WP: lies about the number of jobs lost

[Room101]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15726-2003Sep15.html?referrer=emailarticle

Congressional Republicans are watching warily as President Bush's approval ratings slide on two major issues -- the economy and Iraq -- and wondering if voter anxiety might cost them seats in next year's election.

Of the two, the question of the economy is particularly worrying GOP lawmakers, who fear they could be blamed for the hundreds of thousands of jobs that have been lost under the Bush White House and the Republican-controlled Congress.

=====================================
WTF My last count was just over 3 million jobs lost under Bush.
Is the WT or the WP the Moonie paper, that I read about in Al Frankens book I cant remember?:(

[bif]

1. WT is the Moonie paper

n/t

[alfredo]

2. that could be the permanent loss of jobs, not the temporary

loss of jobs. Many of the jobs lost due to the economy will not return due to businesses like Microsoft and the RNC outsourcing to India.

[Room101]

3. For arguments sake say you are right, but

It is still misleading as hell, 2.7 million manufacturing jobs have been lost alone. Not sure what you mean by Temp jobs.

[HFishbine]

6. Ha!

No offense alfredo, I'm sure you mean well, but what the hell is a temporary job loss? Are you refering to those workers labled as "laid off?" You know, the one's whose plants are packing up and moving to Mexico, Indonesia, and China? Those temporary job losses?

[welshTerrier2]

4. 3 million jobs plus another 3 million jobs

a recent NOW with Bill Moyers show stated that an additional 3 million jobs, including not just manufacturing jobs but high paying white collar jobs, many in the software industry, would be lost to foreign countries over the next several years ...

you do the math ... any way you slice it, our pro-corporate trade policies and tax policies are killing us and that adds up to bad news for bush and bad news for the republican congress ....

[HFishbine]

5. Typical

Man I HATE THIS SHIT. My local paper does it too and it's disgusting. Just tweak a few "facts" here and there to suit an agenda.

The FACT is, according to the Bereau of Labor Statistics, that when Bush took office in January of 2001, 5.67 million people were unemployed (which was the lowest number in eight years for those numbnuts who say that the "recession" had already started when Bush took office).

As of August, 2003 there are 8.91 million people unemployed. Hundreds of thousands my ass, that's 3.24 million more unemployed since Bush took office.

Maybe the WP meant hundreds of thousands THIS YEAR. Now that would certainly be true as 603,000 more people are unemployed since January.

Somebody send this link to the WP news editors: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls

[Wwagsthedog]

7. Are all the unemployed counted?

All these numbers are probably funny numbers anyway. What becomes of all the people who are no longer in any counts because they gave up looking for a job? Things may be worse (v/v unemployment) than any of us are given to believe.

[FlashHarry]

8. My reply to their ombudsman

Sirs:

The following sentence appears in the second paragraph of an article by Juliet Eilperin entitled "Job Losses Unsettle Republicans":

"Of the two, the question of the economy is particularly worrying GOP lawmakers, who fear they could be blamed for the hundreds of thousands of jobs that have been lost under the Bush White House and the Republican-controlled Congress."

"Hundreds of thousands?" Try millions––2.7 million in the manufacturing sector alone. Now, if Ms. Eilperin was referring to permanent job losses––e.g. those lost to offshore outsourcing or technological unemployment––she should have made that clear. In any case, it is one more example of the so-called 'liberal' media giving the current administration a free pass.

Frankly, I expected more from the Post.

[corporalclegg9]

9. Bush WH AND Repub Congress

I think that the paper is referring to the time frame of Jan 2003 to the present when Bush controlled the White House AND Repubs controlled Congress.

Further down in the article, it mentions 2.6 million jobs lost since Bush took the White House. Yes, you can quibble with that number if you'd like, but it's in the ballpark.

I think it's a fair article.

On edit: I originally said 2.7 million jobs, but then reread the article and realized that the paper stated it as 2.6 million.

[dfong63]

12. bogus argument

I think that the paper is referring to the time frame of Jan 2003 to the present when Bush controlled the White House AND Repubs controlled Congress. ... I think it's a fair article.

the repubs have controlled the house of reps AND the white house since 2001. they've had effective control of the government for 3 years. if the article's author thinks the repubs are worried ONLY about the "hundreds of thousands" of jobs lost in 2003, s/he's out of his mind. the "hundreds of thousands" are not the only ones who are going to vote in 2004. and voters are NOT going to think like, "Oh, well the repubs didn't have full control of the senate for a couple of years, so it's not fair to blame them for the MILLIONS of jobs lost between 2001-2003." referring to "hundreds of thousands" of jobs lost was either propaganda, or a serious journalistic mistake.

[Room101]

10. My face is red, read the whole article

I had such a knee jerk reaction to the hundreds of thousands figure at the beginning that I failed to read the following near the end of the article. Sorry guys I'm usaully very good about reading the whole article:( Although the 2.6 mill should be over 3 million it is still in the ballpark.

<snip>
Recent interviews with Republican lawmakers found considerably less angst about Iraq than about the economy, which has shed 2.6 million jobs since Bush took office.

[sandnsea]

11. Right the first time

Why would they put hundreds of thousands first, then bury 2.6 million in the middle? People read a headline, browse the first couple paragraphs and move on. Most people probably missed that 2.6 million figure. These newspapers know how to write an article, it isn't an accident.