Shared publicly  - 
 
If his performance in Wednesday night's debate was the best thing that could have happened to Mitt Romney, today's jobs numbers, which showed the unemployment rate dropping below 8 percent for the first time in 43 months, are probably the worst.
32
4
David Brandt's profile photoGeorge Frink's profile photoSan Reddy's profile photoBruce Orr's profile photo
90 comments
 
Nothing funny about that in a month's time right before the election, eh? The least you can do is report it, but please keep the comments to yourself, it may come back to bite you big time for playing a part in the story.
 
Mitt lied about his positions, used a cheat sheet and berated and bullied an old man.  That is how you win on Wall Street not Main Street.  
 
There is something really strange with this jobs report. I expect ABC will do it's usual lousy job of analysis - and after reading the link - how can you call that analysis? No mention of the 340K people who stopped looking for work or how the household survey doesn't match the BLS report or that the total unemployed is still almost 15%.
 
+Jacques Dupuis +Al Lilianstrom  are you accusing the BLS of fraud?  It has never had a single case of substantiated fraud in its long and storied history.  If you have information about this you should call the FBI.  

If you are pulling a Romney and just lying to make a point, than go back to Alex Jones or whatever conspiracy site you crawled out of.  
 
+Rarian Rakista part of blame goes to Jim, for being run over... he knew what he was getting into and this was one of those 'milder' debates... dunno what wd have happend to Jim, if Obama had got aggressive... :) 
 
+Rarian Rakista 
You mentioned Romney twice and Alex Jones once in this retort. There was nothing about them in what I said. You have issues, and those I cannot help you with. I could give you a great reference if need to though. Let me know. In the meantime, thank you for your concern. It is appreciated.
 
+Jacques Dupuis You accused a federal agency of fraud, put up your evidence.  Come on, don't pull a Romney on us.
Joe S
+
1
2
1
 
yes, which allows unintelligent people like you to say what they want... +Jacques Dupuis 
 
+Rarian Rakista 
It must have it a nerve, for if you see the word "fraud" in what I wrote, you have some hallucinations going on. Have you seen the comment that Jack Welch twitted about the subject? Perhaps you may want to check that out.
 
+Joe Salas 
Perhaps you are wasting your time chatting with unintelligent people like me. I will now go take a "bio" break, while you can go to the bathroom like everyone else. OK?   8-)
 
+Jacques Dupuis Jack Welsh is a loon, he believes in a free market with zero regulations.  He personally saw 10's of thousands of jobs shipped over seas. He is not an economist, you are still accusing the BLS of fraud as these numbers come out monthly.  

What is fishy about them?  Fishy is not an economic term I am familiar with.  
Joe S
 
Who controls the past now controls the future
Who controls the present now controls the past
Who controls the past now controls the future
Who controls the present now?


THE TRUTH!
 
I got use to take this numbers with very grainy salt: these numbers will be revised in week or two after all.
And I believe that unemployment rate will drop even more, because in less than 4 weeks my unemployment benefits expire. And I'm 65 without any chance to find a job.
 
+Rarian Rakista 
Look at the news going on now. If you think that I am the only one questioning what is happening, you are in a different world. There are a lot more highly qualified people looking at it now and going... ????  Attacking the Messenger like Jack Welch is your answer?  
 
+Simon Greenshpan I'm not sure, but quite close. All I know the timing is very interesting. It doesn't matter for I know who I'm voting for. 
 
Both sides will view and present these figures how they want. But the  signs are that the US economy is recovering, slowly, but how can you accelerate that recovery when EU is still in a mess and most developing markets such as China and India are slowing down.

 Even Romney has not promise to radically change things, only promising to add jobs which many analysts think will be created no matter who running the White house or congress. 
 
