Cable News Ratings for Thursday, October 4, 2012

Categories: '

(520) Comments - Add Yours!

1. usnretiredx2

   Posted October 8, 2012 at 7:32 AM

   @Jeff
   I would agree with you that the 7.8% is a good thing but only if the reason it is, is because it followed the same logic as it has in the past. What I find, is we are being fooled in thinking that the US job market is slowly getting better. So I have just spent the weekend going over the Labor Department Statistics for the last 5 ½ years.

   Unemployment rate U3
   2008….Jan….5.0%
   2008….Sep….6.1%
   2009….Sep….9.8%
   2010….Sep….9.5%
   2011….Sep….9.0%
   2012….Sep….7.8%

   (Seas) Employment Level
   2008….Jan….146,397,000
   2008….Sep….145,059,000
   2009….Sep….138,775,000
   2010….Sep….139,344,000
   2011….Sep….140,107,000
   2012….Sep….142,974,000

   Unemployment rate U6
   2008….Jan….9.2%
   2008….Sep….11.1%
   2009….Sep….16.8%
   2010….Sep….16.9%
   2011….Sep….16.4%
   2012….Sep….14.7%

   (Seas) Not in Labor Force
   2008….Jan….78,541,000
   2008….Sep….79,801,000
   2009….Sep….82,536,000
   2010….Sep….84,404,000
   2011….Sep….86,067,000
   2012….Sep….88,710,000

2. usnretiredx2

   Posted October 8, 2012 at 7:33 AM

   @Jeff
   So let us look at this information.
   Looking at the Employment level I cannot seem to find 5 million new jobs.

   From Sep 2008 to Sep 2012 there is a -2,085,500 jobs.

   From Sep 2008 to Sep 21012 there is a + 8,909,000 no longer looking for work.

   Now we both know that when you are no longer looking for work for the USG report means that you can no longer draw Unemployment because you have reached your max or have officially retired.

   So I went back and looked at any increase in the no longer looking for work and no where couldI find a 10% increase. The norm is 2-4%.

3. Doug Z

   Posted October 8, 2012 at 7:38 AM

   Mark

   When will we here about the 34 Goldman Secs employees working for Obama

4. Doug Z

   Posted October 8, 2012 at 7:41 AM

   Mark and Jeff

   Obama said
   In fact, Harvard economist Martin Feldstein and Princeton economist Harvey Rosen both concede that paying for Romney’s tax cuts would require large tax increases on families making between $100,000 and $200,000.”

   But that’s not true. Princeton professor Harvey Rosen tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD in an email that the Obama campaign is misrepresenting his paper on Romney’s tax plan:

5. Mark

   Posted October 8, 2012 at 7:43 AM

   @Doug

   Fair enough argument about Goldman Sachs, sadly the Republicans feel Obama was to “strong” on Wallstreet and ironically Wallstreet agrees with him since alot of the donors have started giving cash to Republicans. Of coarse Flip Flop Romney now is all for regulations(after he spent months taking how evil they are)

6. Coffee Steve

   Posted October 8, 2012 at 7:44 AM

   I appreciate all the comments about my dental appointment. I’m now minus 2 teeth and he wanted to pull the rest of my top ones today as well, but I’m not going to Hawaii toothless and looking funny. You brush and floss your teeth every day for years, take care of them every day and when you near 60 the dentist says, better get em now while their easy to get out and get your dentures. Go figure. So in 3 weeks it’s PULL EM out time. YUK

   @Ratboy
   I saw that Gallup story as well. A 5 point bump is really good. Historically they are only good for 3 points or less. The Swing states are starting to reflect a bump as well. It’s going down to the wire.

   With the reaction from Obama’s campaign I’d say their internal polling is showing even better things for Romney’s chances. They aren’t running a campaign in as much as an all-out assault and smear campaign now.

   And that’s always a sign, things aren’t going well.

7. Coffee Steve

   Posted October 8, 2012 at 7:46 AM

   @Doug Z
   But that’s not true. Princeton professor Harvey Rosen tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD in an email that the Obama campaign is misrepresenting his paper on Romney’s tax plan:

   Mr. Rosen is just a wee bit more upset about that mis-resentation, he is considering going on some shows and talk about it now.

8. Mark

   Posted October 8, 2012 at 7:46 AM

   @Coffee Steve
   ———————–
   They aren’t running a campaign in as much as an all-out assault and smear campaign now.
   ———————–
   So showing video of Mitt Romney saying things that counteract what he said in the debates is “smearing” gotcha.

9. Coffee Steve

   Posted October 8, 2012 at 7:49 AM

   @USNretiredx2

   Thank you for those Labor Department Statistics. I don’t care about the spin for both sides, that lastest jobs report is not correct, you simply cannot have 144,000 jobs created and the rate drop .03 percent with the GDP ratio as it has been.

