13 Million

That’s the approximate size of Obama’s job deficit. 13 million. Wow.

How could anyone get reelected with such a tremendous failure on his record?


41 thoughts on “13 Million

  1. Cluster March 16, 2012 / 10:24 am

    How could anyone get reelected with such a tremendous failure on his record?

    An ignorant base and a dishonest media.

  2. Amazona March 16, 2012 / 10:30 am

    How could anyone get reelected with such a tremendous failure on his record?

    By appealing to people so stupid they can only process the claimed number of “new” jobs “created” by The One We Have All Been Waiting For, without looking at the fact that they have not even begun to replace the jobs lost.

    The Obama smoke-and-mirrors accounting of the job situation is like the guy who announces that he “won” $500 at a casino. If you ask him a couple of questions, you learn that he went to the casino with $1500, lost all but $5.00, and then won $500 right before he went home.

    A thinking person would realize he lost $995.00. But a mindless math-deficient lemming would congratulate him on his “winnings” and tell people how well this guy had done at the casino.

    • J. R. Babcock March 16, 2012 / 10:44 am

      By appealing to people so stupid they can only process the claimed number of “new” jobs “created”

      Oh, come on now; doesn’t The One We Have All Been Waiting For at least get a little credit for the 37 trillion jobs SAVED?

  3. Cluster March 16, 2012 / 10:38 am

    From the report:

    Americans should be working right now. However, according to the February 2012 figures provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of non-farm employees in February 2012 was 132.7 million, leaving a difference of 12.9 million jobs

    What Biden said yesterday:

    “Simply stated, we’re about promoting the private sector,” Biden said.

  4. bardolf March 16, 2012 / 10:44 am

    “How could anyone get reelected with such a tremendous failure on his record?”-B4V

    JP Morgan is buying lots of oil futures. Not options on oil, not derivatives but oil futures. Does JP Morgan need lots of oil? Nope. But with buying the underlying futures contracts they can create a seeming shortage of oil and make sure their bets aka oil derivatives don’t end up losing money. All of this is financed with cheap loans near 0 percent care of the Fed. Wall Street is at 13,000 and they finance the billion dollar electoral campaign of Obama not the college students holding placards.

    That is how Obama will be reelected.

    • RetiredSpook March 16, 2012 / 10:47 am

      not the college students holding placards.

      You’d better hope they just continue to hold placards.

      • bardolf March 16, 2012 / 10:55 am

        Why do I need to hope in a continued complacency of working class students who are having their futures sold off to an elite in Chicago and New York?

      • RetiredSpook March 16, 2012 / 11:13 am

        Why do I need to hope in a continued complacency of working class students

        Not sure exactly what you’re asking, Dolf. As usual, your sentence structure doesn’t make much sense. Did you mean “hope for”? I don’t see students occupying parks, demonstrating and holding placards as “complacent”, but I do see the distinct possibility that a violent element will take hold as they discover that peaceful demonstrations and tent-filled parks aren’t accomplishing anything. And I don’t know what’s happened to groups across the country, but the occupiers who spent the winter in Freimann Square in Fort Wayne just got kicked out by the police last Sunday morning. BTW, the Mayor of Fort Wayne is a Democrat.

      • bardolf March 16, 2012 / 1:01 pm

        “I do see the distinct possibility that a violent element” – Spook

        I don’t see that possibility at all. The “violent” element has been placed in prison or given Ritalin or tasered

    • Cluster March 16, 2012 / 11:06 am

      So barstool, you’re saying that the Obama presidency is all about the privileged class? I don’t disagree, but –

      “They’re (GOP) about protecting the privileged sector. We are for a fair shot and a fair shake; – Joe Biden

      Again, it’s that ignorant base thing. Also, with a regulation or two, oil speculation can become a non issue. Simply have speculators take possession of the oil they buy – done.

      • bardolf March 16, 2012 / 12:52 pm

        If an airline thinks it will need X amount of fuel in October 2013 and buys a futures contract, but demand for flights are down should they be forced to take possession of the fuel or should they be allowed to sell the contract? You see the law doesn’t say company xyz is a speculator and company pdq is not.

