A blog dealing with local government issues posts "Economic News Items of Interest" on a weekly basis. Apparently all of the articles that are linked are right-wing propaganda pieces that use plays on words to make a case against the tepid, but improving job numbers under Obama.
We need strong talking points to refute and disrupt this propaganda, or else we are going to have trouble keeping moderates and undecideds on our side. Lets work out how to put the jobs numbers in context under the orange swirl.
Just to show you what kinds of articles are being posted on this blog:
Paul Craig Roberts
What is the purpose of reporting an unemployment rate that is about one-third the real unemployment rate? The only answer is deception through Happy News.
See...now only is the unemployment rate WRONG, but the wrong number is used in the news because its "Happy News" aka "librul media."
The article gets better... with a not-so-thinly-veiled insinuation that, well, draw your own conclusion on this one:
The “great hegemonic American economy” is on the verge of total collapse, because the only way it can pay for the imports that sustain it is by issuing more debt and printing more money. Once the debt and money creation undermine the dollar as world reserve currency, the US will become overnight a third world country, much to the relief of the rest of the world.
Last week Mr. Draghi, the head of the European Central Bank, announced for propaganda purposes that the ECB would buy up the sovereign debt of the troubled EU member governments if, and only if, the assisted member governments agreed to the conditionality that would be imposed.
In other words, Draghi told Greece, Spain, and italy that the ECB will buy your bonds if you do what we tell you. Draghi’s conditions are a combination of austerity on the countries’ populations and the surrender of the countries’ financial sovereignty.
Yeah. Moving on...
Daily Mail
What a lovely pile of biased bullshit in this one.
The national unemployment rate dropped to 8.1 per cent, down from 8.2 per cent, but this was only because so many people gave up looking for work. If the participation rate had not dropped so precipitously, unemployment would have risen to 8.4 per cent.
Really? Oh, and it keeps coming:
President Barack Obama was made aware of the figures before he took the stage to deliver his prime-time address at the Democratic convention on Thursday night, which could account for his sometimes grim demeanour as he spoke.
Grim? I saw determination. I saw the emotions of someone who was serious about getting the job done.
But never mind the tabloid-esque "journalism" that this article is espousing (it IS the Daily Mail, after all); what I want to know is what is the best retort to all of this economic sludge that will be repeated ad nauseum until the election?
As 96,000 new jobs are not enough to keep up with population growth, the decline in the U.3 unemployment rate was caused by 368,000 discouraged job seekers giving up on finding employment and dropping out of the work force as measured by U.3.
- Where do the "368,000 discouraged job seekers" come from? How are they measured? Did someone ASK 368,000 people if they gave up on seeking a job? What qualifies as "giving up" on a job search? How many resumes or applications does one have to file before they are considered "part of the work force?"
(EDIT: The number isn't made up, but its hard to tell how the number is formed.)
- Why are you assuming that because the # of 18-year-olds and "eligible employees" grows by x, that available jobs also have to grow by x? There are no instruments used to factor in how many of these newly work-eligible persons are a) in school, b) living at home, c) unqualified for any work, ergo going through training, etc.
- Do these numbers factor in the percentage of the population that is past retirement age? For all of these new 18-year-olds, we have a LOT of baby boomers and other folk who are moving over the 65-year mark and should be OUT of the workplace, provided that they have a retirement to look forward to (thanks Bush!)
- Is it the government's fault when an individual isn't qualified for a job? Isn't personal responsibility one of the hallmarks of Conservative thought? Why are you blaming government for individuals' actions? You should be blaming the individuals for failing to get the qualifications, having the right professionalism, etc. (Use this to re-frame the debate against anti-government Conservatives. Show them that by blaming the government for job losses that they are implicitly showing that they NEED government in their lives in order for more jobs to be created... which is true.)
- Do you know what the President actually does as the leader of the Executive Branch of this government? Where in the Constitution does it say that the President is tasked with "creating jobs?" I mean, is there a magic "job creation wand" that these people supposedly have that they can wave and force companies to hire people? NO! The economy doesn't work that way, and no one that you vote for will be able to "magically" make jobs appear.
- Jobs are created by consumer demand and consumer spending. Will the election of a different person as POTUS magically increase consumer demand or consumer spending? NO!
- Remember the date when the economy declined? 2008...and which POTUS was in office in 2008?
- Remember those jobs bills that Obama proposed, and that the House never voted on? Remember how many times the POTUS has called for negotiations to get these bills passed, while Republicans voted "no" anyway to make him look bad? We are paying the consequences for Republicans' failure to compromise on legislation.
- Do you shop at Wal*Mart? Target? PetSmart? YOU are the problem! You keep complaining about jobs moving to China, and yet you fill your cart with plastic Chinese-made crap. President Obama tried to limit some of that, but of course guess who blocked that legislation as well.
------------------------------
Do you have any other, better, rebuttals to the jobs numbers arguments? Can I word these better? I admit that I posted a lot of this in haste after my local blog decided to post more of this junk, but I have had a few of these stirring in my head for a while. In particular, it amazes me how people think that if someone else ends up in office that the jobs will appear out of thin air.