Sen. Sweatervest wants to kill Big Bird? And eat him? Has Charlie Pierce mentioned lately what a colossal dick Rick Santorum is?

Also, too, never forget:

Santorum refers to candidate Obama as a "Nig-" (18 second video on web page linked to - no autoplay)

Get Enraged and Engaged:
Mooch the Vote 2012!

;-)

I have to admit. I needed that Santorum quote. Hahahahahaha....

Willard's military theme is to run and hide and always has been. It also includes his time at Bain, his time as governor, his time at St Lake City Olympics, his off shore accounts, and most of all his taxes.

You left out his "deployment" to France during the Vietnam War...

WOW Shooter, what a turnaround from what you've said in the past!

You didn't think the Stock Market and Unemployment numbers were "manufactured" in the past!! Do I sense "sore loser" here????

BTW, the stock market is rising because the money IS NOT being "parked" - if it were being "parked" the money would be sitting in Treasuries!!

Shooter, your mind is as rubber as your hero Romney's is!!!

How WILL you get yourself "unravelled" after the election? Or will you go straight to the looney bin?

Sooooo now the Dem's are controling the Dow too? Damn those crafty Socilists faking people out by using Capitalism!

Well let's see - According to Republicans when Romney is ahead or even in the Polls, the numbers are accurate. When President Obama is ahead than the Republicans reverse themselves (just like their candidate), and than the polls are manipulated and inaccurate. When the job numbers are bad the Republicans rejoice over the numbers and never question their validity, but when the numbers are slightly improved the Republicans reverse themselves once again and are shouting their new conspiracy theory -the numbers are false they have been manipulated. Personally I preferred the movie "Conspiracy Theory" with Julia Roberts.

Shooter stated last month I believe it was (or whenever the last reports were given out) that unemployment was dropping because businesses were hiring at the prospect of Romney becoming president. When challenged Shooter's response was that Romney, just by being Romney, would make businesses want to hire because Romney is pro-business and Obama is anti-business. When pressed Shooter could not identity what made Romney pro-business or Obama anti-business, nor could he explain how the perception of Romney being pro-business created growth (or provide evidence for the assertion). So apparently now that the numbers are reflecting even BETTER employment prospects it has shifted from being a sure sign that Romney is going to win to it being a conspiracy.

You can't make this stuff up

Misfire,misfire. Holster all guns while range control contacts FOX for advice.

Right. A huge .4% swing in unemployment, in Obama's favor, the month before the election, was just coincidence. Even as the job number wasn't enough to keep up with population, a new record for food stamp recipients, juiced consumer credit numbers, and a stock market Main Street has abandoned.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-05/us-foodstamp-usage-rises-new-record-high

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-05/consumer-credit-soars-uncle-sam-resumes-handing-out-billions-student-loans-reckless-

Now, if you really think the market is on a roll, I encourage you to bet the ranch and dive right in. Those flash crashes are nothing to worry about.

Personally I expected a surge in the job numbers because students returning to college passed jobs to others. This happens annually, it is nothing new

Re zerohedge.com source: Tyler Durden? Really?

Tyler Durden is Zero Hedge. Yeah it's odd, but one can learn a lot about the more arcane aspects of finance there.

I really like popcorn.

I think he forgot the first rule of Fight Club.

The drop in the unemployment rate only makes sense if you understand the source. Now, logically, how can you add only 114,000 jobs and reduce the rate by .3%. The jobs added comes from a survey of employers. The rate comes from a survey of households. The rate implies an increase of 873,000 jobs. The real number remained the same - unemployed and underemployed -over 14%. Plus, the rates for both blacks and hispanics still exceeds the average. I would suggest neither gloating nor conspiracy.

Let's also not forget Obama made recess appointments while Congress was still in session. Apparently nobody follows rules, tradition, or anything else.

ROTFLMAO!!! Like no other President has ever done that!!! Shooter, you really are ignorant, aren't you? Crack a book sometime!!!

I had no idea. Who else has done that?

Bush did, Clinton did, Bush the first did...virtually every modern president in US history has made recess appointments.

