Edwards: Bush Hides Dismal Jobs Record

[Clark4Prez]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20040903/ap_on_el_pr/edwards

GREEN BAY, Wis. - Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards on Friday blamed President Bush for failing American workers and said the president was trying to hide a dismal record on job creation.

"The truth is not enough jobs are being created to even take care of the new people going into the work force, much less the hundreds of thousands of people who have lost their jobs over the last several years," Edwards said at the beginning of a two-day bus tour of Wisconsin.

"The one thing you can count on, this administration — President Bush and Vice President Cheney — they are going to try every way they know to put lipstick on this pig," Edwards said. "But you know, when you put lipstick on a pig, at the end of the day it's still a pig, isn't it?"

Edwards spoke at a rally at Bay Beach Amusement Park about an hour before President Bush campaigned about 200 miles away near Milwaukee, a day after the Republican National Convention.

[Longhorn79]

1. I'm confused, what's the truth on this 144,000 number?

I mentioned something similar to what Edwards said "not enough jobs are being created to even take care of the new people going into the work force, much less..." Somebody then pointed me to the labor department numbers which gives something in the 600,000 jobs were created, with 144,000 being net after new entries into the work force. I'm no economist, but I would like to know what the deal is.

[bahrbearian]

3. Could be counting Farm payroll jobs, Which aren't counted

in the reports.

[Jim__]

5. There are 2 surveys.

One is the payroll survey and that's the one that's always used to measure new jobs data, that's the one that gives the 144,000 new jobs number. There is also a household survey. That is not the measure that is used to determine the number of new jobs; but it contains an estimate of that number. The 2 surveys often disagree. My guess is that the 600,000 number comes from the household survey. Sometimes the household survey is wildly off in the other direction (I believe for a few months this year it showed huge job losses - the person you spoke to probably would not accept the this survey as the basis for the total jobs created this year). The 144,000 jobs number is the one that would be used to measure against historical data; and my understanding is economists and statisticians rate it as the more reliable number.

One more thing, the model used for the payroll survey was changed; I think in March 2003. There is some sort of birth/death model. In 2003, they changed the model so that when a company goes out of business, they don't count its jobs as lost; they take the growth in the other companies and apply it to the defunct companies. So, it sounds to me that since March of 2003, the payroll survey has been overstating job creation, at least when compared to the historical data.

[Longhorn79]

6. thanks

Not that I totally understand it now, but maybe a little more.

[sandraj]

2. from the article...

"Amy Dennis, 27, of DePere, said she lost her job a month ago and liked how Edwards talked about creating jobs, 'making it easier for everybody in every day life.'"

Bread and butter issues are important to a lot of people, and both Kerry and Edwards know how to speak to that. Bush's religious ideology and use of 9/11 for selfish political gain have become tired and worn.

[flordehinojos]

4. doesn't bush try to hide any truth about anything pertaining to

his failure as a human being sitting in the white house?

the man does not know how to be truthful...lord! the bush household must be so screwed up. i don't even think that they are truthful with one another. truth is a rare commodity among the bushes that must be why they lie so swiftly and adroitly to the entire nation.