Idiots

Fox News Flubs Statistics To Make Obama’s Economic Record Look Horrible

Obama’s Economic Record Looks Horrible Without Fox News Blunder

how can you have an unemployment rate for employed people?

(09-11-2012 04:06 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Obama’s Economic Record Looks Horrible Without Fox News Blunder

That's the whole point SOAF and I don't think you get it!

There are NUMEROUS things to campaign against Obama on. Sadly, your candidate can't do it...probably because his economical solutions don't stand muster.

There is no reason for Fox to either negligently or purposely distort the facts!

Again, Romney was campaigning yesterday that Obama wants to take God off our coins. WTF would he even be talking about this!?!?

(09-11-2012 04:14 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  how can you have an unemployment rate for employed people?

No doubt...that made me laugh!

+1

From Maddow:

Quote:The second is the jobless rate among "government workers" -- Fox wants its viewers to think hard-working folks in the private sector are struggling, while those public-sector workers have it easy. Reality, however, gets in the way of the narrative -- since the economy bottomed out, America's private sector has added 4.6 million jobs, while the nation's public sector has shed 571,000 jobs. Since the start of the recession, we've lost more jobs in government than any other sector of the economy. The public sector hasn't had it better than everyone else; the public sector has had it worse than everyone else

After the graphic aired, Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham asked, "Other than Fox News, where are you really seeing those statistics?" What a good question.

Unemployment rate for 'government workers' should be 0%, as in workers are employed...

Fox, you make me giggle.

Not counting government jobs lost, isn't Obama actually at net positive for his tenure? The right rails on and on about cutting the size of government. Well, we have lost thousands of local and federal government jobs since Obama took office. Shouldn't they regard that as a good thing?

(09-11-2012 05:01 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  Not counting government jobs lost, isn't Obama actually at net positive for his tenure? The right rails on and on about cutting the size of government. Well, we have lost thousands of local and federal government jobs since Obama took office. Shouldn't they regard that as a good thing?

He is only positive because more and more unemployed persons are no longer collecting benefits or have given up looking for work.

(09-11-2012 05:01 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  Not counting government jobs lost, isn't Obama actually at net positive for his tenure? The right rails on and on about cutting the size of government. Well, we have lost thousands of local and federal government jobs since Obama took office. Shouldn't they regard that as a good thing?

I think the last total was since his presidency he's at +39,000 jobs in the positive for non-farm payroll jobs. So we've gained 13,000 private jobs a YEAR?

But the underemployment rate is the key number.. It was bad at Bush's end of tenure (9 point something %) I think.. and it's getting worse.

Quote:we've lost more jobs in government than any other sector of the economy

Actually, this was one of those numbers that you have to really go in and look at in depth, because they were (are?) counting private contractors as "govt. jobs" at one point, when they never should have been (IMO, as the people still weren't employed by the govt, but private enterprises working under government contracts). I don't know if they quit counting those as "govt. jobs" yet or not?

(09-11-2012 04:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-11-2012 04:14 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  how can you have an unemployment rate for employed people?

No doubt...that made me laugh!

+1

From Maddow:

Quote:The second is the jobless rate among "government workers" -- Fox wants its viewers to think hard-working folks in the private sector are struggling, while those public-sector workers have it easy. Reality, however, gets in the way of the narrative -- since the economy bottomed out, America's private sector has added 4.6 million jobs, while the nation's public sector has shed 571,000 jobs. Since the start of the recession, we've lost more jobs in government than any other sector of the economy. The public sector hasn't had it better than everyone else; the public sector has had it worse than everyone else

After the graphic aired, Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham asked, "Other than Fox News, where are you really seeing those statistics?" What a good question.

You make fun of FOX and counter with Maddow.

Now, THAT's funny.

(09-11-2012 08:45 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(09-11-2012 04:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-11-2012 04:14 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  how can you have an unemployment rate for employed people?

No doubt...that made me laugh!

+1

From Maddow:

Quote:The second is the jobless rate among "government workers" -- Fox wants its viewers to think hard-working folks in the private sector are struggling, while those public-sector workers have it easy. Reality, however, gets in the way of the narrative -- since the economy bottomed out, America's private sector has added 4.6 million jobs, while the nation's public sector has shed 571,000 jobs. Since the start of the recession, we've lost more jobs in government than any other sector of the economy. The public sector hasn't had it better than everyone else; the public sector has had it worse than everyone else

After the graphic aired, Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham asked, "Other than Fox News, where are you really seeing those statistics?" What a good question.