Pooper's got the stink of failure on him so strong I can smell it right through the internets. We best get busy hosing down the fire hydrants after this performance.

Recess appointments? What an abuse of power! That tyrant! After all, it's not like it's in the Constitution, or anything. Oh, wait a minute... completely unlike the filibuster, which has been abused by Rape-Public-CONs to interfere with the President's Constitutionally defined appointment responsibilities (and to do so, by their own open admission, for purely partisan reasons), this is in the Constitution:

Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution:
"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

What other Presidents might have ever done this?

Well, George Washington, for one (the first one, after all). And, more recently:

•President Ronald Reagan used this privilege 243 times.
•President George H.W. Bush used this privilege 77 times.
•President Bill Clinton used this privilege 140 times.
•President George W. Bush has used privilege 171 times (as of April 4, 2007).

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/chart-day-presidential-recess-appointments

Sorry, I must not have made myself clear. I know other Presidents have made recess appointments. The key feature here being that Congress was in recess. Obama has made recess appointments while Congress was NOT in recess.

Yes it's based on a technicality, but that is what law is about. Technicalities.

Obama made appointments on the days congress was not scheduled to be in session. There is a way to fix this: congress could show up on the days nothing is scheduled to be voted on or talked about and that would prevent the president from making an appointment. As long as they are not physically in the building, however, he can do it. The irony here? They could change the law, too, if they don't like it.

And just so you know, no Obama is not the only president to have done as much. Again it's a common thing when you're being filibustered by the senate at an unprecedented rate. Or have you completely forgotten all the hoops Bush jumped through to get his people appointment when the Democratic Party filibustered him? Again IOKIYAR. But when it's a Democrat that does it then zomg everybody freak.

You're just making it up as you go along. Tsk. Congress was in session. Interestingly it gets to decide if they are session or not, not you.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-02-14/recess-appointments-cordray-nomination/53094876/1

I love barbecue, too.

Obama's recess appointments: Unconstitutional?

Republicans charge that the president broke the law by making appointments while Congress was on vacation. But just who's bending the rules here?

I'm not making it up as I go along Shooter, you strawmanned the statement that I gave. I said that they were not scheduled in session for the day that he made the appointment. If you can't read for context then you fail at presenting a case in every circumstance.

The funniest thing about the article you linked to Shooter is that it claims right there in black and white that George Bush did the same thing. Funny how you tried to make the appeal to ignorance argument 6 seconds ago.

You actually need to read the articles you're using to "prove" your argument before hand. This is not the first time you've claimed the article to be backing your story when in fact it either directly contradicts your story or you're misrepresenting what it says and taking it out of context. And since you complain that this is what Democrats and Maddow do all the time I'm guessing this somehow won't be proof to you that, YET AGAIN, IOKIYAR.

Ah...

Projection:

the unconscious transfer of one's own desires or emotions to another person :we protect the self by a number of defense mechanisms, including repression and projection.

Everyone can see it from the Republicans. They boldly boast about their ability to break the law in broad day light in front of a camera ... and no one challenges them on it. It will be very interesting to see if anyone follows up with the suppression of votes (intimidation, misinformation on websites, cleverly placed billboards in poorer neighborhoods where they think the 'lazy 47%' dwell, etc. etc.) and prosecutes those who encouraged it. I'll make sure I do my part to see that that happens. I'd suggest for all the Republicans to do the same if they honestly feel there's been tampering with the whole jobs report thing. Isn't that how these things work? Gather your evidence and then make your case. Until they do that it's all just ... Projection. It's a great word. I'm sure we'll be using it often.

You actually need to read the articles you're using to "prove" your argument before hand.

You've reminded me of something kind of funny. There was a right-wing 'report' on how sharia law is taking over American courts. I can't remember the title of the stupid thing, so, sorry. And I also can't remember where I read the savage take-down of the thing. It's gotta be more than a year ago, maybe even two years, and I simply read and moved on. But, anyway, the 'report' cited a whole bunch of court cases to prove the idea of creeping sharia, but as the take-down pointed out, none of the cases actually backed up the idea that American courts are using sharia to decide cases. Just the opposite, in fact. These were all cases in which Muslims were one one side, at least, and that was about it. And I remember in the comments to the article demolishing the 'report' that people were puzzling over the fact that in the 'report' certain words the the quotations from the court cases were in bold face: Muslim, Islam, Islamic, and that kind of thing. And then someone pointed out that in all probability the bold-face words were the search terms used to gather the suppositious evidence of 'creeping sharia'. The people who created the 'report' simply did an Internet search, and assumed that anything containing the search terms proved their case and never bothered to actually read the cases cited.

