"Currently, there are now 913,000 fewer payroll jobs--the standard everyone is using--than in January of 2001. 1,032,000 fewer than the all-time peak of March of that year."
A: It's Clinton's fault - times were so good under him that no one could be expected to match them.
B: It's Clinton's fault - things were getting rotten and it just took timid employers time to fire people.
C: There REALLY are more jobs, and no loss, it's the liberal economists and liberal media just reporting bad news.
D: People don't want to work these days, just look at the signs on gas stations and gooey-burger joints BEGGING folks to apply.
E: The tax cuts need time, more time, a lot of time, can't really tell how much time, maybe about the time the US leaves Iraq and no one knows when that will be, that much time, to work.
F: It ain't so bad, every black Republican who wants to work and some who don't has a job (in the Bush Administration).
G: It ain't so bad, a lot of people don't want to work these days (preferring to live off the tax cut).
H: It ain't so bad now, just wait until we've had 4 more years in office.
Etc.
So what's the spin? What are the blogs saying, Limbaugh, etc.?
Arf
Current Events » in reply to Numbers are good, but economists had been hoping for 150,000.
What's the spin on the first net job loss since Hoover?
The whole thread (15 posts)
- The employment numbers are out, and stronger than predicted
- I heard an interesting factoid last night
- re: Stronger than predicted by whom? When is the "correct" scheduled for? Midnight Sunday? (n/t)
- Numbers are good, but economists had been hoping for 150,000.
- 144,000 Jobs Added in August; Unemployment Rate Dips to 5.4%
