"Cooked" or not, the Romney campaign needs to be broadcasting the details beneath the number. As shown in the debate, people actually do appreciate an understanding and explanation of the details (I still maintain my objection to going through 5-, 7-, 14-point plans, etc.).This piece from James Pethokoukis provides a lot of that information. He's got 8 points, but the ones that I think should be emphasized are:1. The number dropped due to 582,000 part time jobs, taken by people who couldn't find full-time work.4. All that has really happened is a shrunken workforce. At the labor participation rates when 0bama came into office, the unemployment rate would be 10.7%. 5. Even this artificial number of FAR worse than what 0bama's plan was supposed to deliver by this time (5.6%)6. The 114,000 jobs created would have been a good number … but for 1962, not 2012. (That's a good line) The U.S. economy needs 2-3 times that number every month to close the jobs gap, and at this rate, would take until 2025 to close the gap (another good line).7. We are still on pace to create fewer jobs this year than last year. Improvement? Not by any normal person's definition.http://ricochet.com/main-feed/The-October-Jobs-Surprise
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar<