How's That 'Change' Working Out for You?

Not very well but then I don't drink the Kool Aid.

Obama is still my hero.

Considering we were losing 800,000 jobs a month when Obama took office and are now gaining 250,000, and that GPD was down 6% and is now approaching plus 3%, I'd say were are doing pretty well under the circimstances.
Not to mention gay Americans have a REAL champion for our rights in the White House, which we have never, ever had before. Some people's glasses are always half empty ,while other's are always half full.

Oh if only the president was the liberal they like to claim he is, oh if only he had brought the sanity and reason of a European style social democracy! But unfortunately it's more of the same laissez-faire filth the wrong-wingers roll around in like pigs in... well you know.

Massage something other than numbers. Where's your source?

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com Washington Post website: The "not in labor force" did NOT increase by 1,177,000 last month. RATHER, the numbers changed due to the BLS making modifications in its January 2012 numbers based on the 2010 census (the December 2011 numbers were still being made on prior population estimates). Based on the 2010 population controls, the "not in labor force" appeared to have increased by 1.2 million in January 2012 over December 2011, and the working age population appeared to have jumped 1.7 million. However, that is NOT what happened last month - actually the BLS numbers changed because of the BLS using the new population estimate. While the reported number suggests there are about 1.2 million more people out of the labor force than was originally thought, this is only because the working age population is larger than previously estimated.

As the BLS further indicated in its report, when you look at the January 2012 numbers compared to the December 2011, without accounting for the population change (in other words, when doing an apples-to-apples comparison), the "not in labor force" level actually DECLINED in January 2012 from December 2011.

Here is another

No Rick Santelli and Zero Hedge, One Million People Did Not Drop Out of the Labor Force Last Month

By Barry Ritholtz - February 3rd, 2012, 4:15PM

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/02/no-rick-santelli-and-zero-hedge-one-million....

So today following an otherwise pretty darn good jobs report, we get the usual perma-pessimists at Zero Hedge and Rick Santelli over at CNBC proclaiming that the report showed a drop of over 1 million people from the labor force in one month. Of course, as ususal, both Santelli and Zero Hedge have a real reading comprehension problem and completely missed that this million+ people isn’t some new January phenomenon, but a result of the BLS using the 2010 census data to have more accurate data. In other words, the changes in the Household Survey to the various measures had taken place over the years prior to 2010, but for simplicity’s sake, the BLS incorporates these changes into one month (which they clearly point out). The relevant text from the report is below (bold is mine):

“Effective with data for January 2012, updated population estimates which reflect the results of Census2010 have been used in the household survey. Population estimates for the household survey are developed by the U.S. Census Bureau. Each year, the Census Bureau updates the estimates to reflect new information and assumptions about the growth of the population during the decade. The change in population reflected in the new estimates results from the introduction of the Census 2010 count as the new population base, adjustments for net international migration, updated vital statistics and other information, and some methodological changes in the estimation process. The vast majority of the population change, however, is due to the change in base population from Census 2000 to Census 2010.

In accordance with usual practice, BLS will not revise the official household survey estimates for December 2011 and earlier months. To show the impact of the population adjustment, however, differences in selected December 2011 labor force series based on the old and new population estimates are shown in table B.

The adjustment increased the estimated size of the civilian noninstitutional population in December by 1,510,000, the civilian labor force by 258,000, employment by 216,000, unemployment by 42,000, and persons not in the labor force by 1,252,000. Although the total unemployment rate was unaffected, the labor force participation rate and the employment-population ratio were each reduced by 0.3 percentage point. This was because the population increase was primarily among persons 55 and older and, to a lesser degree, persons 16 to 24 years of age. Both these age groups have lower levels of labor force participation than the general population.”

So Rick/Zero Hedge, unless you would like to argue that the population of the United States also grew by 1.5 million in one month (since that is from the exact same report/revision you quoted), I think both of you should retract your extremely misleading statements about those not in the labor force increasing by over a million in January and simply admit that you are either too stupid or too focused on selling a particular world view to read the data correctly.

So much partisan talking points bullshit here but let's talk about gas prices. Your quote that "gas was $1.79 when Obama's entourage slithered into Washington" is typical misleading republican spin developed by taking a slice of data and extrapolating a theory upon it. Truth is U.S. average gas prices were hovering around the $3.20/gal mark for much of 2007 and 2008, and spiked in the summer of 2008 to $4.12/gal just before the bottom fell out of the stock market. They bottomed out around $1.60/gal in Dec 08 but everyone knew they would come back up to some extent, which they did. When Obama "slithered" into office, gas prices were back up over $2/gal and in the summer the prices spiked (as they always do in the summer to capitalize on summer travel, blame Exxon Mobil et al for that) to about $2.60/gal and remained relatively stable for more than a year--in November of 2010 US Average prices were still about $2.86/gal, but by May of 2011 the price had soared to about $4/gal again. Hmmm. What happened in November of 2010 that suddenly made gas prices soar upwards again? Oh, that's right--a midterm election and a flotilla of Red seaweed washing into the House of Representatives, hell-bent on making the President look bad so that they could regain power at the expense of the economy. So let's call out your little rant for what it really is, part B of the plan to staple the blame of whatever economic foibles still plaguing our county on the back of Obama instead of the do-nothing obstructionist Congress where it belongs.

But hey, don't take MY word for it, you can look up the FACTS for yourself:

http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?time=24

Pretty damn good for me, but obviously not too good for you. Could be a lot better if we didn't have a whole group of GOP obstructionists trying to screw the pooch. Can't have too much success with that and snarky pissed-off Progressives slamming the Pres every time he doesn't walk on water. Does one actually thing one will fare far better under a Plastic Mitt, aRon Paul or a fat-assed Newt ? I think not.

Well it's working for those that have millions of dollors in their off shore accounts.

Not working out at all.