In the chicken and egg argument of paying off the deficit, I agree with Romney. You can't create consumer spending from government spending, you have to encourage businesses and their owners to create jobs. The only way people take the risk of creating jobs in a stagnant economy is creating a long term environment of prosperity that businesses double down and bet on, hiring and spending capital to grow their operations. His cut and close approach on taxes makes more sense than people give it credit for. What does everyone think the effective tax rate means? It includes deductions, aka loopholes which low and behold are the biggest reason the wealthy enjoy such nice rates(their financial managers/accountants know the in's and out's with the ridiculously huge tax code pretty well by now). Working and Middle class people generally don't have the many different revenue streams that the wealthy do to reduce their rates, nor do they have accountants to do the reams of IRS paperwork and protect them from audits, so lowering the overall rates for everyone helps them the most. Just the basic logic of his approach is point blank showing up the assertion that he's giving the wealthy tax breaks. He doesn't need to say specifically what breaks he's going to close because that just means he'll get nickle and dimed by the opposition when the general idea is what starkly differentiates him from Obama.
 
I understand what Romney is saying about creation of jobs, what I don't get, even when on Obama's site is his plan. Maybe someone smarter than I can answer these questions:
1) How does taxing me more, encourage me to spend more for hiring?

2) How does restricting drilling help with creating jobs? Green Jobs cant even equate?

Just a start...
 
+Dan Lewis Green Jobs are longer term and have a wide range of industries that are needed to support them locally.  Oil and gas is largely automated now and employs a fraction of the amount of people.  
 
Imagine folks annoyed because more people are employed...smdh!!!
 
It is another lie to boost Obama's confidence by the media and government agencies thinking they can back and correct it later anyway because people are morons. The truth is no matter what the administration does during the election year to boost up their false claims, people dont forget the hardship they been undergoing. So MEDIA please  report some common sense.
 
By the way i heard many of you, media and campaign keep asking to Romney to show the details of his plan. The question, did anyone ask the same question 4 years back. Do any one reveal their ideas in a very hostile campaigning. Just look back and see what happened. Mitt shared his plan on China and then what happened. Someone took that idea and tried to implement during the election year. 
 
From what I can remember when I took a course in accounting.  The law of Supply and Demand drives the market.  Nothing else matter.  If people are not buying your goods, you will not need to hire more people to produce more goods to sell.  It is simple math.
 
can you give me a number +Rarian Rakista what a "fraction of the people" are in oil industry? Also, long term for green jobs...what is the current count of green jobs to oil jobs?
 
why did you answer the 2nd question and not the 1st +Rarian Rakista ?


1) How does taxing me more, encourage me to spend more for hiring?
 
Rarian is a lefty who believes what he learns on MSNBC. More people receiving Government handouts.....that's a good thing? You know why they don't want you to feed the bears, because they get fat and lazy.  
 
When I become President, I will eliminate the deficit, obliviate poverty, educate our children, and find the cure for cancer.  I need your vote.  
 
Dan... The taxing part of the few of us who did better than the rest will help pay for the deficit.  Jobs will follow if America ha higher credit and can finance growth through investments.
 
Jim, I think they do not want you to feed the Bears because they will keep coming back and when you do not have food to give them, they might eat you instead.  However, Bears has nothing to do with people who lost their job because of a crashed market.  People like to work.  If you found a job that pays you 500/week, you would definitely take it over a 200/week welfare check.
 
Why are conservatives rooting for bad economic news?
Ask Mitch McConnell. 
 
Rarian Rakista, nice spewing of liberal propaganda there.
 
Facts that can be "adjusted" next month, after the election, are really just propaganda.  How many people left the workforce?  Did more people go on disability than found jobs?  Did the pool of workers shrink, thus making the unemployment rate look better?  These are the facts an independent investigative reporter would look at.  Durable goods orders are tanking, all surveys show businesses are tightening their belts, so I raise my eyebrows at this stroke of "good luck" for Obama, just 30 days before the election.
 
