Well that didn't last long...

[Trades]

So libs, please continue to brag about the great unemployment numbers. They were BS to begin with but this is even worse.

[QUOTE] Thursday, March 08, 2012 Updated 01:00 PM ET


[URL="http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx?ref=logo"] [/URL]
[URL="http://www.gallup.com/poll/economy.aspx?ref=logo"]Economy[/URL]





March 8, 2012
[B]U.S. Unemployment Up in February[/B]

[B]Underemployment is 19.1%, up from 18.7% in January[/B]

by Dennis Jacobe, Chief Economist


PRINCETON, NJ -- U.S. unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, increased to 9.1% in February from 8.6% in January and 8.5% in December.
[CENTER][IMG]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/zh0hu1picu2m-spxb6p3sw.gif[/IMG]
[/CENTER]
The 0.5-percentage-point increase in February compared with January is the largest such month-to-month change Gallup has recorded in its not-seasonally adjusted measure since December 2010, when the rate rose 0.8 points to 9.6% from 8.8% in November. A year ago, Gallup recorded a February increase of 0.4 percentage points, to 10.3% from 9.9% in January 2011.


In addition to the 9.1% of U.S. workers who are unemployed, 10.0% are working part time but want full-time work. This percentage is similar to the 10.1% in January, but is higher than the 9.6% of February 2011.
[CENTER][IMG]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/t0pldj1jj0exarmy8z0mpq.gif[/IMG][/CENTER]


As a result, Gallup's U.S. underemployment measure, which combines the percentage of workers who are unemployed and the percentage working part time but wanting full-time work, increased to 19.1% in February from 18.7% in January. This is an improvement from the 19.9% of February 2011.
[CENTER][IMG]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/lwb6c6veoeivf2ggbjzqjw.gif[/IMG]
[/CENTER]
[B]Looking Ahead to the Government's Unemployment Report[/B]
The February unemployment rate the U.S. government reports on Friday morning will be based largely on mid-month conditions. In mid-February, Gallup reported that its U.S. unemployment rate [URL="http://www.gallup.com/poll/152753/Unemployment-Increases-Mid-February.aspx"]had increased to 9.0%[/URL] from 8.3% in mid-January. The mid-month reading normally provides a relatively good estimate of the government's [I]unadjusted[/I] unemployment rate for the month.


Assuming the government's [I]unadjusted[/I] rate increases -- from its 8.8% in January -- to at least match Gallup's mid-month measurement for February, then the government should also report an increase in the [I]seasonally[/I] [I]adjusted[/I] unemployment rate for February. If the government's [I]unadjusted[/I] unemployment rate increases to the degree that Gallup's has from mid-month to mid-month, then the government's seasonally adjusted unemployment rate could show an even larger increase.


However, the extent of the seasonal adjustment also makes a difference. Last February, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics applied a seasonal adjustment factor of 0.5 points to its unadjusted unemployment rate for the month. If that same seasonal adjustment is applied to Gallup's mid-month unemployment rate of 9.0%, it would produce a seasonally adjusted unemployment rate of 8.5%.

Alternatively, if it was applied to Gallup's full-month unemployment rate of 9.1%, it would produce a seasonally adjusted rate of 8.6%. Gallup therefore forecasts an increase in the unemployment rate.


Gallup in February also found a decline in its [URL="http://www.gallup.com/poll/153137/Job-Creation-Declines-February.aspx"]Job Creation Index[/URL], which tends to support an increase in the February unemployment rate.


The consensus forecast, however, is for no change in the government's unemployment rate. February jobless claims were running at roughly 350,000 during the month, implying a relatively stable unemployment rate. Additionally, Wednesday's ADP report suggesting that private-sector jobs increased by more than 200,000 in February is also somewhat supportive of a stable unemployment rate forecast.


Regardless of what the government reports, Gallup's unemployment and underemployment measures show a substantial deterioration since mid-January. In this context, the increase in unemployment as measured by Gallup may, at least partly, reflect growth in the workforce, as more Americans who had given up looking for work become slightly more optimistic and start looking for work again. So while there may be positive signs, the reality Gallup finds is that more Americans are looking for work now than were doing so just six weeks ago.
[CENTER][IMG]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/wiuaxv21leetgdywxlbu5g.gif[/IMG][/CENTER]












[/QUOTE]

[adb280z]

It's amazing to see guys on the right cheer bad news for our country.

[Piper]

[QUOTE=adb280z;4389393]It's amazing to see guys on the right cheer bad news for our country.[/QUOTE]

Where do you perceive cheering?

[Frequent Flyer]

That's what happens when the media incessantly announces the economy is "turning the corner". When you turn that many corners, you end up going in circles.

[kennyo7]

[QUOTE=Piper;4389394]Where do you perceive cheering?[/QUOTE]

"well that didnt last long So libs, please continue to brag about the great unemployment numbers. They were BS to begin with but this is even worse."

I call that cheering.

If you were not cheering you would express disappointment: "This sucks, the glimmer of hope seen last month just took a step back"

[JetPotato]

[QUOTE=adb280z;4389393]It's amazing to see guys on the right cheer bad news for our country.[/QUOTE]

And its amazing how much the left whines instead of addressing the issue.

[brady's a catcher]

[QUOTE=kennyo7;4389465]"well that didnt last long So libs, please continue to brag about the great unemployment numbers. They were BS to begin with but this is even worse."

I call that cheering.

If you were not cheering you would express disappointment: "This sucks, the glimmer of hope seen last month just took a step back"[/QUOTE]


I wouldn't call that cheering. I would call that commenting on a false recovery. This "cheering" thing is the "that's racist!" of bi-partisan economic discourse.

