, 2010 at 2:34 PM
Yes, I’m sure it would be obvious to those 53% that voted for Obama.
blink on February 5, 2010 at 2:35 PM
OK. Sorry.
blink on February 5, 2010 at 2:36 PM
No he hasn’t. He doesn’t want to commit to that statement.
blink on February 5, 2010 at 2:38 PM
—My guess is that someone screwed up the December numbers. I think a couple of economists questioned the December numbers when they came out. If you find out more, please let us know.
Jimbo3 on February 5, 2010 at 2:39 PM
Just look around you. The GDP data is already being spun. Daily.
MarkTheGreat on February 5, 2010 at 2:39 PM
The economy is what we are discussing.
Don’t you try to bring up irrevancies to try and escape from your inane comments.
MarkTheGreat on February 5, 2010 at 2:41 PM
Which if you bother to examine the numbers behind the numbers are revealed to be hollow and meaningless. But then, you seem to think that appearances are all that matteers.
MarkTheGreat on February 5, 2010 at 2:42 PM
Yes I am. You really need to better vett your thoughts before you post, heres a tip: stop changing the question each time, to tail-wag-the-dog the point you intentionally tried to make. Its called effective communication. One must be knowledgeable to effectively communicate – which is your core problem.
Now pour over this study, recently released – I have highlighted a key point, whereas I qualify my answer:
Facts on American Teens’ Sexual and Reproductive Health
•Ten percent of young women aged 18–24 who have had sex before age 20 report that their first sex was involuntary. The younger they were at first intercourse, the higher the proportion.
Do you know what “involuntary sex means?” Then again – according to you, the one who forced themselves involuntarily received “short term pleasure and benefit” so its A-ok…
So to recap, yes “no” pregnant teen or teen mother would acknowledge that they found sex temporarily pleasurable.
Now on to your inane comment, which again – you have avoided:
No. I’m saying that it’s dangerous to preach that teen pregnancy is awful
Qualify that statement.
Odie1941 on February 5, 2010 at 2:42 PM
The question has been answered. Not liking the answer is not the same as not being answered.
MarkTheGreat on February 5, 2010 at 2:45 PM
I’m sorry I even jumped into this conversation. Please stop with all the goofy examples.
Possibly. I don’t recall ever noticing such a large difference in numbers, but I’ll go back and look over December when I have a chance. I probably need to stop posting for a while. I’m usually good at multi-tasking, but the 5 1/2 hours I’ve spent in this thread have not helped my level of productivity.
BadgerHawk on February 5, 2010 at 2:47 PM
You might be as smart as you think you are, but you seem to be having a problem communicating. It’s ok this just a comment section of a blog, so there is no expectation of quality. However, unless you like arguing, and you might, you should focus on clarity.
I am out of here for the rest of the day, so I’ll just wish everybody a happy weekend. May your snowfall be light.
DFCtomm on February 5, 2010 at 2:47 PM
Ten percent of young women aged 18–24 who have had sex before age 20 report that their first sex was involuntary.
Odie1941 on February 5, 2010 at 2:42 PM
You truly are an idiot.
Learn the difference between “no pregnant teen” and 10%!
You’re not accounting for the other 90%!
blink on February 5, 2010 at 2:48 PM
BadgerHawk on February 5, 2010 at 2:34 PM
As I understand it, the business survey only surveys established businesses. As such it doesn’t catch startups and the self employed.
MarkTheGreat on February 5, 2010 at 2:49 PM
There you go with the lies again.
MarkTheGreat on February 5, 2010 at 2:50 PM
It’s completely appropriate to use analogies.
It’s obvious that you are simply avoiding the questions.
blink on February 5, 2010 at 2:50 PM
Haha. Have a good weekend.
BadgerHawk on February 5, 2010 at 2:51 PM
Yes, boil my argument down to that.
I can’t expect you to understand anything deeper.
blink on February 5, 2010 at 2:51 PM
Then repost your answer.
blink on February 5, 2010 at 2:52 PM
relevant analogies yes.
Irrelevant analogies no.
I have answered the question. I’m sorry you aren’t smart enough to understand the answer.
MarkTheGreat on February 5, 2010 at 2:52 PM
It it ain’t there, it ain’t there.
Face it, you are nowhere near as smart, or as deep as you have been led to believe.
MarkTheGreat on February 5, 2010 at 2:53 PM
Which makes sense as to why they do a household survey. But I can’t remember the numbers ever being that far off from business data and analyst projections.
That’s not to say it hasn’t happened, but I need to go back and look at some previous months when I get a chance.
BadgerHawk on February 5, 2010 at 2:53 PM
So you can ignore it for the third time?
MarkTheGreat on February 5, 2010 at 2:53 PM
Okay, there are a lot of morons on this thread and blink appears to be the leader.
You know why smart people (also read conservatives) don’t look at the short term? It’s because the long term has a much more lasting effect. Why should we acknowledge the short term at all if it’s a shell game?