So +Dr. Johnny Sandaire "Jobs will follow if America has a higher credit" so what you are saying is that if I pay more taxes, my incentive to hire..(jobs will follow) is if I borrow money to grow: so instead of using my own money from the profits to expand and grow, I should borrow and pay interest to grow instead of using money that I would normally have because I no longer have it because I paid more taxes? Did I understand that correctly? I pay interest and waste money instead of using money I could have kept to grow?

Also, we talk about everyone's fair share ....if those making 250k and above are paying their fair share, what share are the middle to low paying? how do they as good Americans contribute?
 
Nothing strange about the jobs numbers.  I would expect Americans to behave like mature adults but that seems to be too lofty an expectation.
 
How is the timing suspect?  These numbers are released at regularly monthly intervals.  

Grow up, people.
 
Dan,  The United States of America is in trouble and we have a deficit because we are borrowing more money than what we have to continue to function and meet our commitments.  When we were attacked on 9/11, we had to defend ourselves.  This level of retrofitting, repair, and defense required spending.  Our president at the time used the power of his office and declared War on our enemies; we did not have to justify the cost at the time; so we borrowed from our nest eggs, such as Social Security and Medicare funds.  Our president at that time also decided to spend our surplus that we had at the time on Tax Cuts and cash refunds.  I remember receiving a check for about 500 dollars from that move.  So, the results of these moves left our coffers a bit dry and empty; then, we were hit with a financial meltdown.  Our economy plunged and most Americans lost their life savings that was stored in 401 plans.  Our local industries collapsed and corporations could not sustain the local workforce due to reduced demand for their goods and services; so they had to lay-off workers who did not fit the "essential" mole.  Most corporations at the time were shifting to a model where they sought cheaper labor to produce their goods; specifically, the support industry was outsourced to areas where the labor force was cheaper.  

Hence, WE in America suffered a disastrous crash, which left our economy in shambles and our debt also spiked due to our ongoing commitments.

We need to get our house in order and pay our debt.  The top income earners (the 1%erts) are being asked to pay a little more.  Everyone else is already paying what they can through other taxes.  The only tax that most people in the lower bracket do not pay is at the area of income taxes, which is a progressive rate.  If you fall below that rate, they you do not have to pay it; nevertheless, you still pay other taxes, such as sales and everything else.  

... 
 
+Michael Cruise  An it been 24 months of improvements, there even a simpler answers against conspiracy theorists, the figures over the last 3 months have been slowing down in job growth figures, if Obama team wanted to manipulate the figures surely they manipulate them to show an acceleration in hires, not a slow down. 
 
The jobless rate is hardly the whole story here - the rate is so low because less people are participating in the workforce. If the same number of people were participating in the workforce as when Obama took office, the rate would be over 10%. 

The real unemployment rate, the U6 number, is 14% and has been for some time. These numbers are all sorts of out-of-whack and just indicates an unstable economy.
 
+Mike Mac Okay...it peaked at 17.2% in October 2009 (while Obama was President), and is at 14.7% today. So it's gone down 2.5% in two years. That's considered a recovery? That's anemic. 
 
+Jacob Bodnar   considering there has been zero  GOP support for anything related to anything, , having it stabilize from a vertical trajectory and come down any in spite of the lack of help from the Right is pretty darn amazing, almost unthinkable.  Not sure how he pulled that off myself honestly.

But the GOP says it is not the governments responsibility to create jobs. (at least that is what they claimed a year ago, and during the entire GWB administration)

SO what is your suggested solution?  Give tax breaks to those businesses that are already getting tax breaks, recording record profits, paying record bonuses, and still not hiring?  Give the rich more to eat so the scraps that "trickle down" to the lower classes are more plentiful?
 
+Jacob Bodnar If you look at other countries in the world, yes you would consider that a recover. 
 
+Mike Mac I'm not going to get into a big discussion about how to solve the economy, etc, I simply don't have the time or energy for that. 

