U.S. jobless rate falls to 7.8 percent, a 44-month low
WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. unemployment rate fell to 7.8 percent last month, dropping below 8 percent for the first time in nearly four years and giving President Barack Obama a potential boost with the election a month away.
The rate declined from 8.1 percent because the number of people who said they were employed soared by 873,000 - an encouraging sign for an economy that's been struggling to create enough jobs.
The number of unemployed Americans is now 12.1 million, the fewest since January 2009.
The Labor Department said employers added 114,000 jobs in September. It also said the economy created 86,000 more jobs in July and August than the department had initially estimated.
Wages rose in September. And more people started looking for work.
The revisions show employers added 146,000 jobs per month from July through September, up from 67,000 in the previous three months.
The 7.8 percent unemployment rate for September matches the rate in January 2009, when Obama took office. In the months after Obama's inauguration, the rate rose sharply and had topped 8 percent for 43 straight months.
The decline in the unemployment rate comes at a critical moment for Obama, who is coming off a weak debate performance this week against GOP challenger Mitt Romney.
The September employment report may be the last that might sway undecided voters. The October jobs report will be released only four days before Election Day.
"An overall better-than-expected jobs report, consistent with most recent data that suggest the economy is gaining some momentum," said Sal Guatieri, an economist at BMO Capital Markets, in a note to clients. "The sizeable drop in the unemployment rate could lift the president's re-election chances following a post-debate dip."
Labor Secretary Hilda Solis was asked on CNBC about suspicions that the Obama administration might have skewed the jobs numbers to aid Obama's re-election prospects.
"I'm insulted when I hear that because we have a very professional civil service," Solis said. "I have the highest regard for our professionals that do the calculations at the (Bureau of Labor Statistics). They are trained economists."
After the jobs report was released, the Dow Jones industrial average gained 65 points in the first half hour of trading. Broader stock indexes also rose.
The yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury note climbed to 1.73 percent from 1.68 percent just before the report. That suggested that investors were more willing to take on risk and shift money from bonds into stocks.
The job market has been improving, sluggishly but steadily. Jobs have been added for 24 straight months. There are now 325,000 more than when Obama took office.
The number of employed Americans comes from a government survey of 60,000 households that determines the unemployment rate. The government asks a series of questions, by phone or in person. For example:
Do you own a business? Did you work for pay? If not, did you provide unpaid work for a family business or farm? (Those who did are considered employed.)
Afterward, the survey participants are asked whether they had a job and, if so, whether it was full or part time. The government's definition of unemployed is someone who's out of work and has actively looked for a job in the past four weeks.
The government also does a second survey of roughly 140,000 businesses to determine the number of jobs businesses created or lost.
The September job gains were led by the health care industry, which added 44,000 jobs - the most since February. Transportation and warehousing also showed large gains.
The revisions also showed that federal, state and local governments added 63,000 jobs in July and August, compared with earlier estimates that showed losses.
Still, many of the jobs the economy added last month were part time. The number of people with part-time jobs who wanted full-time work rose 7.5 percent to 8.6 million, the most since February 2009.
But overall, Friday's report dispelled some fears about the job market.
The "U.S. could be growing jobs at a marginally faster pace than feared mid-summer," Guy LeBas, a strategist at Janney Capital Markets, wrote in a research note. "Even with the issues in Europe and slowing production in China, U.S. economic activity does not look to be bearing the brunt of global downside, at least not anymore."
The rate declined from 8.1 percent because the number of people who said they were employed soared by 873,000 - an encouraging sign for an economy that's been struggling to create enough jobs.
The number of unemployed Americans is now 12.1 million, the fewest since January 2009.
The Labor Department said employers added 114,000 jobs in September. It also said the economy created 86,000 more jobs in July and August than the department had initially estimated.
Wages rose in September. And more people started looking for work.
The revisions show employers added 146,000 jobs per month from July through September, up from 67,000 in the previous three months.
