Fuck its silent in here.......

[Bort]

im drunk, but I still call it a draw.

fuck MSNBC.

PS - Does Al Sharpton has AIDS?  Hew'd he lose all that weight?

Shoah.

10.29 pm. How is Obama's closing statement so fucking sad, confused and lame? He choked. He lost. He may even have lost the election tonight.

Now, I don't for a second think that the last sentence is true - there's a long way to go in this election - but that seems awfully different from "it's a draw."

Yeah, the last sentence is dumb. Everyone who bothered to watch the debate saw exactly what they wanted to see. Unless someone makes some huge gaffe, it's pointless theater.

Intrepid Reader: Everyone Bort Retweets

Just like the entire political system, man.

RT RT

Unfollow.

[R-V]

Jack Welch: BLS Truther

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/job-truthers-jack-welch-bls.php?ref=fpb

[Eli]

Jack Welch: BLS Truther

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/job-truthers-jack-welch-bls.php?ref=fpb

What an amazing jobs report. Obama is awesome.

[Eli]

Also: I'm chuckling at Morph bashing Obama on Twitter after every Friday jobs report for months, but now that the news is decent the numbers are suddenly all meaningless.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Also: I'm chuckling at Morph bashing Obama on Twitter after every Friday jobs report for months, but now that the news is decent the numbers are suddenly all meaningless.

Not meaningless.  Just misleading.

What's meaningless is the implication that it's just this number that is misleading.

[R-V]

Also: I'm chuckling at Morph bashing Obama on Twitter after every Friday jobs report for months, but now that the news is decent the numbers are suddenly all meaningless.

Not meaningless.  Just misleading.

What's meaningless is the implication that it's just this number that is misleading.

Full disclosure, I'm not a genius. But roughly half of the turns of phrase you use in this particular thread make no sense to me.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Jack Welch: BLS Truther

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/job-truthers-jack-welch-bls.php?ref=fpb

He had some friends in Congress too. Rep. Allen West (R-FL) tweeted "I agree with former GE CEO Jack Welch, Chicago style politics is at work here." He added on Facebook that the jobs report was "Orwellian to say the least and representative of Saul Alinsky tactics from the book 'Rules for Radicals.'"

This is right out of the Saul Alinsky/Richard J. Daley Chicago-style anti-colonialist playbook. Just like Orwell predicted. Nancy Pelosi.

[Gilgamesh]

Jack Welch: BLS Truther

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/job-truthers-jack-welch-bls.php?ref=fpb

He had some friends in Congress too. Rep. Allen West (R-FL) tweeted "I agree with former GE CEO Jack Welch, Chicago style politics is at work here." He added on Facebook that the jobs report was "Orwellian to say the least and representative of Saul Alinsky tactics from the book 'Rules for Radicals.'"

This is right out of the Saul Alinsky/Richard J. Daley Chicago-style anti-colonialist playbook. Just like Orwell predicted. Nancy Pelosi.

If you are going to furtively fudge the jobs numbers, wouldn't you want them to be lower than 7.8%?

And, I don't understand, should we be rooting for worse jobs numbers?

[Quality Start Machine]

Also: I'm chuckling at Morph bashing Obama on Twitter after every Friday jobs report for months, but now that the news is decent the numbers are suddenly all meaningless.

Not meaningless.  Just misleading.

What's meaningless is the implication that it's just this number that is misleading.

Every number needs context. The number of people leaving the workplace will continue to be high for at least the next 10-20 years (as Boomers retire - they are turning 65 at roughly the rate of 8K/day, according to AARP), so the U-6 will always make things look worse than they usually are.

[Slaky]

I hope Americans continue to be out of work in massive numbers so the guy I sorta like because he's the lesser of two evils gets elected president.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Via Morph on Facebook...

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/05/the-odd-september-unemployment-rate-when-good-surveys-produce-false-results/

The September household survey is one to set aside to wait for a more reliable report next month, which will almost certainly reverse the odd results from September.

Fair enough...

If it does, then we have both confirmation of the power of statistics and of the weakness in the economy. If the next household survey is like the September survey, however, then we will know the Obama Administration was playing games with the numbers as alleged.

Those are the only two possibilities.

[PenPho]

Via Morph on Facebook...

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/05/the-odd-september-unemployment-rate-when-good-surveys-produce-false-results/

The September household survey is one to set aside to wait for a more reliable report next month, which will almost certainly reverse the odd results from September.