You make fun of FOX and counter with Maddow.

Now, THAT's funny.

Absolutely. She's very good - so good it's hilarious - at pointing out the "FAUX" in "Fox News".

I wouldn't piss on madcow if she was on fire.

BY READING THIS POST YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IMATY IS THE LAST GREAT CRUSADER FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE SO HELP YOU GOD.

(09-11-2012 08:59 PM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  

(09-11-2012 08:45 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(09-11-2012 04:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-11-2012 04:14 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  how can you have an unemployment rate for employed people?

No doubt...that made me laugh!

+1

From Maddow:

Quote:The second is the jobless rate among "government workers" -- Fox wants its viewers to think hard-working folks in the private sector are struggling, while those public-sector workers have it easy. Reality, however, gets in the way of the narrative -- since the economy bottomed out, America's private sector has added 4.6 million jobs, while the nation's public sector has shed 571,000 jobs. Since the start of the recession, we've lost more jobs in government than any other sector of the economy. The public sector hasn't had it better than everyone else; the public sector has had it worse than everyone else

After the graphic aired, Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham asked, "Other than Fox News, where are you really seeing those statistics?" What a good question.

You make fun of FOX and counter with Maddow.

Now, THAT's funny.

Absolutely. She's very good - so good it's hilarious - at pointing out the "FAUX" in "Fox News".

I think of them more as opposite sides of the same coin.

(09-11-2012 04:14 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  how can you have an unemployment rate for employed people?

I know right! "Unemployment rate for MLB players: 1.2%"

Idiots indeed.

(09-11-2012 04:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-11-2012 04:14 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  how can you have an unemployment rate for employed people?

No doubt...that made me laugh!

+1

From Maddow:

Quote:The second is the jobless rate among "government workers" -- Fox wants its viewers to think hard-working folks in the private sector are struggling, while those public-sector workers have it easy. Reality, however, gets in the way of the narrative -- since the economy bottomed out, America's private sector has added 4.6 million jobs, while the nation's public sector has shed 571,000 jobs. Since the start of the recession, we've lost more jobs in government than any other sector of the economy. The public sector hasn't had it better than everyone else; the public sector has had it worse than everyone else

After the graphic aired, Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham asked, "Other than Fox News, where are you really seeing those statistics?" What a good question.

Props to fox. They actually issued a correction! I know...I about fell of my chair too...lol

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12..._ref=media

I can't watch Fox. Too much "breaking news". Everything is "breaking news" with them.

While I agree that this is spin, what is the difference between this calculation and something related to farm payrolls? I mean, we produce a number for NFP, so the FP should be easily calculable... yet nobody does it. That doesn't mean you couldn't do it and report it as accurate... and have it be so. Certainly this is a derivative and purely intended to make a point, but one can probably calculate the number of people whose last job was in government who now are looking for work. The "where else are you seeing these numbers" is really sort of meaningless. If nobody else is trying to make the point, nobody else is going to publish the stat, but that doesn't by itself mean the stat is wrong.

IOW, they've taken something someone at FOX did as spin, and spun it themselves. Pot:Kettle

As to the rest of it... I'm sure liberal news never makes mistakes

(09-12-2012 11:10 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  While I agree that this is spin, what is the difference between this calculation and something related to farm payrolls? I mean, we produce a number for NFP, so the FP should be easily calculable... yet nobody does it. That doesn't mean you couldn't do it and report it as accurate... and have it be so. Certainly this is a derivative and purely intended to make a point, but one can probably calculate the number of people whose last job was in government who now are looking for work. The "where else are you seeing these numbers" is really sort of meaningless. If nobody else is trying to make the point, nobody else is going to publish the stat, but that doesn't by itself mean the stat is wrong.

IOW, they've taken something someone at FOX did as spin, and spun it themselves. Pot:Kettle

As to the rest of it... I'm sure liberal news never makes mistakes

Ham - see post 16. But it is like the front page of the WAPO screaming that John Doe rapped his neighbors 12 year old daughter, and then several days later posting on page 37 a small retraction that says "never mind". Fox is the spin master.

The bottom line is that even if only 1 private sector job has been created under the Obama administration - that would still be more that what was created under the Bush administration.

(09-13-2012 08:44 AM)dcCid Wrote:  The bottom line is that even if only 1 private sector job has been created under the Obama administration - that would still be more that what was created under the Bush administration.

Actually, applying the same methodology by which Obama is claiming to have created 4 million jobs, Bush created 8 million. But when you measure one by one standard and the other by another, you can come up with false talking points like you did.