Butch Ammon wrote:

"The department said the end to the California grocery store dispute,

which

had idled 72,000 workers, boosted March payrolls by 10,000 to 20,000. The
impact was muted because many of the returning employees displaced

temporary

hires."

Harry won't reply to that post Joe. It screws up his "spin".



Allow me to cut 'n paste a thread from a golf forum (yes, golfers can get off
topic on a variety of topics too).... Read what they say on this matter:

Butch Ammon

--------------------cut 'n paste---------------------------

Reuters is reporting that the great American job-creating machine is revving
into high gear:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. employment rose last month at the fastest pace in
nearly four years, easily outstripping expectations, as workers returned after
a grocery store strike and construction hiring bounced back on better weather,
a government report on Friday showed.

The latest report from the Labor Department offered comfort to President Bush
as the jobs market---a hot political issue in the U.S. presidential
campaign--finally made a decisive break to the upside.

Non-farm payrolls climbed 308,000 in March, the Labor Department said, the
biggest gain since April 2000 and well above the 103,000 rise expected on Wall
Street.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/busin...y-jobs.html?hp

This is great news for the United States.

=================================

Yes, as I said on the other, related thread, now that the lagging indicator
(jobs) of the reviving economy is beginning to show itself, this can only mean
unmitigated disaster for John Kerry and his campaign. It shows that George W.
Bush's tax cuts are working, that he has taken the right steps to help the
economy recover.
I can only imagine how wonderful the economy will be with FOUR MORE YEARS of
George W. Bush's outstanding leadership! And I'm looking forward to finding
out, as we WILL find out. )

==================================

This


For someone who keeps announcing he's gone, you're sure here a lot.

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 19:23:11 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


308k-72k=236,000

-3,000,000 + 236,000 = -2,764,000

G Bush = H Hoover

bb

"jim--" wrote in message
news
"While it would seem odd that the unemployment rate rose despite a jump in
payrolls, the two numbers are generated by separate surveys. The
unemployment rate comes from a survey of households, which found that
179,000 people entered the labor force in March, resulting in a higher
unemployment rate.

But Harry told us this on March 7th:

"The fact is that virtually no one of consequence takes the "home survey" as
a measure of employment or unemployment seriously, and that includes the BLS
and Alan Greenspan."

What's he saying now?

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 19:23:11 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


308k-72k=236,000

-3,000,000 + 236,000 = -2,764,000


Bull**** numbers...even if you use the flawed Payroll Survey data.

First 32 months of Bush's Presidency=-2.546 million jobs
Last 7 months=+759,000 jobs

So you're only off by about 1 million jobs. The economy needs to average a
gain of 223,375 jobs per month (plus 1) from here on out for Bush's
Presidency to show a net gain in jobs. Then what will your argument be?

NOYB wrote:

"bb" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 19:23:11 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:



308k-72k=236,000

-3,000,000 + 236,000 = -2,764,000



Bull**** numbers...even if you use the flawed Payroll Survey data.

First 32 months of Bush's Presidency=-2.546 million jobs
Last 7 months=+759,000 jobs

So you're only off by about 1 million jobs. The economy needs to average a
gain of 223,375 jobs per month (plus 1) from here on out for Bush's
Presidency to show a net gain in jobs. Then what will your argument be?



You're working really hard to rationalize this...it's fun to watch you
shovel the bull****.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"bb" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 19:23:11 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:



308k-72k=236,000

-3,000,000 + 236,000 = -2,764,000



Bull**** numbers...even if you use the flawed Payroll Survey data.

First 32 months of Bush's Presidency=-2.546 million jobs
Last 7 months=+759,000 jobs

So you're only off by about 1 million jobs. The economy needs to
average a
gain of 223,375 jobs per month (plus 1) from here on out for Bush's
Presidency to show a net gain in jobs. Then what will your argument be?



You're working really hard to rationalize this...it's fun to watch you
shovel the bull****.


Hey! I already used that argument against *you*. Try to be a little more
original next time.

Bush is behind about 3 1/2 years.

NOYB wrote:

Businesses Add 308,000 Jobs in March

Friday, April 02, 2004



WASHINGTON - U.S. employment rose last month at the fastest pace in nearly
four years, easily outstripping expectations, as workers returned after a
grocery store strike and construction hiring bounced back on better weather,
a government report on Friday showed.

The latest report from the Labor Department offered comfort to President
George W. Bush (search) as the jobs market - a hot political issue in the
U.S. presidential campaign - finally made a decisive break to the upside.

Non-farm payrolls climbed 308,000 in March, the Labor Department said, the
biggest gain since April 2000 and well above the 103,000 rise expected on
Wall Street.

The unemployment rate ticked up to 5.7 percent from the two-year low of 5.6
percent seen in January and February.