        The law should be that the amount of options on oil to hedge against the price fluctuations should never be more than the underlying need of oil as seen in futures contracts.

        In any sport, if the amount of betting vastly swamps the salaries etc. of the players one shouldn’t be surprised at bribing of the players. In this analogy, when the bets on the price of oil swamp the actual market fundamentals of supply and demand one shouldn’t be surprised at the gaming of commodity prices.

  5. RetiredSpook March 16, 2012 / 10:59 am

    There are around 20 million unemployed and underemployed in the U.S. The question that keeps coming back to me is, who did those people vote for in 2008, and who will they vote for in 2012? The second obvious question relates to the mostly young people who make up the Occupy Movement, who, as a block, voted overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008. Last fall sites like KOS and Hufpo were going on and on about how the Occupy Movement was the GOP’s worst nightmare. Google Occupy Movement + support for Obama now and you don’t get an article newer than December, 2011. Even ignoring the unemployed/underemployed demographic, if Obama loses a significant number of the 18-24 segment, he’s toast.

  6. Jonathan Swift March 16, 2012 / 11:50 am

    This is getting plain ridiculous. Just for anybody who cares, an 8.3% unemployment translates to 12.8 million people unemployed (from the same BLS study this moron of a congressman is citing).

    That’s right, it is patently impossible to employ that many more people, because there aren’t that many unemployed people in the country based on the figures he is citing.

    And for the third time, before the retard brigade comes in here and starts yelling at me, I’m using the same study he is citing for his figures, so any whining about how the real unemployment rate is higher than 8.3% or how that doesn’t include underemployment is beside the point. It comes down to basic chart reading skills. You know, the things we were taught in like 6th grade. Like realizing that “non-farm” workers obviously does not include our entire workforce because people do, in fact, work on farms.

    The outright contempt for empirical accuracy is getting to the point where I’m nearly convinced you guys are a lost cause. You seem happy to live in your own little world where the value of any statistic is not how reflective it is of reality, but how useful it is for bludgeoning your political opponents.

    • mitch March 16, 2012 / 12:29 pm

      Jon your correct. And JR, that’s exactly my point. This site uses Fox News as THE standard so your implication is the cause of bemusement. I guess I should have been more specific about the Tea Party’s unpopularity.

      • J. R. Babcock March 16, 2012 / 1:00 pm

        You’re not too good at recognizing sarcasm, are you Mitch? And for a loonie-toons Lefty like you to reference a Fox poll is, indeed, cause for bemusement.

    • Cluster March 16, 2012 / 12:48 pm

      The outright contempt for empirical accuracy is getting to the point where I’m nearly convinced you guys are a lost cause. – Jonathan

      Excellent rebuttal Jonathan. Except for the fact that you just glossed over the continued high unemployment rate of which Obama promised would be lower, that only counts of course if you actually hold Obama to what he says which liberals will never do, and the fact that over 1 million people have simply given up and dropped out of the work force.

      But good job pointing out meaningless semantics and you can thank Mitch, your faithful side kick.

    • J. R. Babcock March 16, 2012 / 12:58 pm


      Many people accepted the CBO figures for ObamaCare, which appear to be off over the first decade by as much as 250%. Original estimates for Medicare back in the mid-60’s for the first 25 years of that program were off by over 700%. How much faith do you have the BLS firgures for unemployment are even close to accurate?

      • Jonathan Swift March 16, 2012 / 1:40 pm

        See, I pre-empted you three times and you still went for it. The figures cited to get the 13 million figure were from the BLS.

      • RetiredSpook March 16, 2012 / 1:55 pm

        See, I pre-empted you three times and you still went for it. The figures cited to get the 13 million figure were from the BLS.


        Read this analysis, and tell me you still have complete faith in BLS statistics.

      • Jonathan Swift March 16, 2012 / 1:58 pm


        If the BLS is a worthless pile of trash, why is this blog using them incorrectly to come up with figures like this 13 million? Every single number used to do that calculation came from the BLS.