The 7.8 percent unemployment rate for September matches the rate in January 2009, when Obama took office. In the months after Obama's inauguration, the rate rose sharply and had topped 8 percent for 43 straight months.
The decline in the unemployment rate comes at a critical moment for Obama, who is coming off a weak debate performance this week against GOP challenger Mitt Romney.
The September employment report may be the last that might sway undecided voters. The October jobs report will be released only four days before Election Day.
"An overall better-than-expected jobs report, consistent with most recent data that suggest the economy is gaining some momentum," said Sal Guatieri, an economist at BMO Capital Markets, in a note to clients. "The sizeable drop in the unemployment rate could lift the president's re-election chances following a post-debate dip."
Labor Secretary Hilda Solis was asked on CNBC about suspicions that the Obama administration might have skewed the jobs numbers to aid Obama's re-election prospects.
"I'm insulted when I hear that because we have a very professional civil service," Solis said. "I have the highest regard for our professionals that do the calculations at the (Bureau of Labor Statistics). They are trained economists."
After the jobs report was released, the Dow Jones industrial average gained 65 points in the first half hour of trading. Broader stock indexes also rose.
The yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury note climbed to 1.73 percent from 1.68 percent just before the report. That suggested that investors were more willing to take on risk and shift money from bonds into stocks.
The job market has been improving, sluggishly but steadily. Jobs have been added for 24 straight months. There are now 325,000 more than when Obama took office.
The number of employed Americans comes from a government survey of 60,000 households that determines the unemployment rate. The government asks a series of questions, by phone or in person. For example:
Do you own a business? Did you work for pay? If not, did you provide unpaid work for a family business or farm? (Those who did are considered employed.)
Afterward, the survey participants are asked whether they had a job and, if so, whether it was full or part time. The government's definition of unemployed is someone who's out of work and has actively looked for a job in the past four weeks.
The government also does a second survey of roughly 140,000 businesses to determine the number of jobs businesses created or lost.
The September job gains were led by the health care industry, which added 44,000 jobs - the most since February. Transportation and warehousing also showed large gains.
The revisions also showed that federal, state and local governments added 63,000 jobs in July and August, compared with earlier estimates that showed losses.
Still, many of the jobs the economy added last month were part time. The number of people with part-time jobs who wanted full-time work rose 7.5 percent to 8.6 million, the most since February 2009.
But overall, Friday's report dispelled some fears about the job market.
The "U.S. could be growing jobs at a marginally faster pace than feared mid-summer," Guy LeBas, a strategist at Janney Capital Markets, wrote in a research note. "Even with the issues in Europe and slowing production in China, U.S. economic activity does not look to be bearing the brunt of global downside, at least not anymore."
Smoke and mirrors folks, nothing more. You can make almost any statistic show what you want. Just and effort to get President Obama re-elected. Let's see if the electorate falls for it. Hint, most of the new hires are part time. So I am sure if you made $60,000 a year before, you are ecstatic at making $ 20,000 now.
You know what makes republicans look stupid. Â the fact that they created this mess, they are shouting at us to fix it faster, whenever we give them positive information they deny it outright or minimize it, and last but not least whenever there is a negative report about the economy they keep talking about it like it's gospel.
Â
Truth? Â The stock market is at it's highest in a loooooong time. Â And unemployment is at the lowest since this man took office. Â Also Bin Laden is dead.
Â
We gave Bush 8 years for ruining our economy and allowing 9/11. Â Why wouldn't we allow Obama another 4 for the list above?
 @sunnysandiego lol, Truth? This manipulated stock market has failed twice in the last 10 years and investing in the States is deemed by anyone with a pulse as one hell of a mistake these days. Step right up open your investment account and go for it. Of course try to stay away from MF Global or Pedegrine and the rest of these investment firms that recognize there is no rule of law in our financial sector. Maybe you can learn to trade as fast as those computer generated buys and puts.
