Unemployment falls below 8%

This should help President Barack Obama…

The U.S. unemployment rate fell to 7.8 percent last month, dropping below 8 percent for the first time in nearly four years and giving President Barack Obama a potential boost with the election a month away.

The rate declined from 8.1 percent because the number of people who said they were employed soared by 873,000 — an encouraging sign for an economy that’s been struggling to create enough jobs.

The number of unemployed Americans is now 12.1 million, the fewest since January 2009.

So here’s my question: how long will it take for Republicans who’ve blamed President Obama for an unemployment rate that couldn’t get below eight percent now try to say that he had nothing to do with the unemployment rate finally dropping below eight percent?

I’m betting it won’t be long.


Related Articles

18 thoughts on “Unemployment falls below 8%

  1. Congradulations on getting the unemployment level “rate” to the same it was when Bush took office. Such progress. Not sure how gaining 114,000 jobs while 440,000 left the workforce lowers the unemployment rate, but YES WE CAN! right?

  2. Let me put the spin on it that you guys would if a Republican was in office: Well, these aren’t family supporting jobs. These are low paying McDonalds jobs. You aren’t counting the underemployed. You aren’t counting those who have given up looking.

    1. Hey troll. Here are all the answers you need about the methodologies used by the BLS. Read it.

            1. Rich, it was a joke referring to another post about the overreaching definition of “bullying.”

              Zach, if having another point of view is considered a “troll,” then consider me guilty. I was merely pointing out than ANY good jobs numbers from Bush was negated by you guys as not good enough. And now this warrants dancing in the streets! Heck, you even admitted a while back that your bias allowed you to point out each and every job loss as Walker’s fault but you would deliberately omit news of any jobs gains.

  3. Well, I am no supporter of President Obama, but as an American I am glad to see things are improving. Yes, there may be some parsing of numbers and discussion over part-time and full-time, but all-in-all this is good news for the U.S.A.

    I still hope and believe that Governor Romney will win, as he is the BEST choice for our economy at this time.

    1. “I still hope and believe that Governor Romney will win, as he is the BEST choice for our economy at this time.”

      Based on what?? And don’t tell me tax cuts. If the candidate’s plan does not increase receipts, it’s going to be more of the same. And granted, Obama’s plan doesn’t do that, either. But Romney is basing his whole case on the economy, and he’s got nothing.

      When your most cited point from the debate involves killing a bird to save .0017% of the budget, you’re truly grasping at straws.

      1. PBS was merely one example. But it just goes to show mention of ANY cut or elimination of funding great or small faces backlash (which is why I am against any new programs or benefits, because you can NEVER go back and reduce or eliminate it). Anyway, everything in the budget can’t be sacrosanct because it is unsustainable to continue funding everything that we do. I know, I know, the rich can pay for it…

  4. It’s congratulations … and think about what you wrote. It took Bush 8 years to so tank the economy that it’s a miracle unemployment has returned to status quo in only four.

  5. In my view lower taxes and a friendly business climate leads to economic growth and this leads to more jobs and less unemployment. Yes, it’s a conservative philosophy and yes, it’s what I believe.

    Rich, you probably don’t agree and that’s fine and that’s why we have so darn many elections. The people will decide which course they want to choose, and it’s good in 2012 that the choices are very clear and very stark.

    God Bless Obama.
    God Bless Romney.
    God Bless America.

    1. Paul, it’s not that I don’t agree, it’s just that with Romney, there’s no “there” there. And when you say the choices are stark, they’re stark compared to what? Mitt Romney, Governor of Massachusetts, or Candidate Mitt Romney?

      What we have in Mitt Romney is a demonstrable liar. A liar on the economy, a liar on healthcare, a liar about his own record, both as a business man and a governor. Of all of these there is no question. The biggest whopper from the debate this week was not the lie that the ACA cuts $714 from seniors receiving Medicaid (debunked a hundred times already) but that half of the companies receiving green energy loans have gone bankrupt. In reality, just 3 of 26 went under, representing just 6% of the loan guarantees.

      “Rich, you probably don’t agree and that’s fine and that’s why we have so darn many elections.” Do me a favor. Parse that and come back and tell me just what the heck that means.

      1. I mean that we have national and state elections every 2 years and sometimes even more than that – as well as county and local ones. People have many opportunities to make their voices heard and – theoretically at least – throw the bums out if they don’t like them.

        It’s not perfect, but I think we have the best system in the world for electing our leaders. It’s worked for over 200 years – yes it has flaws but I’d rather live here than any other country in the world. Thank God for the Constitution!

    2. Paul, if lower taxes lead to economic growth, then explain how the TWO massive Bush-era tax cuts didn’t lead to economic growth.

      I’d also love to hear you explain how Clinton-era tax increases led to unprecedented job growth during Clinton’s two terms in office.

      1. If higher taxes lead to economic growth, Obama should propose raising them on everybody!

Comments are closed.