      • RetiredSpook March 16, 2012 / 2:36 pm

        If the BLS is a worthless pile of trash, why is this blog using them incorrectly

        Swifty (or is it Corey), you’re going to have to address that question to Matt or maybe to Count, who has a more thorough understanding of how the BLS operates.

      • Jonathan Swift March 16, 2012 / 2:43 pm

        Frankly, I’d think you would be embarrassed. After all, you just went on in the other thread about how you follow through and do the research and make sure things are true, but you clearly hadn’t even clicked through on this article to see how the figure was being calculated.

      • Count d'Haricots March 16, 2012 / 3:52 pm

        Swifty’s little Hobson’s Choice is fundamentally flawed.

        First, and Spook knows this far better than most, and if Swifty actually read and understood the link he provided, Swifty would have acknowledged Spook’s fine homework and research to locate a simple answer to the Swift puzzle.

        Next, the contention that the Unemployment Figure as published by the BLS is wrong, and that based on BLS numbers there should be 13 million more working Americans based on the figures amassed by the BLS are not mutually exclusive.

        The BLS phone survey used in the calculation of Unemployment numbers is flawed in its methodology of extrapolating a percentage; by excluding relevant numbers from the total workforce for purposes of calculating unemployment, but using the total workforce, calculated using a different method when extrapolating the employment numbers the BLS has set up two different comparatives, neither more reliable than the other.

        As to whether or not there are an additional 13 million persons available for jobs, the BLS estimates more than 8 million underemployed for “economic reasons” and an additional 12.8 million not employed while seeking employment. The participation rate is 63.9% so if we use the BLS estimates, there are more than 38 million available for employment in addition to the 8.1 million currently working at less than capacity.

        If unemployment were actually 6% as Obama’s giant brain assured us, there would be at least 13 million (maybe more since the BLS numbers are pure estimates) more Americans working today.

        If you’re asking if I defend the BLS numbers, nope, never have never will. It is clear that the raw numbers may be somewhat accurate, or as accurate as an educated guess might be. But the methodology to extrapolate a purely political number in the form of a percentage is highly suspect.

      • Jonathan Swift March 16, 2012 / 4:13 pm

        Hey boss. The total number of people in the workforce number used in the article is the one used to generate 8.3%. It’s not some separate figure in the same report. It is the same number. It’s either right or it isn’t. It isn’t right for your purposes and wrong for mine.

      • Count d'Haricots March 16, 2012 / 4:51 pm

        I’m sorry you can’t understand “jobs deficit” try Google ~ “Investors Business Daily” and “Jobs deficit”, IBD pegged the jobs deficit at 10.5 million jobs in February. Unless you think IBD is run by “retards”.

        Once you understand it and want to stop picking the fly $hit, I’ll discuss with you. Until then i have better things to do.

      • Jonathan Swift March 16, 2012 / 5:00 pm

        You can come up with similar job deficit numbers just fine, but the way they have done it, using the BLS numbers is so wrong that it is ridiculous.

      • Jonathan Swift March 17, 2012 / 11:13 am

        I took a look at the article you mentioned. Yes, if this is indicative of their work, IBD is run by retards. Let’s take a look at the graph from their article:


        Surprise! They also got their numbers from the BLS.

        Not only that, but look at where their imaginary line diverges from the graph. Actually, no need to eyeball it; they give us the answer:

        “We are still 5.6 million jobs below where we were at the peak in 2007. Add to that the 4.9 million new jobs that would have had to be created just to soak up new entrants into the workforce, and all told we have a jobs deficit of 10.5 million.”

        Now Obama is responsible for job losses not just for all of 2008, but going all the way back to the employment peak in 2007! See, they had to choose a point all the way back then, because if they drew the same line using the same methodology from when Obama took office or even someplace in 2008, it would be pointing almost straight down, and using the same logic, Obama would have a job surplus in the tens of millions. That’s the sort of thing that happens when you custom design an analytical method with a specific result in mind.

        You guys should spend more time looking at raw data and less time getting your analysis of the data directly from editorial/opinion sources.

    • tiredoflibbs March 16, 2012 / 1:14 pm

      ah, the resident ignorant drones have commented based on their dumbed down talking points.

