Jobs data give Bush boost amid Iraq, 9/11 pressure

[54anickel]

Hmmm, that headline sheds a little light

http://www.forbes.com/work/newswire/2004/04/02/rtr1322432.html

HUNTINGTON, W.Va. (Reuters) - President Bush, hammered by Democrats over job losses under his watch, Friday hailed a surprising surge in employment that could give his re-election campaign a boost.

Coming in a week of mounting pressure on Bush amid violence in Iraq and questions over his handling of threats prior to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Labor Department jobs figures appeared to lift the president's mood.

snip>

Bush and Kerry are running virtually neck and neck in polls. A Los Angeles Times poll this week said 47 percent of Americans viewed Kerry as the candidate most able to ensure their financial security, compared with 34 percent for Bush.

Economic issues were ranked as most important by 45 percent; about the same share viewed security concerns as most important.

more...

[LittleApple81]

1. I don't believe these numbers; if they lied about Medicare, AIDs, etc.

why can we believe this?

[BigBigBear]

2. All we need

is about 9 months of this every month or better, and Bush will break even on jobs.

That isn't going to happen.

[central scrutinizer]

3. not really

9 months of this would just get us back to zero jobs LOST under *'s mismanagement. To just keep up with a growing workforce, the economy needs to create 150,000 every month. So, we would still be millions of jobs behind where we should be.

[azmesa207]

5. not really

How can Bush be even close in this election he a complete failure as president what is wrong with people 3 million lost job lied to get us into a illegal war outrages deficit

[Media_Lies_Daily]

4. Depends on how you define the term "surprising"...

...in this sense it means "we're lying yet again".

[The_Casual_Observer]

6. This is a 1-2 month bump then back to normal

There aren't any real jobs here, the supermarket thing, springtime construction, temporary part time office & some government. NO
manufacturing. They can try to talk this up but it won't stick, just like everything else this guy does.

[Boat Guy]

7. Good Point

Casual, that's a very good point -- do these figures include the 70,000 SoCal grocery workers that were locked out for four months? That would sure skew these number downward, which invariably is what will happen in a couple of months anyway (seems to be SOP -- announce highly inflated figures, get lots of good press, then a couple months later QUIETLY adjust the numbers down 30 or 40%).

Plus, let's not forget even with all these "new" jobs, the unemployment rate STILL WENT UP!

[The_Casual_Observer]

8. Yup, as far as I can tell they are crediting at least 45,000

to the grocery thing.

One would have to be a fool's fool to believe anything that comes from the these people anymore. They are batting zero on the performance of every single program EXCEPT tax cuts for the rich, which by the way, was sold as a middle class program, so I guess that doesn't count either!

[The_Casual_Observer]

9. Oh and by the way, allow me to pipe you aboard!

Welcome to DU, have fun!
:hi:

[rfkrocks]

10. Cogent post

welcome to DU!:toast:

[PROGRESSIVE1]

11. Good point! Also this is PNAC Forbes magazine we're looking at.

:eyes:

[snippy]

12. Believe it or not, Bush is lying a little about the jobs number.

From the Employment Situation Summary:

Nonfarm payroll employment increased by 308,000 in March, and the
unemployment rate was about unchanged at 5.7 percent, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today.

Anyone know someone who is "about" unemployed?

The unemployment rate, 5.7 percent, and the number of unemployed persons,
8.4 million, were essentially unchanged in March.

The unemployment rate increased from 5.6 to 5.7 and the number of unemployed persons increased by 182 thousand.

Total employment in March held at 138.3 million, and the employment-popula-
tion ratio--the proportion of the population age 16 and over with jobs--was
essentially unchanged at 62.1 percent.

In March, the number of persons who worked part time for economic reasons
increased to 4.7 million, about the same level as in January.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

ABOUT THE SAME LEVEL AS IN JANUARY? Why would anyone compare March numbers to January numbers? Why not compare March to February?

Because the number of people working part time increased by 296 thousand. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t05.htm

How many of the 308 thousand new jobs are part time?

[Moderator]

13. Please Combine

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x459232