CNN Fact Check: Fewer People Now Working Than When Obama Took Office

Posted by on Sep 05, 2012 at 7:41 am

How bad are things going for the Democrats? Even CNN isn’t buying the pathetic propaganda they’re peddling.

Anyone watching the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday night heard the number 4.5 million several times.

“Despite incredible odds and united Republican opposition, our president took action, and now we’ve seen 4.5 million new jobs,” San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, the party’s keynote speaker, said.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who served as President Barack Obama’s chief of staff, and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, who followed Obama’s November rival Mitt Romney as governor of Massachusetts, both cited the same number.

It’s a big-sounding number, given the still-sputtering job market. So we’re giving it a close eyeballing.

After breaking things down they cut to the chase, and it’s something we all knew already:

The figure of 4.5 million jobs is accurate if you look at the most favorable period and category for the administration. But overall, there are still fewer people working now than when Obama took office at the height of the recession.

I suspect some of these other dubious fact check outfits will bother, so props to CNN for at least having the guts to challenge the Obama nonsense.

Tags: , ,

4 Responses to “CNN Fact Check: Fewer People Now Working Than When Obama Took Office”

  1. Bunny Thurston on 5/05/12 at 10:47 pm

    Obama will demonstrate his criminal penchant this coming Friday when the NFP unemployment numbers are released. Usually, the figures are revised and those revisions are announced about 2-3 months later. Well, since those 2-3 months later will now fall AFTER Tuesday, Nov. 6, it can be expected that the BLS will report a new low U-3 number, most likely UNDER 8%. Who will challenge this figure? This number is so important that it better be analyzed and micro-dissected to ensure that it isn’t manipulated downwards in an arrogant attempt to demonstrate that Obama is turning around unemployment. Of course, you can expect that the October number to be even lower than this Fridays number.

  2. James Horn on 7/07/12 at 7:36 am

    How do we define jobs? A person can have two different jobs and be in two different labor markets. Employment is really jobs filled. It is civilian and does not include the military. No one is unemployed in the military. Suppose I take your job and make two jobs out of it or take two jobs, combine them together and they become one job. If the aircraft industry lays off 2,000 people for 2 years then hires them back again, are they considered as new jobs? So 20 years ago,
    75% of the young people graduated from high school out of 20 million 17-18 year olds. The number graduating was 15 million.
    Now we only have 16 million of which 15 million graduated currently.
    Is our education system progressing, standing still or declining or becoming more effective. The labor force is growing older and more people are having more spare time to do something with. They decide to go looking for a job. They once had a job while in their 20’s but are now in their 50’s. Do you count them as a new entrant or a re-entrant into the workforce? I was a labor economist from 1970 to 1976 in the middle of all of the aircraft layoffs. Somewhere in 1973, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) adjusted their way of counting employment. In one month, the unemployment rate jumped up from 2.6% to 4.6% while employment actually stayed the same. BLS said that it was all based on the 1970 Census and re-adjustments. The same number of people were still there. How they were being counted had changed. Do I want to compare a 12 month running average with another 12 month period running average and de-seasonalize everything? Instead of monthly, let’s start using 12 month running averages. Let’s start using that in our utility bills, bills paid and money spent and car license permits for comparison. That would make much more sense to me. How about you?

  3. James Horn on 7/07/12 at 7:52 am

    Oh, and one other thing. How many of you know what a benchmark is, difference between a labor and work force, initial claim and corellation between the employment and unemployment rate?
    The rates are obviously inversely related. Right? Guess you could call it a see-saw effect. A fulcrum is that item which is exactly in the middle. When comparing the RNC versus the DNC regarding BS, I think that the see-saw would be perfectly balanced. Now that I have been deluded by all of the deluded facts, where do I go from here?
    Confusion has been so compounded, that they will have to create a new major and hire a new pharmacist who knows how to mix it. If you mix well with a crowd and mix good drinks you might be able to mix it up with the best impersonators.