      An unemployment figure of 8.3% is a LIE since the BLS is not counting millions of Americans who are not employed nor are they looking for work.

      To be “unemployed” under this administration, you must, of course be out of work PLUS looking for a job. Millions have quit looking because they have given up for the simple reason they can’t find a job. MILLIONS are not being counted as “unemployed” since they are no longer looking, hence the lower unemployment number.

      The BLS has also stated that the labor participation (people actively working and people not working but looking for jobs) has dropped from 66% to 63%, since he took office and offered his “solutions”. His solutions have FAILED with no new plans in sight other than repeating the same crap as before.

      The BLS is not counting millions of Americans, but the numbers look good to you drones don’t they? Too bad it is all a LIE and you are too stupid to see that. I like the way this administration would quantify numbers that are not so easily proved as in the “jobs saved” crap.

      You speak of others living in their own little world and yet you cannot see the plain and simple facts before your eyes! We can use their LIES to bludgeon them (as you put it) because they are all LIES! You know the saying “liars figure and figures lie!”. If you purposefully IGNORE millions of Americans in the unemployment it is a lie.

      PLUS, when Bush was President the libs could not wait to bludgeon him about his job creation were “hamburger flipper jobs”, “not real jobs” and also cited that millions were “underemployed” that you claim are unimportant and besides the point.

      Those points were important to liberals when they were not in power, now that they are, they are ignoring their own points, since it would make them look bad.

      You dumbed down drones are so easily influenced and fooled. It really is pathetic.

      • Jonathan Swift March 16, 2012 / 1:40 pm

        And you, too. The 13 million figure comes from a horrible torturing of statistics from the BLS. Try to keep up.

      • bardolf March 16, 2012 / 1:47 pm


        The BLS has never included people who not looking for work. If a man tries to find work for a while then decides it is more economical to be househusband then he shouldn’t be counted, period.

        Also not counted in the labor force, people in college, people in prisons, people in the military and on and on. The whole pushing more and more people to go to college who have no inclination is a TRICK to the official unemployment rate.

        The data has always been misleading so I don’t get your anger.

      • tiredoflibbs March 16, 2012 / 3:44 pm

        I know you don’t balddoof, but that is the reason for the lowering unemployment – people falling out of the calculation. THEY ARE STILL UNEMPLOYED. And yet, we have the mindless drones out there touting the lower unemployment number as a success for obAMATEUR’s policies, when it is not.

        So, you are okay with an artificially lowered number?

        Nottooswift, I did not use the 13 million figure, but of course, your poor reading comprehension would not give you the clue needed. Plus, you provided no proof of your opinion.

        Your 6th grade chart reading skills should have told you that obAMATEUR’s projections are far short, coupled with the fact that the labor participation rate has dropped prove that his policies are a failure and the 8.3% unemployment rate is a lie.

        But do keep staying stuck on stupid. So which is it, is unemployment higher or lower than what the BLS, the White House and your fellow drones say? Is it a cause for celebration?

        Read slowly and carefully….

      • Jonathan Swift March 16, 2012 / 6:47 pm

        I’m not talking about Obama’s projections or any of the other junk you’re referencing. I’m talking about how, up at the top, the study derived a 13 million job deficit based on BLS number, only they used the number of employed people that did not include farm workers rather than the total number of employed people listed in the same study. This is not opinion. Go read the linked data yourself.

  7. bloodypenquinstump March 16, 2012 / 1:13 pm
    • tiredoflibbs March 16, 2012 / 1:16 pm

      No, they won’t show up to take him away. Notsoswift is a dutiful drone, who regurgitates the party line!

      Why would they take away their own kind? And one who does just what they want them too?

  8. bloodypenquinstump March 16, 2012 / 1:17 pm
    • neocon1 March 16, 2012 / 2:34 pm

      usual media matters trolls, usual BS, NEXT?

      mostly pimply faced kids with paper route experience spouting talking points for idiots.

  9. RetiredSpook March 16, 2012 / 11:59 pm

    From the “it-couldn’t-happen-to-a-nicer-person” files, the unemployment roles are about to be increased by one.

    • neocon1 March 20, 2012 / 4:46 pm


Comments are closed.