Â
The reason you couldn't vote for Obama is that he has betrayed you with his lies during his first campaign and his actions everyday since. He had the majority and the opportunity to restore this once great middle class to everything it was 40 years ago and chose instead to push this country further down the slippery slope. He has presided over the largest transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich in his entitlement program for the rich and has provided corporate welfare at every turn. He has turned his back on the poor while catering to the rich. He has run the first ever billion dollar campaign in history, where do you think those donations came from, the poor?
Â
His actions during the debate illustrated for everyone exactly what his first term was, a big zero. Willard stood there and lied and Obama didn't fight, he didnt call him out on the 47% nonsense. He didnt call him out on his healthcare lies. It was a rehash of his whole term in office, no fight, no nothing and the empty chair thing actually started making sense.
Â
Why dont you outline for all of us just what he has done for the middle class and, please don't try to point to his giving the insurance industry 30 million new paying customers without a word of cost containment when the people just wanted medicare extended to the masses for cheaper. I'll wait for your many paragraphs of what the betrayer in chief has done.
Â
In addition, what could he possibly do as a lame duck without a majority? more of the same but just get rich doing it before he exits?
 @sunnysandiego If you believed bush was a war criminal and Obama continued those unlawful wars, gitmo and torture and then doubled down with predator drone attacks against Pakistan families inside of their sovereign borders among other crimes, wouldn't you then be obligated to call Obama a war criminal also or would you prefer to be called hypocrite? If you thought the patriot act was unconstitutional when bush enacted it, what was it called when Obama extended it and then doubled down with the NDAA and assumed the position of Cop, Judge, Jury, Executioner, and the ability to carry out murder against US citizens in complete secrecy?
Â
Obama is a smarter version of bush is all and the increased intellect while carrying out the same polices is what is so much of a betrayal to this country. Obama and the rest of the dems have betrayed you and your country. Can you imagine what the GOP would think if we summarily rid ourselves of every dem this time around? They would spend the next 4 years trying to make up to the middle class. Then we could get rid of the GOP and have working people represent working people as the founders intended.
Â
Both parties are fascist/corporatist and we have corporate america as our dictator. Let me know the last time your party did anything at all for the middle class will ya and then we can review everything they accomplished for corporate america today.
Only in US politics. He runs the first ever billion dollar campaign and still has to rely on cooked numbers to attempt to make us believe we are in some kind of recovery. A real leader would tell the masses that all economic fundamental indicators ( Except his) point to total economic collapse due to a broke, ripped off consumer based economy wherein 40% of middle class wealth has been transferred upwards in an entitlement program for the rich and a corporate welfare system at our expense. Should have just stuck with the campaign promises instead of continuing wars, torture, war crimes, and gitmo. Oh and how is that card check recognition coming along?
The only number that really counts here is the 114,000 new jobs. That is in line with what previous months have been.Â
Â
The 873,000 comes from a phone survey.Â
 @JCCBlvu Ummmm, you don't understand how unemployment numbers are calculated.This has been going on since Bush 41 - so sorry, you can't wail partisanship. The Census Bureau contacts a random sample of 60,000 citizen RESPONSES via a telephone survey on their employment situation.Once they get a sample of 60,000, the data is sent to the Bureau of Labor Statistics for analysis, and the numbers are then adjusted for seasonality (e.g. there are more jobs created in the 4th quarter due to the holidays and end of year, so the numbers are adjusted down) and for the birth/death model (which many will argue, including myself, is out of whack). The formula used is not a secret sauce, and other than the birth death model, is accepted by economists around the world, and from both sides of the American political spectrum. The only data point called into question is the birth/death model, which argues that the death number is slightly inflated and the model needs adjustment.That then creates the U1, U2, U3, U4, U5, and U6 unemployment numbers. The numbers are sealed, from EVERYONE, even the President. The White House gets the numbers the night before they are released. They are not allowed to release them. The number are released the next morning at 8 AM, they are now allowed to be discussed until an hour after release.This is a process in place for close to 25 years now, spanning the administration of five Presidents from both parties. Clinton did have the model adjusted, and Bush (43) tweaked the model further. Some will argue that the Bush adjustment made the numbers more favorable - I dismiss that as partisan politics.The most important number is not the published/discussed U3 unemployment number. The real number to look at is the U6.