I have to imagine that S*ter does the same thing: he performs a search and links to the results without taking the time to find out whether or not what he links to actually supports his case. It's not just him. It's just how right-wingers approach the idea of evidence. Reason number 4,372 why there's not much point in engaging with them (if it's rational discourse you're after).

Point taken. And you're right. I'm sure half of them don't even come back to their posts -- just dump all over everything, don't pick up after themselves, and then continue on to the next blog. :)

Gee, it sounds just like the points Romney was making in his debates. Maybe President Obama already knew how to deal with the garbage.

Don't feed the trolls - especially if their names are Willard, Mittens or Romney

NATO = Not Able To Organize (trust me I used to work there)

Part of this, I also think, has to do with the adjusted unemployment numbers that just came out (+330,000) and with those dropping off the rolls because they've stopped looking. In general the overall unemployment/underemployment rate has dropped from it's high of 17% down to about 13% now. Still not moving fast enough, but it's going in the right direction no matter what source you use. Still, though, I don't blame you for raising an eyebrow at the sudden jump. Much of this too, if I had to guess, is seasonal hiring that also isn't be accounted for (did people forget that it's October already? ;-)). For me what I look for is, is the overall number going up or down? Is the trend that we're adding jobs or losing jobs. We're adding jobs, so it seems to me the trend is going the correct way.

I'm not a conspirator but there are some oddities associated with the new unemployment rate of 7.8

Right.

September jobs report: Debunking the jobs report conspiracy theories
Posted by Ezra Klein on October 5, 2012 at 10:16 am

We’ve hit that moment in the election when people begin to lose their minds. Case in point, within minutes of the jobs report, Twitter filled with Republicans claiming the books were somehow cooked, the numbers aren’t real, etc.

Let’s take a deep breath. Jobs reports are about the economy, not about the election. Confusing the two leads to very bad analysis.

This is a good jobs report in a still-weak economy. The 114,000 jobs we added in September aren’t very impressive. The revisions to the last two months, which added 86,000 jobs to the total, were much more impressive. Those revisions also suggest that September’s jobs could get revised up — or, of course, down. So be careful about reading too much into that number. Still, these are, at best, good, not great, numbers.

The controversy, if it’s worth using that word, is over the unemployment rate, which dropped from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent. That’s three-tenths of one percent. That’s what all the fuss is about.

Let’s get one thing out of the way: The data was not, as Jack Welch suggested in a now-infamous tweet, manipulated. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is set up to ensure the White House has no ability to influence it. As labor economist Betsey Stevenson wrote, “anyone who thinks that political folks can manipulate the unemployment data are completely ignorant of how the BLS works and how the data are compiled.” Plus, if the White House somehow was manipulating the data, don’t you think they would have made the payroll number look a bit better than 114,000? No one would have batted an eye at 160,000.

The fact is that there’s not much that needs to be explained here. We’ve seen drops like this — and even drops bigger than this — before. Between July and August the unemployment rate dropped from 8.3 percent to 8.1 percent — two-tenths of one percent. November-December of 2011 also saw a .2 percent drop. November-December of 2010 saw a .4 percent drop. This isn’t some incredible aberration. The fact that the unemployment rate broke under the psychologically important 8 percent line is making this number feel bigger to people than it really is.

The number could, of course, be wrong. The household survey is, well, a survey, which means it’s open to error. But the internals back it up. The number saying they had jobs increased by about 800,000. That seems high, but it’s counting 582,000 who say they got part-time jobs.

