liberals spin the truth on employment rate, private employers added 24,000?

Question

Worse Initial Job Loss Reports in 2000 Failed to Generate Yesterday's Negative Hyperbole
By Tom Blumer | September 8, 2007 - 16:33 ET

Almost everybody within earshot of a broadcasting device yesterday knows that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported a net loss of 4,000 jobs in the economy in August. Unemployment rate, at 4.6%, was unchanged.

Reporting, and misreporting, by the New York Times and Associated Press set Old Media's template for the story. Some reports, including this one by Vikas Bajaj at the Times, laid the entire onus of the loss on private companies:

Companies reduced their payrolls by 4,000 jobs in August, a sudden turnaround from the net increase of 68,000 jobs in July.

That is wrong, as the Associated Press noted:

The government actually sliced 28,000 jobs, while all private employers added 24,000, the fewest since February 2004.

Answer 1

I would think payrolls are usually reduced in August due to college students returning to school and increases are made in June and July because college students are taking jobs for the summer................

Answer 2

nicely i elect there to be interest growth so why might I spin it to be undesirable. besides the undeniable fact that go forward and study the truthfully checklist and notice that people no longer finding for jobs because 2001 are not to any extent further seen unemployed. I in basic terms study that and started giggling. there have been one million.38 million those that did no longer get seen in the month of might as unemployed as a results of fact they weren't energetic in finding for a job. What a humorous tale. by ways, interest industry and unemployment continuously dipps down this time of three hundred and sixty 5 days..... college and intense college pupils go out and get summer season jobs...and a lot of jobs that are seasonal are created this time of three hundred and sixty 5 days. in basic terms to permit you recognize in the month of might under Clinton, Bush Sr., and Reagan...there has never been growth under 250,000 in the month of might. So i might say he isn't doing that super of a job because it incredibly is under accepted for seasonal.

Answer 3

what is actually happening is that the bridge between the rosy picture that the administration has been painting about the economy and the reality of those losing their jobs and financial clout and living under outrageous interest rates is being crossed.

you can only lie about numbers and money for so long before people just run out of money.

when you then say that those people have money, you lose the credibility that the bushies have lost...

Answer 4

Hows cartoon land, Mission Pendejo ? another So Cal crazy far right wingnut? It's Sunday morning shouldn't you be praying to Ron Reagan for new deficit spending or is Bush's enough. Government Stats. are notoriously BS...look around, oh wake up first. then look around.

Answer 5

i haven't heard a word of it, at all.

and i know the unemployment rate is low. i also know it's ridiculous to associate it with the actions of any one president. the federal reserve, international currency, etc. all play a role.

Answer 6

The real skew is the fact 4.6% is below anything BJ Clinton ever accomplished while Al Gore was inventing the Internet and creating Global Warming jobs.