Upward revisions to January and February payrolls helped contribute to the
positive tone of the report, which could fuel expectations that the Federal
Reserve may be closer to raising overnight interest rates from their current
1958 low of 1 percent than had been thought.

The March rise in payrolls reflected the resolution of a labor dispute at
grocery stores in southern California that had idled 72,000 workers. The
department said the return of those workers helped fuel a 47,000 increase in
retail employment last month, but it did not quantify the impact.

Economists had said the return of those workers would boost payrolls, but
that the impact was hard to gauge because it was unclear how many temporary
replacement workers were being let go.

The report showed job gains were widespread across industries.

While a long-hoped for rise in manufacturing employment did not appear, the
department said factory payrolls were unchanged in March, finally breaking a
string of 43 consecutive monthly declines.

"Jim" wrote in message
link.net...
Bush is behind about 3 1/2 years.

NOYB wrote:

Businesses Add 308,000 Jobs in March

Friday, April 02, 2004



WASHINGTON - U.S. employment rose last month at the fastest pace in
nearly
four years, easily outstripping expectations, as workers returned after
a
grocery store strike and construction hiring bounced back on better
weather,
a government report on Friday showed.

The latest report from the Labor Department offered comfort to President
George W. Bush (search) as the jobs market - a hot political issue in
the
U.S. presidential campaign - finally made a decisive break to the
upside.

Non-farm payrolls climbed 308,000 in March, the Labor Department said,
the
biggest gain since April 2000 and well above the 103,000 rise expected
on
Wall Street.

The unemployment rate ticked up to 5.7 percent from the two-year low of
5.6
percent seen in January and February.

Upward revisions to January and February payrolls helped contribute to
the
positive tone of the report, which could fuel expectations that the
Federal
Reserve may be closer to raising overnight interest rates from their
current
1958 low of 1 percent than had been thought.

The March rise in payrolls reflected the resolution of a labor dispute
at
grocery stores in southern California that had idled 72,000 workers. The
department said the return of those workers helped fuel a 47,000
increase in
retail employment last month, but it did not quantify the impact.

Economists had said the return of those workers would boost payrolls,
but
that the impact was hard to gauge because it was unclear how many
temporary
replacement workers were being let go.

The report showed job gains were widespread across industries.

While a long-hoped for rise in manufacturing employment did not appear,
the
department said factory payrolls were unchanged in March, finally
breaking a
string of 43 consecutive monthly declines.





Maybe in your mind, but in the minds of most Americans he is ahead in the
polls. LOL!!

NOYB wrote:
"bb" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 19:23:11 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:



308k-72k=236,000

-3,000,000 + 236,000 = -2,764,000



Bull**** numbers...even if you use the flawed Payroll Survey data.

First 32 months of Bush's Presidency=-2.546 million jobs
Last 7 months=+759,000 jobs

So you're only off by about 1 million jobs. The economy needs to average a
gain of 223,375 jobs per month (plus 1) from here on out for Bush's
Presidency to show a net gain in jobs. Then what will your argument be?



Seehttp://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040403/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy&cid=668&ncid=716

Extract
The average monthly gain in jobs in the past eight months
has been about 95,000 — far below the 150,000 to 200,000
jobs needed to absorb new entrants into the labor force,
Sohn said. Like last month, the unemployment rate could rise
in coming months as workers decide to resume their job
searches.

"Jim" wrote in message
...


NOYB wrote:
"bb" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 19:23:11 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:



308k-72k=236,000

-3,000,000 + 236,000 = -2,764,000



Bull**** numbers...even if you use the flawed Payroll Survey data.

First 32 months of Bush's Presidency=-2.546 million jobs
Last 7 months=+759,000 jobs

So you're only off by about 1 million jobs. The economy needs to
average a
gain of 223,375 jobs per month (plus 1) from here on out for Bush's
Presidency to show a net gain in jobs. Then what will your argument be?




Seehttp://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040403/ap_on_bi_go_ec
_fi/economy&cid=668&ncid=716

Extract
The average monthly gain in jobs in the past eight months
has been about 95,000 — far below the 150,000 to 200,000
jobs needed to absorb new entrants into the labor force,
Sohn said. Like last month, the unemployment rate could rise
in coming months as workers decide to resume their job
searches.

You Dem's are pretty confused. Last month, you guys were telling me that
the Unemployment Rate (since it is based off of the Household Survey Data)
is meaningless and unreliable. Now, you're telling me that the net gain of
308,000 in the employment numbers (based on the Payroll Survey Data) is
meaningless.

Maybe you guys should all get your heads together, get your stories
straight, and actually come up with some issues that don't require massive
spin and lies to resonate positively with the American people.