Bush already knows the jobs numbers to be released tomorrow, and....

[AnnInLa]

will release them tonight in his speech. So the jobs numbers must look good. This is what some guy just said on Scarborough a minute ago. Darn.

[WI_DEM]

1. So he is playing with the numbers again

[fdr_hst_fan]

5. As my dear, departed Grandpappy used to say,

"Figures don't lie, but DAMNED LIARS can figure!"

A toast to Grandpappy!:toast:

[Langis]

2. Bullshit

[stray cat]

3. Still a net job loss since he took office.

nt

[Catfight]

4. The real numbers will be released Saturday buried somewhere in

a section no one reads. I tend to look at the classified ads for a barometer of the job situation, and it's very dismal!

[iconoclastic cat]

6. Source? Link? Chicken bones? Anything?

No?

[sangh0]

13. Who needs facts?

After all, we got a quote from "some guy"

[tritsofme]

22. Its the rumor going around the bond markets today

I don't buy it.

But I've heard it too.

[AnnInLa]

28. I heard it on a Scarborough interview...don't know how to link that

[iconoclastic cat]

31. Well, thanks for citing the source.

[AlCzervik]

47. I heard the same rumor from some business guy on cnbc

and he said Bush better deliver on his speech and job numbers tomm. He said the rumors are that they are good but of course none of the talking heads have actually seen them yet so who knows?

[MidwestTransplant]

7. He get's them after the market closes today.

[truebrit71]

8. I doubt this is accurate..

..remember how last month Sean Insanity said he had the number early and it was HUGE.....

WRONG!!!!

I highly doubt he has the numbers...and I doubt that he would release them early seeing as how they can have a profound effect on worldwide markets...

[rockymountaindem]

17. I'd also bet that a) he doesn't know 'cuz they haven't been released

or b) he's not allowed to talk about them before they're officially released. This sounds kinda odd, and I'm suspicious.

[The_Casual_Observer]

9. I don't believe this

This isn't going to happen. The job numbers couldn't possibly look good this month.

[nyhuskyfan]

10. No matter what the numbers are...

We are still in a huge hole from the start of the Bush administration (minus-one million jobs, compared to the +23 million from the Clinton years). We are still 7 million behind their own projections when they passed the 2002 tax cuts. And any minor gains we've managed in the last year have come with quite a cost -- massive tax cuts that have run up the biggest deficit in United States history and debt as far as the eye can see. Even since the very slow economic recovery began and we've added 1.5 million jobs (after losing 2.5), I believe the numbers work out to something like $330,000 in tax cuts for each job created.

Also, the jobs created in this slow economic recovery pay an average of $9,000 a year less than the jobs that were lost in the first two years of the Bush administration. No matter how you slice and dice it, we've gutted our surplus for almost no economic benefit.

It's up to the Kerry campaign and the Democrat talking heads to keep dirving the point home that small month-to-month numbers aren't as important as the big picture. If you lose $100,000 in Vegas, but win a grand back on your last day, you wouldn't exactly call it a successful trip.

[David Dunham]

11. Bush would break the law if he released the numbers early.

[shraby]

12. Since when did breaking the law

ever bother him???????

[dennis4868]

44. and your point is?

[Wright Patman]

14. Stock market is way up

This time last month on the Thursday before the Friday release, the market took a triple-digit hit. Today, it's just the opposite.

* may not know, but someone is obviously leaking this to selected market participants the day before.

I'd say the number (whether you believe it or not is another matter) is pretty good.

[The_Casual_Observer]

15. No indication that the market is up for this reason

Besides, that wasn't much of an increase anyway.

[CJCRANE]

16. Some-one on BBC

said that July (I think) figures were 150,000 less new jobs than expected, and that it could be due to a "statistical error" and the extra jobs added onto the next month's total.

[Zynx]

18. He would go to jail if he did.

That's illegal.

[Wright Patman]

20. Who's going to jail him?

You need to read the Patriot Act. He is a virtual dictator already. The 9/11 scam worked--big-time. Most powers of the U.S. government were surrendered to him in the months after 9/11.

I'm not even sure he can be impeached and removed from office anymore, even if Congress was controlled by Democrats. He might just declare them enemy combatants and sent them to Gitmo.

[tritsofme]

23. He doesn't have to release them, per se

But he can build up jobs in his speech, and the pundits can talk about it tonight, and then we'll roll into tomorrow talking about the stellar jobs report and the amazing bush recovery.

[dennis4868]

46. the guy flat out lied to get a war.....

that has led to thousands of peoples' deaths....i dont think Bush gives a shit if he breaks the law....he has done it so many other times!

[Kool Kitty]

19. Okay, I just got something that might help.

It's from "The Daily Mislead" website. It says "...instead of changing its economic and health care policies, the Bush administration is today announcing plans to change the way the statistics are compiled. The move is just the latest in a series of actions by the White House to doctor or eliminate longstanding and nonpartisan economic data collection methods."

It goes on to say-"In a Bush administration press release yesterday, the Census Bureau said next week it "will announce a new economic indicator" as "an additional tool" to better understand" the economy. The change in stats is being directed by Bush political appointees and comes just 60 days from the election. It will be the first modification of Census data in 40 years."

So when it isn't good news, they'll just skew and adjust and generally make shit up.

www.Misleader.org

[yellowcanine]

29. That probably means they are going to use the "household employment data"

This has never been done before and it is recognized by most economists that these data are not nearly as reliable as the traditional employment numbers. They are doing it because the household numbers are always better than the "real" ones. The way I understand it is that it is a survey that basically asks people how many in the household are employed. Even people who might be working at a temp job one day a week could be counted as "employeed."

[tritsofme]

30. Throughout the 90s the discrepency between Household and CES

was never even close to this big.

So it is a valid topic of discussion.