I recently bought a new tv and I really wanted a tv that cost $800, but I knew I could only afford one that cost $600. I ended up buying a $600 tv because I knew that while yes the $800 tv would have made me happy (not the same as benefited) in the short term, it was a bad idea in the long term.
Now on the flip side, I had to get something fixed on my car and I really didn’t want to spend the money to do so. In the short term I could have been happier (again, not the same as benefited) with keeping the $316 it took to fix my car, but I knew in the long term that it would cost me more if I didn’t get the problem fixed.
So that being said, it’s absolutely moronic to simply look at the short term. This is why liberals are so stupid. The “short-termers” (not to be confused with birthers or truthers) are the type that get their paycheck and go buy booze and party it up only to later be struggling to be able to get something to eat 3 days before payday. The “short-termers” are the type that usually win the lottery only to end up going bankrupt in 3 years.
MobileVideoEngineer on February 5, 2010 at 2:54 PM
You’re killing me, blink.
Please give the goofy analogies a rest.
BadgerHawk on February 5, 2010 at 2:54 PM
The qualifier is “no teen”, meaning all teens enjoyed sex always – even if a little. Regardless of the fact I posted 10% are raped (which is less than all or 100%) that you stated in your question.
And 1 hour later – you still haven’t qualified your equally moronic comment concerning teen pregnancy being “good”.
You are a little brat. Coddled by mommy and daddy. While you are experiencing “short term benefits” of your piss poor parents, it will bite you in the ass when you grow up, get a job and learn to earn for yourself.
Odie1941 on February 5, 2010 at 2:55 PM
My analogy was completely relevant. You attempted to claim that all analogies are irrelevant.
No you didn’t. But that’s ok. I’ll give you a pass so you can save some of your dignity.
blink on February 5, 2010 at 2:55 PM
That last sentence was for blink. I was just posting Mark’s comment to hopefully end the repeated requests for an answer that was already provided.
BadgerHawk on February 5, 2010 at 2:55 PM
Interesting you feel that way since I eventually convinced you to agree with my positions.
blink on February 5, 2010 at 2:56 PM
Really?
Is that how you read this questions?
That question is clearly asking if you are claiming that ALL teens find sex unpleasurable.
blink on February 5, 2010 at 2:59 PM
OK. And you’re confident enough to bet the November election on it.
blink on February 5, 2010 at 3:01 PM
I’m really sorry if you don’t find happiness a benefit.
blink on February 5, 2010 at 3:03 PM
I can’t believe I’m saying this…but I hope you’re right. Because any serious uptick, even just a large enough “sucker’s rally”, could be enough for Team O-blah-ma to latch onto.
Dark-Star on February 5, 2010 at 3:05 PM
Seriously? You honestly think short-term happiness is the same as a benefit? No wonder Planned Parenthood is having record profits.
This has to be the most moronic thing I’ve ever heard.
MobileVideoEngineer on February 5, 2010 at 3:07 PM
If it requires an eventually to convince someone of something that they already believe, then you aren’t doing it right.
I am for sure, done deal, out of here for tonight. Have a good weekend HA.
DFCtomm on February 5, 2010 at 3:09 PM
Also, I’ve been very happy with my current tv and with the fact that my car is fixed now. So I have benefited in the long term.
MobileVideoEngineer on February 5, 2010 at 3:10 PM
No. They aren’t the same at all. They are two different things.
All benefits aren’t happiness, but all happiness are certain benefits.
It doesn’t mean the benefit is adequate to enough to justify purchasing something or having sex. Those decisions must be weighed against other benefits and risks.
Seriously, guys. This isn’t complicated stuff. This is basic logic and analysis.
blink on February 5, 2010 at 3:11 PM
Remember your audience, blink.
Dark-Star on February 5, 2010 at 3:12 PM
Think, you pump in 1-3 trillion dollars and it is possible that the economy will modestly improve.
The problem with your statement is that you think if some figures, stats, temporarily improve that will show an improvement.
Do you honestly think that pumping 1-3 trillion dollars into the economy (our money BTW) is worth a “modest” improvement?
Your definition of improvement is different from most others…you want some figures to show improvement…the rest of us want unemployment to drop, production increase, wages increase, and the gov. not to spend 1-3 trillion to do it…you do know where that 1-3 trillion comes from, don’t you, or do you?
You can’t have an “improvement” in the economy by taking out 1.8 trillion and putting back 1 trillion…do you understand that?
right2bright on February 5, 2010 at 3:15 PM
Then why are you so confused?
You think that a modest improvement, after spending multiple trillions is something worthy…that’s like saying a guy is a great basketball player because he can dribble, can’t make a basket, but he can sure dribble….You have got to score to win a game, not just look good.
right2bright on February 5, 2010 at 3:18 PM
Of course not – as I’ve stated many, many times on this thread.
blink on February 5, 2010 at 3:20 PM
No, I don’t. See above.