This is such a red herring, and the exact same accusations of cooking the books came from the left in 2008, saying the Bush Administration was painting a better picture than it really was. It really is sad how quickly people dismiss data when it doesn't support their narrow minded view of the world.Unemployment is a lagging indicator in a recession. That is the number doesn't peak until the recession is ending or over, and the number is one of the last things to improve. Only a dullard would look at the data for the last 12 months and say there is no recovery (not directed at you). Housing has clearly bottomed out, the automotive industry is headed to its best year since 2007 on target to sell 15 million cars. A jobless, broke nation does not buy new cars and new houses. It is damn hard to get a mortgage still for starters. Is it GREAT. Hell no, we still have a long way to go - but things are improving.
 @JCCBlvu And it sounds like a vast majority of those were part-time jobs.
Classic case of peeing down neck and tellin me it's raining!
For folks who want to know how this data is calculated -Â http://economywatch.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/05/14242968-jobless-rate-drop-no-big-surprise-despite-the-political-racket?lite
Â
Sorry if nbc is too "biased" for you though.
If the numbers are true; which I doubt, the report states that 800,000 more people were employed last month and at the same time only 143,000 new jobs were created. It still doesn't total the 1.3 million new people who applied for unemployment during that same one month period. But people will believe what they want to believe no matter if it is totally illogical. There are some nuts on the right who will always believe that Obama wasn't born in America even without any proof to back it up. And there are apparently a lot of people on the left who choose to believe that the unemployment rate is better even if the numbers don't add up.
 @Mej47 Interestingly this morning I listened to an economist talking about the job numbers and he mentioned that the only time in history that there has been that large a drop in job numbers is during a booming economy. How then do we get these numbers but not have a booming economy. Frankly I'm not sure what to think of these numbers other than to say that every time the numbers are released, not matter who is in office, they get revised days, weeks, months later and the revisions basically are always higher. So I think we need to wait and see what the revisions say they are.
 @SeattleJoe  @Mej47 It could be cooked. It could also just be a statistical fluke. When you do something that has a 95% confidence level, it still means there is a 5% chance of random error and being wrong. The timing of it is suspicious, but suspicion isn't probable cause.Â
Â
When you have that, and a decided outlier for "seasonal adjustments" as discussed here http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-05/strangest-number-todays-jobs-number , then you have something that should be viewed very, ah, skeptically. Don't get me wrong, if it really is that good, it's good, but the deck of the Titanic was still looking just about level a half-hour after impact, too, sooooo.
@SeattleJoe  Every month for the last three years the revisions have shown the employment numbers lower and the unemployment numbers higher. Whether the people computing the numbers are just stupid or have a bias is hard to say. If I hired someone to give me this kind of advice and they were wrong 100% of the time I think I'd be looking for a new employee.
 @Mej47 Correct. And if they wait a month (roughly) until they release the new numbers, well what do you know, its right AFTER the election. Hmmm, coincidence.... Frankly the numbers don't add up, as the economist I mentioned explained but I'm still waiting to see what will happen. I suspect people are going to dig into the numbers and find interesting things but who knows.
This comment has been deleted
 @John Tits You are confusing the number of new jobs with the number of people becoming employed. They aren't the same thing. My workplace has created four new jobs since July, only one person has started so far, the other three won't start for another month. A created job doesn't instantly mean one fewer unemployed person. What do you make of "the number of people who said they were employed soared by 873,000"? That number can't be plugged into your equation either. Plus, the workforce is increasing constantly, with people graduating or immigrating.
 @John Tits
Where are you getting that 144,000 number from? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
Â
"The number of unemployed persons, at 12.1 million, decreased by 456,000 in September. (See table A-1.)"