   I have been saying for years the stats from that Department should be from an Independent group.

10. Coffee Steve

    Posted October 8, 2012 at 7:52 AM

    @Mark
    So showing video of Mitt Romney saying things that counteract what he said in the debates is “smearing” gotcha.

    Nope, most is fair game, but isn’t it childish and an act of desperation to have your DNC officials calling people liars and such when they themselves aren’t exactly the truth bearers of any policy they have spoken of?

    Most of them are looking and acting like total buffoons Mark, and it’s showing up in the numbers now because of it.

11. Ratboy

    Posted October 8, 2012 at 7:52 AM

    Dana if you are still here!
    I asked Sharon the other night this same question so now I ask you with all due respect.

    As a black pewrson do you find it offensive that the president changed (and changes) his delivery, cadance, and accent when he spoke to the black group in 2007 and still does to a certain extent but not to that extreme.

    I know I was offended when Hillary did it and others and I have worked with some that did it depending on who they were with and what setiing they were in.

    Just curious.

12. Coffee Steve

    Posted October 8, 2012 at 7:54 AM

    ^Correction
    144,000 jobs created and the rate drop .03 percent with the GDP

    114,000

13. Ratboy

    Posted October 8, 2012 at 7:55 AM

    Geeez they dont even let him talk befor they start the smear!!!

    Obama launches pre-emptive strike ahead of Romney’s foreign policy speech

    LEXINGTON, Va. — President Obama’s re-election campaign on Monday launched a pre-emptive strike ahead of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s planned foreign policy address, arguing that Mr. Romney has failed the the commander-in-chief test on the global stage — in part by staking out positions to the right of former President George W. Bush.

    The Obama camp released a new television advertisement and issued a memo on Monday criticizing Mr. Romney’s bumpy overseas trip this summer as well as his response to the assaults on the U.S. diplomatic post in Libya— highlighting how a national security adviser to GOP Sen. John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign called Mr. Romney’s stance on Libya the “the worst possible reaction.”

    Read more: Obama launches pre-emptive strike ahead of Romney’s foreign policy speech – Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/8/obama-launches-pre-emptive-strike-ahead-romneys-fo/#ixzz28ifo0AvM

14. Mark

    Posted October 8, 2012 at 7:57 AM

    @usnretiredx2

    Your Numbers are a bit scewed. You conveniently ignore the crash started about Sept 2008 so by Jan 2009(when Obama took office) the numbers would be much worse(so you are making a comparison to a much better time(ie Sept 2008)).

    Also the idea that Obama should somehow magically stopped the bleeding the second he got in office is idiotic. Simple fact is 30+ years of bad policies and 2 wars lead us to that point

15. Ratboy

    Posted October 8, 2012 at 7:57 AM

    Pretty good line there Gov Romney!!

    “Hope is not a strategy,”

16. Ratboy

    Posted October 8, 2012 at 7:59 AM

    @ Also the idea that Obama should somehow magically stopped the bleeding the second he got in office is idiotic.

    But Obama himself said that he would have unemployment down to 6% buy now!

17. Mark

    Posted October 8, 2012 at 7:59 AM

    @Ratboy
    ———————————
    President Obama’s re-election campaign on Monday launched a pre-emptive strike ahead of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s planned foreign policy address, arguing that Mr. Romney has failed the the commander-in-chief test on the global stage — in part by staking out positions to the right of former President George W. Bush.
    ———————————
    I said on the last page the simple fact that Romney has 17(of his 24) foreign policy advisers from the Bush campaign does bring up questions how much will Romney follow the Cheney/Bush doctrine.

18. Coffee Steve

    Posted October 8, 2012 at 8:00 AM

    @Ratboy
    do you find it offensive that the president changed (and changes) his delivery, cadance, and accent when he spoke to the black group in 2007

    Stephanie Cutter demanded the Romney camp denounce the tape, someone said Friday, denounce what? The man’s own words?

    Wouldn’t it be a grand world if all Romney tapes were fair game but any tapes on Pres. Obama were off limits? Oh! I forget, it’s already like that with the MSM

    I wrote this in a manuscript I am working on, and it’s my story and I’m sticking to it

    “The Greatest Threat To America, Is Not Washington, or the White House, It’s the Free Press” ____________SP © 2012

19. Doug Z

    Posted October 8, 2012 at 8:01 AM

    Mark

    Bush had 16 Goldman Sacs employees working for him. Not much better in my opinion. that is what happened.

20. Coffee Steve

    Posted October 8, 2012 at 8:02 AM

    @Mark
    Simple fact is 30+ years of bad policies and 2 wars lead us to that point

    YOU WIN THE NEW CAR!! Fax it to him Rats

    NO One will dis-agree with that true Fact Mark..Bravo my man, Bravo