He doesn’t know enough to answer criticisms of them. All of his best rebuttals came the day after, and we’re assured that others will be forthcoming, according to David Axelrod. But you know, it takes time to coach him.
So your position is that any unresponded-to criticism means inability to respond? Shall we see what result we reach when we apply this model to Mr. Romney?
Romney has top notch economic advisers, one in particular. He asks “How do we create more jobs?”, turns it over, and it says “Tax cuts!”. Or, “What is our best education proposal?”, he turns it over and it says “Tax cuts!”. Or, “What is the meaning of life?”, and he turns it over…
Official 2012 deficit - $1.1 trillion
Down $200 billion from 2011.
By % of GDP, the deficit for the following years:
2009: 10.1%
2010: 9.0%
2011: 8.7%
2012: 7.0%
revenue up:
Net receipts from corporate income taxes grew by $61 billion (or 34 percent), largely because of changes in tax rules in recent years.
Individual income tax receipts grew by $37 billion (or 3 percent), as wages and salaries grew modestly, pushing up withheld tax payments; nonwitheld tax payments rose as well.
Receipts from social insurance taxes rose by $32 billion (or 4 percent), reflecting greater withholding for payroll taxes and an increase in unemployment insurance taxes as states continued to replenish trust funds that were depleted by the recession.
Receipts from other sources increased, on net, by about $18 billion (or 9 percent).
Outlays down:
Medicaid—Outlays fell by $24 billion (or 9 percent) because legislated increases in the federal share of the program’s costs expired in July 2011.
Unemployment benefits—Spending dropped by $30 billion (or 24 percent), mostly because fewer people have been receiving benefits in recent months.
Defense—Outlays fell by $19 billion (or 3 percent), after adjusting for timing shifts, in part because of lower spending for military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Education programs—Net outlays were lower by $29 billion (or 30 percent), excluding changes recorded in the budget for the estimated cost of student loans. That decline has occurred largely because of waning spending from funding provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. (Most of that spending occurred before 2012.)
Only increase in outlays predictably came from SS and Medicare.
Obama knows he’s just being goaded into argument about minutia. Not an argument about the need for regulation, something the red team didn’t want until they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Of course that does nothing to advance the discourse.
Romney buffers his inability to respond by just making shit up.
You just know the hottest new websites next week will be unskewedemploymentnumbers.com and unskeweddeficits.com.
If I ran a business, I know where my online advertisements would be going. Just saying.
Whenever Republicans get together, somebody is going to get unskewed, and unskewed good and hard.
Population data comes from the household survey, not the establishment survey.
Nonsense. First, the number of new jobs does NOT have to match the number of additions to the population. That would mean an increase in the percent employed. To keep the same ratio, the percent changes would have to match, not the change in level.
Second, the Unemployment numbers come from the household survey. The establihment numbers aren’t used in calculating the labor force. Unemployed dropped 456k but Employed went up 873k for a net increase of +418 k to the labor force. You can’t mix and match surveys, especially because…
Third, the Establishment survey is only non-farm payroll jobs, not total employment. It excludes agriculture, self-employed, unpaid family workers, people working under the table etc. These are captured by the household survey.
Part time employent went DOWN, not up: Table A-9 What you’re referring to is the change in Part Time for Economic Reasons, which did go up.
Ummmm show me the math on that. If each individual reprents approximately 2,000 other people, so that if one person gains employment that would be extrapolated to 2,000 new employed, how are you getting your numbers?
And yes, my example was way too simplistic.
Birthers, and wackjobs and Right wingnuts the lunatic fringe is the only group that thinks the Job numbers are wrong. OMG it’s Fucking sickos who want the country to lose.
Nonsense, they don’t want the country to lose, they want us to think so just long enough for them to win. Then they tell us the truth and claim credit for it.
No, they aren’t. Most economists and financial analysts I’ve read say that the household survey numbers are almost certainly due to variance due to low sample size. The nutjobs are claiming that it’s an Obama administration conspiracy, but the serious people just think it’s statistical noise.
The real number is probably right about where the establishment survey was: 144,000 new jobs. That’s roughly in line with what economists had been predicting before the report came out, and it’s the most accurate survey of the bunch, historically. It also correlates well with all the other financial data that came out at the same time.
The thing to remember is that this is the way unemployment is always measured. There have been a few tweaks over the years, but this methodology hasn’t changed since Obama became president. And the folks who report this are not political.
The number is as good or as bad as it has always been. My understanding is that it’s +/- 0.2%. It would not surprise me at all if it was back at or above 8% next month, even if nothing seemed different. Or it could be lower and nothing might feel different.
This is true, but historically the household survey has been wildly inaccurate (in the past, it’s been wrong by over a million jobs on a couple of occasions), and the household survey is almost always wrong on the high side.
And while I hate to fan the flames of conspiracy, I have to point out that the household survey is not carried out by the economists at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, but in fact comes from the Census Bureau. And the Census Bureau was moved under the oversight of the White House in 2009, causing a lot of Republicans at the time to suspect shenanigans. I say that not to suggest that there is in fact shenanigans going on, but to point out that Republicans could make a case that the people involved in the survey are in fact reporting to a White House that has a strong vested interest in a certain outcome. So it’s not totally inconceivable that there are politics involved.
That said, I don’t know how easy it would be to game that survey. I don’t know the methodology, what kind of paper trail they maintain, what kind of cross-checks are done, etc. But if you were going to pick a survey to game, that would be the one. Its historical variability means you could find a ‘correction’ to the data after the election and chalk the outlier up to variance and no one would look askew at that.
The Census Bureau conducts the survey, and then gives the data to the BLS to incorporate with their Establishment Survey.
What did you mean when you stated, “And the Census Bureau was moved under the oversight of the White House in 2009?” Census is part of the Economics and Statistics Administration under the Department of Commerce. Was that different prior to 2009?
Wikipedia claims it was made part of the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903. What has suddenly changed that could “fan the flames of conspiracy.”
I hardly see any worthwhile distinction. This seems to be that the Census Bureau conducts the gathering of data, but the real work is assembling and interpreting the data.
Not quite. Census collects the data, but transmits it to the BLS National Office. BLS does all the work on the survey, although often Census adds additional questions on for their own purposes.
And the CPS is in no way “incorporated” into the CES, they measure different things.
Wow, talk about nit-picking. I said the Census Bureau collects the data, then gives it to the BLS to incorporate it with the Establishment survey, and your response is, “Not quite - Census collects the data, but transmits it to the BLS”. Unless there’s some nuance I’m not getting from you, we’re talking about the same thing. When you say the BLS ‘does all the work on the survey’, what exactly are you talking about? The Census Bureau does the actual survey. If you mean the BLS takes the results of the survey and then prepares the final reports which break out the numbers and include the establishment survey, then yes. This in no way contradicts anything I’ve said.
John Mace: You seem to be nitpicking as well. My understanding is that the head of the Census used to report to the Commerce Committee, and the T/O was changed to have him report directly to the White House. Is that not correct? If so, then the White House has controllership, or at least a responsibility for oversight, if ‘reporting to’ means anything like what it means in the private sector. The person I report to is responsible for my actions, and I’m responsible to him.