I will say one thing: leaders don't make excuses, they simply get it done. Obama's first four years have been littered with excuses for why the economy is not better. 
 
+Dan Lewis looking at economics historically businesses small and large achieved more profits under democratic years, in the last 50 years, than republicans. Also why would you want to vote for policies that failed us in the first place? I don't see how anyone would want failed policies back in the white house.

http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=81872
 
+Jacob Bodnar he is a president not a dictator.  Congress makes the laws, they have been threatening filibusters since day one.  
 
+Rarian Rakista Then can someone explain how Bill Clinton managed to work with Republicans to pass legislation. Or ya, know any president that has passed legislation with an opposite party in control? The excuses are absurd. Or maybe why the Dems failed to pass a budget. Or explain why Obama's budget got not a single vote in the House, from Dems or Republicans? 
 
THe Republicans have been using the greater than 8 % unemployment rate to batter Obama, now that the rate has dropped below that magically number, they are yelling the numbers are a plot
Cannot have it both ways.
 
+Dan Lewis - higher tax rates encourage businesses to use their profits on qualifying business expenses as a tax avoidance tactic. That's why the past 12 years of continued tax cuts have not really shown much growth in hiring - low tax rates are an incentive to stash the money instead of spending it.
 
It's in anticipation of Romney winning the election
 
+Jacob Bodnar   I agree we will not solve anything but I must say,  a lot of people, seem to have the need to substitute the words "an excuse" in places where the words "a reason" are more appropriate and accurate.  But I understand why.
 
+Charlie Bradbury   when all polls indicate the opposite of what you are claiming, how does that makes sense?  Wall Street and business historically does not go against the the flow to that extreme, unless they are shorting stocks and hedging for failure.
 
+Thomas Boeckers: here it is in a nut shell - 

Set aside statistics for a second, because i have seen the numbers lean both ways,  and answer with a base core:

You see it as profitable borrowing money and paying interest to expand rather that simply using your own profits to expand? 

I raised my kids to save money and buy things, not borrow.
 
+Charlie Bradbury There is zero indication that is the case or they would be dumping healthcare stocks as the ACA gives a massive amount to private healthcare.  

If you have information on this you should take all of your money and short healthcare stocks.  
 
+h mack right and this has to do mainly with congress not passing a single jobs bill while the GOP was in charge.  
 
Does Mitt Romney own a flip flop factory?

Just Asking because I would buy a pair.
 
Guys, over years the politicians have changed the way jobs reporting is done. The real unemployment is much higher. Ask any political junkie and they will confirm the way jobs are being reported has changed not showing the real numbers.
 
I am not trying to argue with you. It doesn't matter if it was changed 10 or 5 years ago. The fact is the numbers are not true numbers because of the changes that were made in the way that they are reporting the numbers. It is really much worse then reported.
 
Lol its funny how many times Romney has "rebooted" his campaign.  Its really silly because I really don't understand what he believes in anymore, and sometimes he contradicts himself within two or three sentences.

Romney can never be accused not standing by his position because he has had all positions.  At least you know what Obama's record is because he sticks to what he thinks is right... for better or worse.  
 
To change the reporting to the real metric where is once was you would have to fire every politcian. The politcians know the real numbers, they are just good at keeping that news from the public. I think you understand this....
 
so this is changing positions +Mitchell Jenkins ?

"What I have to say to Scott is his economics are right. You don't raise taxes in a recession. We haven't raised taxes in a recession....we have not proposed a tax hike for the wealthy that would take effect in the middle of a recession. Even the proposal that have come out of Congress, which by the way were different than the proposals I put forward, still wouldn't kick in until after the recession was over. So he's absolutely right. The last thing you want to do is to raise taxes in the middle of a recession"
 
David Knowles:  Except that the Obama administration isn't manipulating numbers.  Stop with the unsubstantiated nonsense!
 
Heritage and Red State are not unbiased sources, want to show us what the Marxists think next?   
 