There’s precedent for this. As Daniel Indiviglio notes, part-time jobs increased by 579,000 in September 2010 and by 483,000 in September 2011. It might simply be seasonal hiring. You don’t need to resort to ridiculous theories like Democrats across the country suddenly deciding to lie to surveytakers in order to help Obama.

Which leads to another argument: That U6, the broadest measure of labor-market pain, didn’t move, which should make us skeptical of the fact that U3, the normal unemployment rate, did move. That’s just misunderstanding what U6 is.

U6 is not an unemployment measure. It includes part-time workers who want full-time work. So it doesn’t count the increase in part-time work. But every measure of actual unemployment — U1, U2, U3, U4, and U5 — went down. You can see them all here. Again, there’s no mystery.

This is an encouraging report. What it tells us is that the labor market has been a bit better over the last few months than we thought, and that the recovery hasn’t slowed in the ways we feared. What the response to it tells us is that the election is driving people a little bit crazy.

Yeah, it's not like teapubs ever "cook the books" or commit voter fraud or intimidate voters or manipulate their taxes or things like that.

/SNARK

Boy, Obama sure is stupid. If he were smart, he would have been faking the numbers for MONTHS! We'd be at 4% now, and everyone would believe it! Why didn't he think of this before? Stupid Muslim atheist socialist Kenyan golfer!! ;D

BTW, disinterested political observer Jack Welch was known as Neutron Jack during his time at GE for his layoff and downsizing policy that slashed employees but left buildings standing.

I agree with cartoon.

I agree with Ezra on:

Still, these are, at best, good, not great, numbers.

Only in the context of what cartoon mentioned, that the trend is still moving in a positive direction.

Disagree with Ezra on:

That’s three-tenths of one percent. That’s what all the fuss is about.

It is not just 3/10ths of a percent, it is a 3.7% improvement which is no small amount for a monthly adjustment in a struggling economy.

(3.7% computed by dividing part (3/10th change) by the whole (8.1 rate)...as the President says, "it's math")

Look, the spin on this is out of control. First let me say I'm probably to the left of most MSNBC viewers, I think ROmney is the worst candidate the GOP has slapped up there in a LONG time. But the jobs numbers are a result of a formulation device put in place in 1980. The 7.8% rate is the U3, the household survey, composed the same way polls are composed with a margin or error, etc. This is the chart from the BLS website (look at it carefully and make sure I didn't get it from somewhere else, I want everything to be aboveboard when I use basic math to prove my point):

As you can see, the U3 isn't the only rate listed. There are others but pay particular attention to the U6. This is a more accurate rate, byut itisn't used simply because it would freak the public out. It's not even a complete stat, either. But I'[m not getting into that right now. Going with the U3 rate--artificially low no matter which party is in office--it doesn't count marginally attached workers. This month, there were 2.5 million unemployed folks who fell off the U3 because they haven't been able to schedule an appointment for an interview in 4 weeks. The BLS, strictly adhering to formula--doesn't count them in the U3 but they are counted in the U6 which is why the U5 is higher.

The new jobs added based on population growth are the result of the "birth-death" model used by the Labor Department to estimate jobs added by new businesses. That model has been heavily criticized for being inaccurate. How many new people enter the job market each month? Typically the figure economists cite as the minimum number of additional jobs needed to keep the unemployment rate flat is about 150,000 to 200,000. I tend to think it's the lower number, closer to 150,000 new jobs are needed to employ JUST the number of new employees.

So, if 114,000 new jobs are created and 150,000 new people need jobs, then we are short 36,000 jobs. This means 36,000 new people would be counted as unemployed if they have actively sought employment in the past 4 weeks. Any arguments so far? SO those new jobs didn't go to any of the unemployed people who already existed--not the new people entering the job market, but the people from last month who didn't get jobs, and the ones the previous month who didn't and etc etc etc. After revising the data from July, 31,000 net jobs were added (181,000-150,000), and in August, only -8000 jobs were created (142,000-150,000). I wasn't aware of the July revisions, and that's outstanding, but it's one of the very few months with a net job creation in the positive range. Most months based on the population growth vs job creation, we have a net jobs in the negative range. This month, until they do revisions, we have a net jobs loss of 36,000 jobs.