Â
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
Go Obama Go Obama!!! Â Â Once again history shows that Democrats have to fix the complete mess left by Republicans .... AGAIN!!! Â
Â
Â
 @Andrew Bush Since 1961, Republican presidents have been in power 28 years. Democratic presidents have been in office 24 years.
Â
With 4 less years in office, Democratic presidents have created 42 million jobs. Republican presidents have created 24 million jobs.Â
Â
And that does not include government jobs.Â
 @caphillkid  @Andrew Bush Government jobs are a net negative as they are a hole that you pour money in but don't get anything out, mostly. Private sector jobs produce. Obama has shifted many private sector jobs to the government which makes his job numbers even more dismal because his taking jobs and converting them from productive to unproductive hits the economy in two ways. The 42 million vs 24 million numbers have some issues, including what was happening at the time that was not related to the presidents. Wars, dot com bubbles etc can all effect job creation one way or the other and may have nothing to do with the current administration. I'm not saying the presidents don't have anything to do with job creation at all, I"m simply pointing out the obvious fact that the president in office at a particular time is only one of many variables involved with jobs. So, ask you would naturally point out "Exactly. Like Bush had a negative affect on obama". True, I've never said he didn't but I am saying we were promised obama was the chosen one and he would fix all the worlds ills. Four years later the economy isn't fixed, the rest of the world hates us just as much or more, and to boot obama has spent so much money our grandchildren will be paying off his bills.
@Crimsonkid What about a govt. that has territory (as well as takes over territory using military and etc. means) that it then allows people, companies, etc. to use and/or remove the resources from same, and then takes part of the profits as payment for the military, security, infrastructure, controls, etc. used and implemented in the protection and/or takeover, security, controls, infrastructure, etc. of said territories. Not that I am necessarily saying that any of that is either bad or good. It just seems to be the way of the world.
@WhatRJDid @SeattleJoe @caphillkid @Andrew Bush Government is a negative on the economy, it takes the private sector's money to keep government going; there is no such thing as a self supporting government.
 @WhatRJDid  @caphillkid  @Andrew BushÂ
I may have been misleading in my post. What Iâm talking about is jobs. The things you both mention are tied to the economy and are positive to the economy but when comparing jobs a government job is considerably different from a private sector job.
Â
Private sector jobs:
Self funding
               Produce products
               Provide a service not in support of government, usually
               Create own wealth
               Require no subsidies (with some exceptions)
               Produce wealth
Â
Government jobs:
               Not self-funding, require taxes to fund
               Donât create wealth, in fact they consume it
               Consume money, need to be ârechargedâ each year but do not produce
Â
So, its not that what you list are not helpful to the economy, itâs the difference in the jobs. Private sector jobs are income, government sector jobs are an expense. Did you know that there are more government jobs in the US than in all the manufacturing jobs in the US? There are more government jobs than construction, farming, fishing, forestry, manufacturing, mining, and utilities COMBINED. The government also interferes with private sector through inhibiting capital formation (capital being necessary for job creation). Government also inhibits private sector through regulation.
 @WhatRJDid You're so right. As a government worker my income and payroll taxes and property taxes totally don't count. I may as well kill myself :( Â
 @SeattleJoe  @caphillkid  @Andrew Bush You're so right. Government workers add nothing to the economy. They don't pay income, sales, payroll and property taxes. They don't buy things from stores and manufacturers that employ people. They don't pay bills. They certainly don't buy homes. Yeah, a complete net negative the economy.
Â
George H.W. Bush was presiding over a rapidly improving economy at this time in his presidency, far better than now. He was also dusted by Clinton and Perot in the first debate. Although Obama was used as the mop by Romney.  This election is headed in the same direction.  Any improvment in the economy at this point can be directly related to the Republicans gaining control of the House 2 years ago. Same as the '94 midterms.
 @Liberal_Illness Well, one thing is for certain. If Romney wins and the economy improves then the liberals will all say it was because of obamas policies and they will conveniently forget that they have been claiming all along that its bushes fault all these 4 years that caused it to be bad. So, in their minds when the economy is going bad, its Bush's fault. When its going good, its obamas policies no matter how far in the future it gets. Lay your bets on it now, its what would happen.
