The Paddock

They aren't supernatural. It's just methodical implementation of good solid policy. I know that does seem supernatural to conservatives but it really isn't. If the conservatives cared half as much about results as they do backwards ideologies and conspiracy theories they might understand arithmetic and the country as a whole would be a lot better off.

What are you talking about? So you're saying the unemployment the first year Obama was in office as his fault and not the previous administrations?

You know... Rush Limbaugh made a prediction 2 years ago that the unemployment rate would magically drop below 8% right before the election.

Don't ya just hate it when Rush is right?

Why does anyone put any credit in these numbers.

We all know that the number is BS when compared to the the real number of unemployed, underemployed.

Hell, they even admit it doesn't count people who gave up looking for work.

What has Obama done to bring jobs back to America?

Nothing. He is a corporate puppet like all the other President's we have had.

Obama is basically a fraud with his only plan for anything is "Hope". I "Hope" he goes away.

Stop listening to right wing radio people. They lie. Simple as that. This number isn't an opinion. It's math and facts. The number is 7.8%. Unless of course you believe in conspiracies and in this particulaty conspiracy there would be 1000's in on it, including republicans. Of course you believing a right wing hack over proven data doesn't surprise me a bit.

Hope and Change ... Obama

Hope is not a strategy ... Romney

Hope is not a plan ... Anderson Cooper

All people are born alike - except Republicans and Democrats. .... Groucho Marx

Yeah,,, and left wing tv/radio people tell the truth, right? LMAO

It's probably based on some statistical evidence, There are thousands of legitimate ways to calculate the unemployment rate. Nobody believes that with a rate of 7.8% unemployment that there are really 78 out of 1,000 people looking for work.

The value in the Bureau of Labor Statistics' unemployment rate is that it's been calculated the same way month after month and goes back for several decades (1948 is when it began to resemble what we use now, with a major--and controversial as I recall--revision sometime in the 80s or 90s). To me, the number isn't valid, but the trend is important. When it goes down, that's good and when it goes up, that's bad.

As you said it's the same number that's been used for decades. So the cons can't cherry pick it. If you're going to use it to bash you have to give credit when it's good and improving.

DA I have no idea what you're talking about.

Jobless claims drop to 4 and a half year low. I guess all these guys are lying too.