+Michael Cruise  I did not say they were being manipulated, I stated why it obvious that they are not being manipulated. 

+Dan Lewis  Why would defence contractors be helping out Obama when he the one that is going to be imposing cuts on the military, why Romney have pledge to maintain current level of expenditures on the military and protect the military from any future cuts. 
 
+Dan Lewis yes it is.  He said he would reduce rates and then eliminate loopholes (which are tax increases) to generate revenue...  just think about that statement right there.. He is raising taxes and reducing taxes at the same time... once again, he has somehow managed to take both positions at the same damn time.   It is very confusing.

Of course the loopholes being closed are unknown.  He wants to cut all unnecessary government waste (like Big Bird) and yet he wants to add 2 trillion (!) to the inflated defense budget  (which is utterly unnecessary... really though, just seems like maxed out corporate welfare to me).  He is a cutter and a spender at the same time.
 
Wow after Obama gets crushed at the debates and a month before the election the unemployment percent magically drops. Yeah I totally believe that.
 
+Mitchell Jenkins How many different taxes are there?  I'd say at least 100.  So if I reduce 30 different taxes and close the loopholes on 40 others, thus increasing revenue while giving stimulus to the economic sector...am I not both decreasing and increasing taxes?

The problem is your association of what the statement means.  If Romney, by increasing and decreasing taxes, reduces the overall tax burden on the individual and small businesses, but increases the revenue gained on bigger businesses, he is creating a larger revenue stream.  He is facilitating a higher revenue stream by creating more employment opportunities.  He was exactly right when he said, in the debate, that there are only 3 ways you can increase revenue.  Raise taxes, cut spending, or employ more people in the workplace.  If Obama is only interested in one of those ways, but Romney is interested in two of those ways (technically all three), whose plan is more likely to get the job done.  The one who puts all their eggs in one basket and hopes for the jackpot?  Or the one where he has 3 times the likelihood of succeeding?

It's simple math, really.
 
+Joe Adams I see what you are getting at and respect your interpretation  but I disagree with your analysis that it is simple math.  You have said more about his plan than he has.  Word going around is that there aren't enough loopholes to overcome lowering taxing across the board like he says he would.  I think we deserve to see some details before we make our minds up.  What are you planning to close, how much revenue will this generate.  I want some numbers!  I am not being unreasonable.

Edit:  And by the way, how will increasing corporate taxes generate higher payrolls... This is definitely not simple math to me.
 
Looking at Romney's numbers, I applied them to my in-laws, both retired and in their 80s (I do their taxes for them). They have about $40K/yr income (SS & some annuity investments). Currently for 2012, they would get a standard deduction of 11,900, plus 2,300 for being over age 65. Their 2 personal exemptions would be 7,600. So, their total deductions would be 21,800, and their tax liability would be 1,860 (if Romney considers them in his 47%, he missed the boat, they do pay taxes). Under Romney's plan, their total deductions are capped at $17K, so they lose $4,800 in deductions, which drives their taxable income up by the same amount from 18,200 to 23,000, and their tax liability goes up to 2,064, an increase
 of $204. Calculations from 2012 tax table, with Romneys rate adjustment:
 
17,400 X 8% (dropped from 10%) = 1,392
 
5,600 X 12% (dropped from 15%) = 672
 -------
 Total Tax Liability = 2,064
 
So Romney happily tells us in the debate, with his plastic TV preacher smile, that his tax plan won't raise taxes on the Middle Class, but rather will reduce them. Well, this doesn't seem to be the case for my in-laws, now does it? Now an increase of $204 isn't a backbreaking amount, but when compared to the whopping big savings many wealthy will get, something doesn't add up. It seems as if Romney doesn't really think his plans through, simply doesn't understand the numbers, or is just throwing stuff out to make it to like he knows what he is talking about, but then again, this is the Romney we all know and love.
Also, he proposes dropping the top rates for the wealthiest by 10 percentage points (35% to 25%), but dropping the Middle Class rate by only 5 percentage points (25% to 20%). Who gets the better deal, especially when you consider that the top rate applies to a higher level of income, resulting in a much greater dollar savings AND because we have a graduated system, the wealthy will have part of their income getting the Middle Class savings as well as their own. Spin it anyway you like, but it's pretty obvious whose butts Romney is kissing.
 