But the bushies are trying to use it for politics.

[troublemaker]

21. I believe that would be a crime. Anyone know for sure?

[HughBeaumont]

24. How sad is it

When your ultimate economic goal . . . is to gain ONE NET NEW JOB?

[librechik]

25. never forget: Republicans lie

they just and only lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.


There would have to be 3 million new jobs in that report to catch up with the loss over the last 4 years.

Think that will happen?

[Cat Atomic]

26. Doesn't the press already have advance copies of the speech?

If the numbers were in it, wouldn't they already know what they are?

Sounds more like some right wing pundit is trying to put a positive spin on the job numbers while they're still unknown.

[yellowcanine]

27. These numbers are supposed to be kept confidential until the official

release date and time - leaking them early means they could get out to some individuals and not others and create havoc on financial markets. I don't believe this.

[ewagner]

32. Somebody got a link

to the Labor Forecast where Bush* predicted millions of new jobs and then had to revise it downward?

If I recall, even the downward revised numbers were hugely optomistic and the real job numbers don't even approach the rosy predictions.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

33. Sweeney (AFL-CIO) said he promised 5 million new jobs

so he's down 6 million! LOL!!!

anyway, it will proabably be around 150 to 200 K new ones, and it SHOULD be given the pathetic 32,000 reported last month

[MaineDem]

34. The weekly initial jobless claims were UP

WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) - First-time claims for state unemployment benefits rose sharply in the latest week, the Labor Department reported Thursday. The number of initial claims in the week ending August 28 rose 19,000 to 362,000. It's the highest level since the week ended April 10.The consensus forecast of Wall Street economists was for claims to fall to 340,000. A Labor Department spokesman said a portion of the increase in claims was a result of Hurricane Charlie. The spokesman said the hurricane accounted for a "little less than half" the increase.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=795850&mesg_id=795850

[lunarboy13]

35. Oh yes, if Bush says it, it must be true....~puke~

Bush has done this before...If 150,000 jobs are lost and 20,000 jobs are created (minimum wage jobs w/o benefits mind you) Bush will only say that 20,000 new jobs were created. The fact that the true number will be released over the weekend will be lost to most Americans because they'll only hear that 20,000 new jobs were created on primetime tv. This is a game the media can no longer let "Bushie" play.

[snippy]

36. The career people at BLS will raise hell if Bush got the numbers early.

There also will be some angry people in both the stock and bond markets. If there really was a leak, the volume in the stock market would have been a lot higher.

That having been said, I think the jobs number will be low. Maybe even negative. And I think the unemployment rate will rise.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

38. No. I think they might retroactively add jobs from last month

to backload this month's numbers-
only 32,000 last month? why not take 100,000 jobs from last month and make it 300,000 this month?

[seabeyond]

37. the numbers are lies, they will go down in two weeks

we wont hear about unless we run across it on the net

[MaineDem]

39. Or they'll be revised

And we'll never hear about that either.

[NewJeffCT]

40. Umm, why do the Republicans keep bragging about the last 10 months?

I keep hearing the meme: 1.5 million jobs created in the last 10 months.

That is f-ing pathetic, folks! 1.5 million was 6-7 months of job creation under Clinton. 1.5 million jobs is basically 0 job creation, as the economy needs to create 150,000 jobs a month just to keep up with the growing population entering the workforce. (some economists think it's even more than 150,000 a month!)

But, nobody in the media questions this at all...

[seabeyond]

42. we be turnin that ole corner; with a walker perhaps

they are proud we are turnin that corner and the sun is shinin. took for years to get beyond the four month little recession, but we are finally turnin the corner. then again, they did change how they figure this employment number in feb, and march on the number they have given has been revised, always lower

but we are turnin the corner

[liberal N proud]

41. CNN was playing them down earlier, mentioning that the automakers

were cutting back on production and that would lead to layoff in Michigan and Ohio.
So I don't know!
I hate to see bad numbers because that means people without jobs, but I sure as hell don't want the dumb ass in the white house to take credit for it, especially when they wouldn't take the heat for the recession in the first place.
There is only one pink slip I want to see issued and that is to the nut case in the white house

[Touchdown]

51. My company laid off 300 nationwide this month.

Those were union members. I don't know how many managers they laid off, so the real number is probably double.

They laid off nobody in July.

[bringbackfdr]

43. Unemployment would have to drop to 0.5%

People have pretty much made up their minds as to whether they think the economy is doing well or tanking. The majority believe it's tanking; there's not much Shrub can do about that.

[kwolf68]

45. Maybe I am wrong

But I was hearing Shrub was going to talk the economy and the latest news was he was going to go in another direction and talk about the war (wow, we need some of that...we haven't heard much about it) ... maybe he is doing this because if he talks about his economic plan and the #s bust him in the chops then he looks like the giant ass-clown that he really is.

[TheWebHead]

48. I don't believe that's legal

at the very least it would be an abuse of power to leak financial data during a partisan political event.

[snippy]

49. On CNBC Tim Russert said that he had heard that the White House

usually receives the employment report the day before it is released but that Bush was not informed of the numbers since he is giving his speech tonight. This can not be true since there is no way in the world that anyone in the Bush administration would be truthful about something like this.

[RadiDem]

50. I'm pretty sure numbers are DOWN >

I was driving listening to Repuke ralk radio earlier, and they interviwed Karen Hughes and another of the Bush shills.

They were arguing that tomorrrow's (bad) numbers really don't matter, because they don't count the millions of self employed people, INCLUDING EBAY SELLERS !

They were setting the stage for BAD NEWS.

They also said how GREAT Zells speech was, and how he made a fool of Tweety !

I was laughing head off.

[bagnana]

52. ebay sellers?

That is a crack up. Never knew that selling off one's possessions in order to survive = "a job"