Ok That might be stretching it but here are the REAL numbers on the shrinking GOP base.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/the_incredible_shrinking_repub.html
lol lol lol lol lol lol lol. do you just fucking pop numbers out of your head? so 75% of all republican voters are seniors? AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH **gasp for air**** BWHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAH
The republicans made a calculated gamble, and they may have lost.
But if they had supported Obama and the economic situation would have dramatically improved they potentially could have been marginalized for an extreme period of time. Their only hope was a policy of obstruction.
Dammit how did I miss Christmas hiring?!
I am so ashamed.
November employment stats equal Christmas hiring? RI_I_I_IGHT!!
I believe that in the last two months job growth was later revised slightly upward. It does SEEM like the situation is always revised downward, but not always.why do they still report this? Don't they always comeback a few months later and say oh wait its actually worse than we reported?
"Retailers, shippers, everybody in the chain start hiring people in November to deal with christmas if not a little earlier."
It's all faked. The don't count those that gave up. It's an election ploy.
Did I miss anything?
Which is funny because when under Bush unemployment was 5%, the media was doing stories on how "real unemployment" (i.e. U6) and "underemployment" were actually much, much worse.Not really. We should really be using the U6 unemployment numbers instead of the U3.
Which is funny because when under Bush unemployment was 5%, the media was doing stories on how "real unemployment" (i.e. U6) and "underemployment" were actually much, much worse.
Is U6 really a better number though? All such numbers are guesstimates, but U3 at least has more hard data (unemployment registration) to back it up. U6 depends on small samples of employers and household surveys, does it not? I'd think that a harder number that everyone understands is understated is probably better than a number which might be closer to the real number, but is also much more subject to gaming and accusations of gaming.
Retailers, shippers, everybody in the chain start hiring people in November to deal with christmas if not a little earlier. Their busy season starts in November.
Look to the number to be abysmal again in Janurary, it's the Obama economy in full swing. Not to mention how many hundreds of thousands have simply given up looking because of Obama's crippling crush.
why do they still report this? Don't they always comeback a few months later and say oh wait its actually worse than we reported?
Which is funny because when under Bush unemployment was 5%, the media was doing stories on how "real unemployment" (i.e. U6) and "underemployment" were actually much, much worse.
Is U6 really a better number though? All such numbers are guesstimates, but U3 at least has more hard data (unemployment registration) to back it up. U6 depends on small samples of employers and household surveys, does it not? I'd think that a harder number that everyone understands is understated is probably better than a number which might be closer to the real number, but is also much more subject to gaming and accusations of gaming.
November employment stats equal Christmas hiring? RI_I_I_IGHT!!
Which is funny because when under Bush unemployment was 5%, the media was doing stories on how "real unemployment" (i.e. U6) and "underemployment" were actually much, much worse.
Very good point. Still, even if it's just a reduction in the overall unemployment situation, a net gain in jobs still beats a net reduction in jobs.The real numbers to look at are the payroll numbers in the jobs reports.
edit: We have added about 1.6 million private sector jobs so far in 2011. We would need 1.4 million just to keep up with population growth.
I don't think I've seen a report since Obama took office saying that the U3 isn't the "real" unemployment number, although yes, I've seen stories about underemployment. That's subjective though.Are you saying that the media doesn't talk about this anymore now that Obama is president?
I'm not sure what you watch, but I hear stories on "underemployment" on a weekly basis, even from "liberal" MSNBC.
I believe that in the last two months job growth was later revised slightly upward. It does SEEM like the situation is always revised downward, but not always.
Look to the number to be abysmal again in Janurary, it's the Obama economy in full swing. Not to mention how many hundreds of thousands have simply given up looking because of Obama's crippling crush.
The Messiah's results :thumbsup:
seniors are the republicans base? so only seniors vote repbublican? wtf are you smoking.