+Michael Dunbar   good write up,  he did not bother to point out in his sales pitch that the percentage of loss of deductions vs gross income would be much greater then the advantage of a lower tax rate.....
 
+Mitchell Jenkins Everything that I have said was taken straight from his website and this past debate.  Romney has said more than I have stated, and so I am confused as to why you think he has not.  

There are two loopholes, which by themselves would generate more revenue than any tax increase on the wealthy could ever generate.  The first is the dividend loophole that currently is set at 15%, which is why Mr. Romney and those in his same category, are able to pay such low taxes.  The other loophole has to deal with what percentage of a deduction one can take, in relation to ones income.  Currently the loophole is set to give people the ability to claim more in deductions than what someone would owe in taxes, in essence halving the amount of taxes one would owe.  Those two loopholes being closed would send a massive amount of revenue into the Government's coffers.  BUT!!  It comes at a steep price because the loopholes would be lifted off of everyone and it would effect the investment income of everyone, creating less disposable income and sending the markets into a tizzy.  And this would create problems for businesses as they are currently fixed on a market-driven economy.  They would have to go back and restructure themselves to fit that kind of economic model and it would create a lot of chaos for a few years, resulting in more economic uncertainty and potential layoffs until the company can restructure itself.

Romney does not plan on increasing corporate taxes.  I surmise that he intends (based on the Ryan budget plan) to almost cut them in half.  This would create a better balance in trade for the US, and could easily restore the entire manufacturing sector.  Which is a huge bonus for the US, but not so much for the US's trading partners.

Obama cannot give you hard numbers, so it is doubtful that Romney could, either, outside of normal talking points that are fed to them by advisors.  The only person of the 4 (Pres/VP Candidates) that could, is Paul Ryan...as he is fluent in the financials of the governments spending and revenues.

All I have to do is look at the more balanced and sensible approach offered by Romney, to know that the simple math of it (and yes it is simple on the surface of it), is that a multi-pronged approach to reducing the deficit, increasing revenue, and getting people back to work is better for the economy and more sustainable in the short and long term, than to simply raise taxes on a group of people who have lived their lives in search of finding every loophole imaginable to pay the least amount of money.  The government is not nearly as good at economics as those in business are.  Just look at the stock market vs. the federal governments bottom line and you will see that the market has doubled in growth, while the government has doubled in deficit.

It's simply time for a new perspective.
 
+Michael Dunbar Your numbers are incomplete, because you don't know which loopholes would be able to be taken advantage from.  While in theory your in-laws would pay more, if their income is in dividends and the loophole for that remains open to them, then their income would not be effected.  It's too hard to make carte-blanche statements about the potential of someone's economic system when it hasn't been expounded upon.  This is always the difficulty of a presidential race when there is an incumbent and a challenger.  It was much easier when Obama ran, because there was no incumbent.  McCain was not a business person, was part of the old-crony network of Congress and was easy pickings for a 1st term (half-term) Senator.  Obama ran on promises for hope and change, no real leadership experience, and very little specifics in his plans that were more vague than what Mr. Romney has proposed.  The Ryan Budget spells out quite clearly what Mr. Romney's proposal starts with.  But that has yet to be examined for its merits because Democrats are using Ryan's 2011 budget numbers and not the updated 2012 numbers.  That was the one of the biggest reasons for bringing Ryan on, in the first place.  Because he already had a concrete economic/budget model in place from which to work with.
Add a comment...