Why would you claim that I think that?
blink on February 5, 2010 at 3:22 PM
Okay, I’m convinced, you are the biggest moron on the planet. What everyone on this thread has been trying to say is that these “shot-term benefits” are nothing to make a big deal about because we can see the long-term consequences.
You on the other hand are saying that we should acknowledge these benefits. Then you say random crap that counters your original statement.
MobileVideoEngineer on February 5, 2010 at 3:24 PM
He’s a trainwreck Mobile. ADHD + coddled kiddie = moron.
Its why his rambling posts are reposted, with words and meanings changed, why he cant answer straight forward questions, while claiming how “smart” he is…
Its pretty pathetic, but hey – I give the kid an A for effort, F in execution.
Odie1941 on February 5, 2010 at 3:27 PM
Is this like falling up??
DanaSmiles on February 5, 2010 at 3:28 PM
He said nothing of the sort, biggest noncomprehending reader on the planet.
Blink is (unsuccessfully) trying to get you to understand that if Obama can pull a temporary turnround out of the hat, all the people with typical American memory may think “Hey, he isn’t so bad after all!”.
There will be too many who will shove bad past memories of someone to the backs of their minds if that someone is suddenly responsible for a better present. And if that happens long enough for the Dems to pull off some important victories, 2012 will be too little, too late.
Dark-Star on February 5, 2010 at 3:33 PM
I know that, and you know that.
But the media and the 10%-20% swing voters might not know that.
They might not know the difference between short term benefit and long term benefit.
blink on February 5, 2010 at 3:39 PM
If you think the Nov elections will hinge on this, and this alone, you are unhinged.
MarkTheGreat on February 5, 2010 at 3:41 PM
You also think I haven’t been answering your questions.
Quite with the lies, you aren’t any good at it.
BadgerHawke even posted the response, in it’s entirety, just a few posts above this one. Now don’t you feel even more stupid then normal?
MarkTheGreat on February 5, 2010 at 3:45 PM
Funny, not even an apology for repeatedly calling me a liar amongst other things regarding whether I had answered his meaningless question.
I quess we can add lack of class to blink’s many other personality faults.
MarkTheGreat on February 5, 2010 at 3:47 PM
What about if that was an important factor, but not the only thing?
Or would you be able to see the difference through your overly polarized political glasses?
Dark-Star on February 5, 2010 at 3:47 PM
He was writting that to you?
MarkTheGreat on February 5, 2010 at 3:49 PM
Do you honestly think that if the economy is growing at 1% a year, and if unemployment has stabilized between 9.5 and 10%, that this will mean millions of people will forget about the huge deficits, the attempted take over of health care, cap and trade, etc. and decide to vote Democrat?
MarkTheGreat on February 5, 2010 at 3:51 PM
He’s been a little more fun than our average troll lately.
MarkTheGreat on February 5, 2010 at 3:52 PM
How is this not saying anything of the sort?
That to me sounds like he wants us to “admit” the short-term benefit. There is no benefit if it’s gone later. The media is never going to tell the truth if it deteriorates the image of the Democrats, so we need to try our best to get the truth out there. The unemployment did go down, but it wasn’t because there are more jobs in the marketplace and people got them. There is no benefit from these numbers and the average business knows this. I mean most of us know this and most of us are not analysts.
MobileVideoEngineer on February 5, 2010 at 3:53 PM
It’s a little like t-ball practice. He sets himself up on the tee, then we get to knock him out of the park.
MarkTheGreat on February 5, 2010 at 3:53 PM
I think the economy will be a HUGE factor in the November. I’m quite sure you don’t disagree.
blink on February 5, 2010 at 3:56 PM
I’m sorry.
The question wasn’t meaningless.
blink on February 5, 2010 at 3:58 PM
I think it will require growth more robust than 1% (2% is needed to maintain employment) and unemployment improving to a reported number better than 9.5%.
But I don’t think that the swing voters understand deficits.
blink on February 5, 2010 at 4:00 PM
Extend that to most of the voters, on most economic issues!
Dark-Star on February 5, 2010 at 4:04 PM
Do you really want to assert that a short term benefit isn’t a short term benefit simply because it doesn’t turn into a long term benefit?
Do you understand how stupid that is?
blink on February 5, 2010 at 4:05 PM
He can’t think about that long enough to give an intelligent answer.
Dark-Star on February 5, 2010 at 4:08 PM
You don’t think that people will realize that making $40k-$50k a year is not as good as it used to be?
Trust me, people are already noticing. People notice that food prices are skyrocketing just over the last 6-12 months.
MobileVideoEngineer on February 5, 2010 at 4:09 PM
It’s not a short-term benefit. What is the benefit? More people are out of work. How is that a benefit?
MobileVideoEngineer on February 5, 2010 at 4:10 PM
I have to admit, I just do not believe the numbers from the Obama administration.
Terrye on February 5, 2010 at 4:11 PM
I dont know whats worse, kiddie blink or you following kiddie blink with inane quips like this.
Get a backbone son and stop following morons.
Odie1941 on February 5, 2010 at 4:13 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6 7 Next »