 @SeattleJoe  @Liberal_Illness If the economy continues to improve for the first 2 years of his term, yes I will contribute that to Obama. If it continues to improve after that 2 years, I will contribute that to Romney. Same treatment i've given Bush and Obama.
 @quidproquo  @Liberal_Illness Then you are about the only liberal (I assume) I know that A) Didn't blame bush from the day he took over until the day he left and then when obama was in office said "Hey you have to give his policies time". I gave Bush one year because I felt that was right, after that he owned it. It didn't matter if he came in to an economy on the downturn, it didn't matter that 9/11 hurt us badly. After a year I said he owned it. The liberals are pointedly avoiding obama owning anything and saying its Bush's fault. Caphillkid, that would be you and related ilk.
 @Liberal_Illness  The Tea Party dominated House passed a lot of bills that never made it to the Senate floor, let alone become law.Â
Â
Which House bills, or House actions are responsible for the improving economy?Â
Â
The Ryan budget that they passed twice and never became law?
Â
The jobs bills that they never passed?Â
Â
Â
This comment has been deleted
@caphillkid @SeattleJoe I can't think of any but neither can I think of anything the democrats have done to help anything; both sides of the isle have been sitting on their thumbs.
 @caphillkid See, there is where your deceptions come in. You treat every bill that is put forth as some kind of great thing and that the republicans blocking the bill as bad. Yet, when so many of these bills would spend us deeper into debt, come with pork barrel spending (hey I'm invoking Jimmy Carter, will miracles never cease?), come with earmarks for who knows what, etc then its easy to see why they are blocked. Others are blocked for purely political reasons which I acknowledge, disagree with and also note that the liberals do it just as much. We need to put the brakes on the spending hard. Also keep in mind that its not only the republicans voting against these bills. Some have been blocked by both parties. We need to put on the brakes and back away from the cliff that obama and his liberal allies are trying to drive us off.
 @caphillkid Its a history thing, not a specific item related to this comment.
 @SeattleJoe 380 times give or take since Harry Reid has been majority leader.
Â
That's called obstructionism.
Â
Your Senate Republican heroes even filibustered the Veterans' Job Bill a week or so ago.
 @SeattleJoe What did I say that was dishonest?
Â
Maybe you can tell us which Republican House bills or measures that were signed into law have caused the economy to rebound?Â
Â
All I'm getting is crickets from Liberal Illness.Â
 @caphillkid  @John Tits Blocking a bad bill is not a bad thing...
 @John Tits  @caphillkid  @Liberal_Illness Honesty from caphillid? I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read that.
 @John Tits You also failed to mention that the Jobs Bill was filibustered by the Senate Republicans and needed 60 votes to proceed to the actual vote.Â
Â
Oops.Â
 @John Tits All you did was change the subject. "Liberal Illness" claims that the recovery is due to the Republicans coming into the House in 2011.Â
Â
So I simply want to hear which of their bills led to this recovery.Â
 When obama was first elected he went on and on about how he inherited the worst economy since the great depression. He started with an unemployment rate of 7.8 % after 4 years of obama's great polices we now have unemployment of 7.8% so by obamas own words right now is still the worst economy since the great depression. Nice going obama, winning.
 @CrankyPanky Uh, did you magically expect the rate to just magically drop when he first got into office? Of course it was going to keep rising after the crash until his policies took affect. It has been steadily declining ever since.Â
 @Chris Christensen I didn't magically expect anything ,I'm just saying 7.8 when he started 7.8 now that's all.
 @Chris Christensen  @CrankyPanky Yes we did expect it because that was what we were told. So were we being lied to in order to get him elected or could he not deliver on his promises? Either way its not good for obama.