Fair enough...

If it does, then we have both confirmation of the power of statistics and of the weakness in the economy. If the next household survey is like the September survey, however, then we will know the Obama Administration was playing games with the numbers as alleged.

Those are the only two possibilities.

This seems relevant.
I didn't read it.

[morpheus]

Where to start?
1) this report was anomalous, as any economist will tell you.  The household seasonally adjusted number does not line up with any of the other economic data seen for months now, or any of the other data in the report, really. Labor is a coincident or even lagging indicator, so a pop in the middle of a sea of crappy data should be considered suspect. This news isn't really "decent" but rather "questionable" until it is confirmed by more information.
2) that said, all this talk about the numbers being deliberately manipulated is crap.  These are surveys, which have margins of error (I believe the 90% confidence interval on the U-3 rate is 0.2%, for example). These have noisy distributions.  Eli, i hope you noted my retweet of Matt Yglesias, who noted that accurately measuring employment in our economy is difficult.  Trends are much more important than any one point because they are more likely to be reflective of true conditions.
3) most of the rise in employment on the hh report seems to have come from part-time jobs anyway, not exactly a structural improvement.  In the payroll survey, it was mainly government jobs.
4) after years of horrible labor market conditions, no one should be celebrating until there's been at least a little sustained growth.

One report does not a trend make... Assuming it's reflective of actual market conditions.  Given the awful data tone across the board before this, one who is serious about economic analysis has to at least wonder what future revisions will bring.  I think the Heritage report that Tank so helpfully linked was about right... Up until the implications section that Tank also so effectively (and correctly) ridiculed.

[Slaky]

Where to start?
1) this report was anomalous, as any economist will tell you.  The household seasonally adjusted number does not line up with any of the other economic data seen for months now, or any of the other data in the report, really. Labor is a coincident or even lagging indicator, so a pop in the middle of a sea of crappy data should be considered suspect. This news isn't really "decent" but rather "questionable" until it is confirmed by more information.
2) that said, all this talk about the numbers being deliberately manipulated is crap.  These are surveys, which have margins of error (I believe the 90% confidence interval on the U-3 rate is 0.2%, for example). These have noisy distributions.  Eli, i hope you noted my retweet of Matt Yglesias, who noted that accurately measuring employment in our economy is difficult.  Trends are much more important than any one point because they are more likely to be reflective of true conditions.
3) most of the rise in employment on the hh report seems to have come from part-time jobs anyway, not exactly a structural improvement.  In the payroll survey, it was mainly government jobs.
4) after years of horrible labor market conditions, no one should be celebrating until there's been at least a little sustained growth.

One report does not a trend make... Assuming it's reflective of actual market conditions.  Given the awful data tone across the board before this, one who is serious about economic analysis has to at least wonder what future revisions will bring.  I think the Heritage report that Tank so helpfully linked was about right... Up until the implications section that Tank also so effectively (and correctly) ridiculed.

tl;dr this report was bullshit because I'm conservative

[morpheus]

Where to start?
1) this report was anomalous, as any economist will tell you.  The household seasonally adjusted number does not line up with any of the other economic data seen for months now, or any of the other data in the report, really. Labor is a coincident or even lagging indicator, so a pop in the middle of a sea of crappy data should be considered suspect. This news isn't really "decent" but rather "questionable" until it is confirmed by more information.
2) that said, all this talk about the numbers being deliberately manipulated is crap.  These are surveys, which have margins of error (I believe the 90% confidence interval on the U-3 rate is 0.2%, for example). These have noisy distributions.  Eli, i hope you noted my retweet of Matt Yglesias, who noted that accurately measuring employment in our economy is difficult.  Trends are much more important than any one point because they are more likely to be reflective of true conditions.
3) most of the rise in employment on the hh report seems to have come from part-time jobs anyway, not exactly a structural improvement.  In the payroll survey, it was mainly government jobs.
4) after years of horrible labor market conditions, no one should be celebrating until there's been at least a little sustained growth.

One report does not a trend make... Assuming it's reflective of actual market conditions.  Given the awful data tone across the board before this, one who is serious about economic analysis has to at least wonder what future revisions will bring.  I think the Heritage report that Tank so helpfully linked was about right... Up until the implications section that Tank also so effectively (and correctly) ridiculed.

tl;dr this report was bullshit because I'm conservative

That's not what I said at all, but ok.  Sorry I couldn't turn it into a single, erroneous, misleading sound bite.