[intelligentjetsfan]

Hypocrisy in action:

2004

(D): "President Bush has been a failure because of X, Y, Z"

(R): "It is unpatriotic to criticize the president during a time of war"

2012 (still at war)

(R): "President Obama has been a failure because of X, Y, and Z"
____________________________________________________________________
2004

(D): "President Bush is responsible for the high price of gas"

(R): "The president has no affect on the price at the pump"

2012

(R): "President Obama's policies have led us to higher gas prices"

(D): "The president has no affect on the price at the pump"

And it goes on and on and on and on.....:zzz::zzz::zzz:

[JetPotato]

[QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4389552]Hypocrisy in action:

2004

(D): "President Bush has been a failure because of X, Y, Z"

(R): "It is unpatriotic to criticize the president during a time of war"

2012 (still at war)

(R): "President Obama has been a failure because of X, Y, and Z"
____________________________________________________________________
2004

(D): "President Bush is responsible for the high price of gas"

(R): "The president has no affect on the price at the pump"

2012

(R): "President Obama's policies have led us to higher gas prices"

(D): "The president has no affect on the price at the pump"

And it goes on and on and on and on.....:zzz::zzz::zzz:[/QUOTE]

Great.

Now tell us all what this has to do with the current jobs report.:rolleyes:

Or maybe we should just keep talking about who is a hypocrite when the leg we thought we had to stand on regarding the economy has been kicked out from under us. Sounds like as good a distraction as any.

[chirorob]

[QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4389552]Hypocrisy in action:

2004

(D): "President Bush has been a failure because of X, Y, Z"

(R): "It is unpatriotic to criticize the president during a time of war"

2012 (still at war)

(R): "President Obama has been a failure because of X, Y, and Z"
____________________________________________________________________
2004

(D): "President Bush is responsible for the high price of gas"

(R): "The president has no affect on the price at the pump"

2012

(R): "President Obama's policies have led us to higher gas prices"

(D): "The president has no affect on the price at the pump"

And it goes on and on and on and on.....:zzz::zzz::zzz:[/QUOTE]

Yep, they both suck. It's just a matter of what kind of sucking works best for you. To me, the R suck, but the D feel like a non lubed fisting, so I'll vote R.

[Piper]

[QUOTE=kennyo7;4389465]"well that didnt last long So libs, please continue to brag about the great unemployment numbers. They were BS to begin with but this is even worse."

I call that cheering.

If you were not cheering you would express disappointment: "This sucks, the glimmer of hope seen last month just took a step back"[/QUOTE]

That is a laugable interpretation of the posting of an article which shows results.

[PlumberKhan]

[QUOTE=chirorob;4389580]...but the D feel like a non lubed fisting, so I'll vote R.[/QUOTE]

How do you know how that feels?! :eek:

;)

[Frequent Flyer]

[QUOTE=adb280z;4389393]It's amazing to see guys on the right cheer bad news for our country.[/QUOTE]

Do you put mayonaise in your hair because Debbie Wasserman Schultz does, too?

[Frequent Flyer]

[QUOTE=JetPotato;4389488]And its amazing how much the left whines instead of addressing the issue.[/QUOTE]

Remember when Bush was president and the unemployment rate "jumped" from 4% to 4.5% and the media reported it as alarming:

[url]http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/05/news/economy/jobs_september/[/url]

But no, they're not biased at all. LMFAO

[DeanPatsFan]

[QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4389716]How do you know how that feels?! :eek:

;)[/QUOTE]

He drank to much and passed out at your place?

[Jungle Shift Jet]

[QUOTE=Frequent Flyer;4389414]That's what happens when the media incessantly announces the economy is "turning the corner". When you turn that many corners, you end up going in circles.[/QUOTE]

Libs were kept in the playpen too long. They can't walk more than a few feet before turning left!

[brady's a catcher]

But of course, the official govt report is that there is no change in the %.

[url]http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/09/news/economy/jobs_report_unemployment/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1[/url]

The unemployment rate remained at 8.3%, as employers created just enough jobs to make up for new entrants to the labor force.

[Warfish]

[QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4389552]Hypocrisy in action:

2004

(D): "President Bush has been a failure because of X, Y, Z"

(R): "It is unpatriotic to criticize the president during a time of war"

2012 (still at war)

(D) "Protests? What Protests? We loved the War in Libya, Civillian deaths, what civilian deaths?, Drone Strikes in a dozen countires is a great strategy, Guantanamo Bay is perfect as it is now, totally appropriate, Assassination is a great strategy, we don't need to SEE Bin Laden's body, trust us, killing U.S. citizens without trial is totally justified, as is the Patriot Act now that Obama is overseeign it, Libya is not Iraq and Iraq under Obama is Bush's fault, and the War Obama is plannig in Iran....totally cool, as long as it's not for Israel."

(R): "President Obama has been a failure because of X, Y, and Z"
____________________________________________________________________
2004

(D): "President Bush is responsible for the high price of gas"

(R): "The president has no affect on the price at the pump"

2012

(R): "President Obama's policies have led us to higher gas prices"

(D): "The president has no affect on the price at the pump"

And it goes on and on and on and on.....:zzz::zzz::zzz:[/QUOTE]

Fixed your first half, somethign you apparently must have overlooked.

But your core point is not invalid, tbh.

[PlumberKhan]

[QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;4389761]He drank to much and passed out at your place?[/QUOTE]

Don't you remember? I'm more of a strap-on guy myself....:eek::D

[brady's a catcher]

[QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4389809]Don't you remember? I'm more of a strap-on guy myself....:eek::D[/QUOTE]


Who knew? I saw you as a studded fisting glove kinda guy, elbows deep in a pair of midgets. :D