So, the only way the unemployment rate goes down, is to remove unemployed people from the U3, as I stated above. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's a flaw in the formula. Because the job market is SO BAD, many unemployed people (and it's much harder to get an interview when you are unemployed than ity is when you are employed) have a harder time getting an interview period. And if they don't get one in a month, it doesn't mean they aren't looking, it means the market sucks. And this formula calculation flaw that says if you can't find a lead to a job in a month, then you are discouraged and not looking is completely bogus. Thus we have the schedule with the bogus U3 stat (7.8%) and the more accurate but incomplete U6 (14.7%). The real rate is anywhere from 18 to 22 percent. That includes the "long-term unemployed".

But here is the most accurate statistic for employment there is: the civilian employment-population ratio. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/EMRATIO_Max_630_378.png. In August, it was 58.7%, the lowest it has been in this latest downturn (2008-present). It's part of how they calculate the better known unemployment rates, but those other rates contain formulas that water down this stat. That's why you have the different schedules. 58.7% percent of the US population ready and willing to work is 142,101,000 Americans. Total US population is 314,526,000. 206,000,000 of those are working age adults. There are 58,000,000 people of working age who are not working for various reasons, but mostly because of the job market.

It's not a cosnpiracy theory, it's math. It's cherry picking data. It's using the nebulous U3 instead of the U6. MSNBC loses credibility by claiming it's a conspiracy theory to point out how flawed the data collection is. It's math, and I'm disappointed in my fellow lefties for not seeing that. Election years bring out the worst in US citizens. Romney's plans are isiotic. If he's elected, he'll screw everything up even worse. But the jobs report isn't that good, it's still a net jobs loss, not gain.

Jef Po: Thank you for your detailed and minute explanation of how the unemployment calculations works. However. . .

Where did you see MSNBC claiming a conspiracy in progress? It isn't MSNBC claiming the garbage, it is the Republican Party, FOX news, Jack Welch, Adam West, etc. MSNBC has been deriding the idea (all except for Joe Scarborough, who is the same as the above mentioned right wing whatevers) all day. Check it out.

, "t is the Republican Party, FOX news, Jack Welch, Adam West, etc."

Holy Blunder granmapoet! I take you mean Alan West not our beloved Batman Adam West. Sorry had to go there. ;-)

Maria:

My apologies, I have this problem that when I really dislike someone, I can't remember their names. My abject error. Yes, I meant Alan West (the absolute most venomous, disgusting person to ever sit in a leadership position).

Forgive me, Batman. I knew not what I did.

Don't apologize, you are right and I appreciate the correction - greatly!

granmapoet

Will you join me in giving Alan West a KAPOW!!!!

:-)

Yup! Especially if I get to put my foot in his mouth when we have him down. Want to join in?????

I add to that a WAM! Take that evildoer West. What you can't speak Alan because gran's foot is in your mouth? Good going gran!

I don't think you get paid for the dots, Shooter!!

They took his !!! away

Mr. Mitty holds court on the topic he's most knowledgeable about. Critics rave, a bravo performance.

Killing something = loving something

I hope to never hear of Rick Santorum complaining about how hate crimes legislation are unnecessary since all crimes are motivated by hate or any other argument in which he has now thoroughly debunked his own thinking.

Yes, the Lyin' Sack of Mitt and his performance is getting rave reviews:

- Presidential Debate Fact-Check and Updates - Live Coverage - Election 2012 - NYTimes.com

- Taking Note: Mitt’s Energy Policy Whoppers

- Fact-Checking Romney's Energy Statements at the Debate - NYTimes.com

- Romney’s Sick Joke - NYTimes.com

- Lies | ThinkProgress

- At Last Night's Debate: Romney Told 27 Myths In 38 Minutes | ThinkProgress

- The Biggest (And Least Discussed) Lie Of The Debate? Romney's False Claim About Clean Energy Bankruptcies | ThinkProgress

- Factchecking the first presidential debate - The Washington Post

- The First Debate: Mitt Romney's Five Biggest Lies | Politics News | Rolling Stone

Mittiots still in denial.

Do tell wyatt: what lies did President Obama give during his debate?