@attle OK, since writing and posting are apparently your extremely weak suits, you are now posting that you were trying to make fun of some people who thought the second coming was upon us. Nice try. Those people undoubtedly are not the same people to whom you are now posting. Re: "Who said it then, all the liberals who wanted him elected." Wow. Talk about an exorbitant claim. You are just so delusional and delirious that you donât even know when to stop. But there always are a few that go way overboard. One way or another. Much like you. By the way. In general: 1) the economy is much better than it was during the last part of â08 and a lot of â09; 2) the world does like us better than it did during most of the last 5 plus years of the shrub_darth admin.; 3) one war is essentially ended for us and another is being wound down; 4) many reps., tbaggers, evangelicals, born againers, fraidy cats, etc. blocked the gitmo shutdown any way that they could; and on and on. But I am more than sure that you would neither recognize nor admit any of that. The rest of your post is just even more delusion and delirium from you. Go figure.
 @flyskiwindsurf  @SeattleJoe OK since reading comprehension is apparently not your strong suit lets spell it out for you:
1. Chris asked if I magically expected it to drop
2. I said yes because thats what we were told
3. Caphillkid said obama didn't say he would fix it over night. Point of fact, obama said it would take some time.
4. I pointed out to caphillkid that I did not say obama said it would be fixed overnight.
Now you say I'm schizo because you can't see the obvious that I must now spell out to you. I didn't say obama said it. Who said it then, all the liberals who wanted him elected. We were told all sorts of great things that obama would do like fix the economy, make the world like us again, end the wars, close gitmo, and on and on. According to his supporters obama walks on water and can just waive his hand and all will be AOK. They basically said "we just need to elect him and utopia would just roll into American like the great flood". Nobody can expect things to be fixed overnight, and I don't care who is in office but that didn't stop his supporters of spewing massive hyperbole and chanting O-Bam-A, O-Bam-A. So have you figured it out yet? I didn't actually expect him to fix it overnight for real I simply took the jokers to task for their hyperbole claiming obama would wave his hand and utopia would set in.
@SeattleJoe Boy you must essentially be schizo to post what you do. I.e. In response to Chrisâ question of âdid you magically expect the rate to just magically drop when he first got into office?â you replied âYes we did expect it because that was what we were told.â You next posted âObama didn't say he would do it overnight, and I didn't say he said that.â So what exactly is the difference between âovernightâ and âwhen he first got into officeâ? A day or two, a month or two, or some time after his policies (at least the ones that the reps, tbaggers, etc. didnât block and/or drag their feet on) start taking effect? Careful, some of us can read. You must not have heard of hyperbole as you just donât seem to get it.
 @caphillkid Obama didn't say he would do it overnight, and I didn't say he said that. You are lying because you are saying that I said something that I did not say. Careful, some of us can read. However, obama did say the ocean would quit rising. What a croc.
 @SeattleJoe Now it's you who is lying. Obama NEVER said he would magically fix the economy overnight.Â
 @SeattleJoe  @Chris Christensen  @CrankyPanky Isn't it about time you bring up the gays getting married or how we're going to be attacked because we're not covered blanket of GOP military policies? Getting close to election time...
 @CrankyPanky Actually unemployment was at 9.4% with in 4 months of Obama taking office, before any of his policies could even be enacted.
Â
Try harder.
 @quidproquo  @CrankyPanky No trying needed. We were told he would solve the problems with the economy, the oceans would stop rising, etc. What happened? Why hasn't he delivered. Instead its all been excuses like you just gave. He said he would fix it, why hasn't he?
 @John Tits  @SeattleJoe  @CrankyPanky There are different sets of numbers and always have been but historically these reports are -always- based off of U3.
 @quidproquo If obama stays in office you will get that decade.
 @SeattleJoe I'd say he is doing pretty good if we are back to the precrash number, to be honest. I was betting on a full lost decade.Â
 @quidproquo  @CrankyPanky Slowest recovery since the great depression
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/assets/Hoven%20Recession%201.png
Â
 @RN1 "Slowest recovery since the Great Depression"
Â
Which would make sense considering this was the largest collapse of our economy since the Great Depression.Â