You don’t know Jack

by Categorized: Uncategorized Date:

Welch’s grapes of wrath have shriveled into raisins.

The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

26 thoughts on “You don’t know Jack

  1. Bill from Susan Campbell's blog

    Jack Welch is just circling the wagons as we democrats do at the end election fight. I would bet Welch doesn’t care that much for liberal ole Romney but as a republican, he can influence quite a bit in DC – especially the Supreme Court.

    I was never that hot on Obama. Hillary was my man and more experienced. She would have been walkin’ the DC corridors at night lobbying for her nation’s agenda. Obama, bless his heart, loves his family and closes the door as evening arrives. But I will vote for Obama and try to bring as many people to the polls to vote for him.

  2. Richard

    CNBC will let Jack on the air and wipe his bib between tirades

    What Jack is looking at is poll aggregator RealClearPolitics and Romney’s 244 Electoral Votes

    Restricted to post debate polls Nevada (6) is a tie, Ohio (18) a +0.7 Obama advantage, Iowa a +2 for Obama, and Virginia (13) a +.03 Romney advantage and ready to swing into the Romney column giving him 257 EVs going into the last 4 weeks

    1. Bill from Susan Campbell's blog

      Richard; That is not totality true. The other morning, Marc Farber challenged Jack Welch by first calling him on of America’s finest CEOs then berating him for his off-the-cuff and inaccurate remark about the unemployment rate. Not all of the anchors are one-sided. But most are as in Santilli from Chicago.

  3. Jack Welch

    Bill, better to remain quite and appear the fool as to open your mouth and remove all doubt. I have forgotten more about economics than you’ll ever know. I was the CEO of GE, what do you do besides troll?

    Imagine a country where challenging the ruling authorities—questioning, say, a piece of data released by central headquarters—would result in mobs of administration sympathizers claiming you should feel “embarrassed” and labeling you a fool, or worse.

    Related Video
    Editorial board member Steve Moore on the good and bad of the jobs report and whether it will help President Obama’s campaign.
    .Soviet Russia perhaps? Communist China? Nope, that would be the United States right now, when a person (like me, for instance) suggests that a certain government datum (like the September unemployment rate of 7.8%) doesn’t make sense.

    Unfortunately for those who would like me to pipe down, the 7.8% unemployment figure released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) last week is downright implausible. And that’s why I made a stink about it.

    Before I explain why the number is questionable, though, a few words about where I’m coming from. Contrary to some of the sound-and-fury last week, I do not work for the Mitt Romney campaign. I am definitely not a surrogate. My wife, Suzy, is not associated with the campaign, either. She worked at Bain Consulting (not Bain Capital) right after business school, in 1988 and 1989, and had no contact with Mr. Romney.

    The Obama campaign and its supporters, including bigwigs like David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs, along with several cable TV anchors, would like you to believe that BLS data are handled like the gold in Fort Knox, with gun-carrying guards watching their every move, and highly trained, white-gloved super-agents counting and recounting hourly.

    Let’s get real. The unemployment data reported each month are gathered over a one-week period by census workers, by phone in 70% of the cases, and the rest through home visits. In sum, they try to contact 60,000 households, asking a list of questions and recording the responses.

    More in Opinion
    “Happy Days Are Not Here Again”

    Big Bird, Small President

    Noonan: A Run on Romney Signs

    Taranto: Tears of a Clown
    .Some questions allow for unambiguous answers, but others less so. For instance, the range for part-time work falls between one hour and 34 hours a week. So, if an out-of-work accountant tells a census worker, “I got one baby-sitting job this week just to cover my kid’s bus fare, but I haven’t been able to find anything else,” that could be recorded as being employed part-time.

    The possibility of subjectivity creeping into the process is so pervasive that the BLS’s own “Handbook of Methods” has a full page explaining the limitations of its data, including how non-sampling errors get made, from “misinterpretation of the questions” to “errors made in the estimations of missing data.”

    Bottom line: To suggest that the input to the BLS data-collection system is precise and bias-free is—well, let’s just say, overstated.

    Even if the BLS had a perfect process, the context surrounding the 7.8% figure still bears serious skepticism. Consider the following:

    In August, the labor-force participation rate in the U.S. dropped to 63.5%, the lowest since September 1981. By definition, fewer people in the workforce leads to better unemployment numbers. That’s why the unemployment rate dropped to 8.1% in August from 8.3% in July.

    Meanwhile, we’re told in the BLS report that in the months of August and September, federal, state and local governments added 602,000 workers to their payrolls, the largest two-month increase in more than 20 years. And the BLS tells us that, overall, 873,000 workers were added in September, the largest one-month increase since 1983, during the booming Reagan recovery.

    These three statistics—the labor-force participation rate, the growth in government workers, and overall job growth, all multidecade records achieved over the past two months—have to raise some eyebrows. There were no economists, liberal or conservative, predicting that unemployment in September would drop below 8%.

    I know I’m not the only person hearing these numbers and saying, “Really? If all that’s true, why are so many people I know still having such a hard time finding work? Why do I keep hearing about local, state and federal cutbacks?”

    Enlarge Image

    .I sat through business reviews of a dozen companies last week as part of my work in the private sector, and not one reported better results in the third quarter compared with the second quarter. Several stayed about the same, the rest were down slightly.

    The economy is not in a free-fall. Oil and gas are strong, automotive is doing well and we seem to be seeing the beginning of a housing comeback. But I doubt many of us know any businessperson who believes the economy is growing at breakneck speed, as it would have to be for unemployment to drop to 7.8% from 8.3% over the course of two months.

    The reality is the economy is experiencing a weak recovery. Everything points to that, particularly the overall employment level, which is 143 million people today, compared with 146 million people in 2007.

    Now, I realize my tweets about this matter have been somewhat incendiary. In my first tweet, sent the night before the unemployment figure was released, I wrote: “Tomorrow unemployment numbers for Sept. with all the assumptions Labor Department can make..wonder about participation assumption??” The response was a big yawn.

    My next tweet, on Oct. 5, the one that got the attention of the Obama campaign and its supporters, read: “Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can’t debate so change numbers.”

    As I said that same evening in an interview on CNN, if I could write that tweet again, I would have added a few question marks at the end, as with my earlier tweet, to make it clear I was raising a question.

    But I’m not sorry for the heated debate that ensued. I’m not the first person to question government numbers, and hopefully I won’t be the last. Take, for example, one of my chief critics in this go-round, Austan Goolsbee, former chairman of the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers. Back in 2003, Mr. Goolsbee himself, commenting on a Bush-era unemployment figure, wrote in a New York Times op-ed: “the government has cooked the books.”

    The good news is that the current debate has resulted in people giving the whole issue of unemployment data more thought. Moreover, it led to some of the campaign’s biggest supporters admitting that the number merited a closer look—and even expressing skepticism. The New York Times in a Sunday editorial, for instance, acknowledged the 7.8% figure is “partly due to a statistical fluke.”

    The coming election is too important to be decided on a number. Especially when that number seems so wrong.

  4. W Bush

    Hia there, Jack old buddy. Listen up. Leave my friend Bill from Susan’s blog alone ya hear? Ma family has deeper roots in Connecticut then yours and if need be, I’ll call on them to pay you a visit – just a Texan talk man to man.

    Then they will take you out for a beer.

  5. Todd Zaino

    Biden did not disappoint last night…same old Joe, rude, loud, obnoxious. If you watched the debate on a splitscreen you were able to see Old Joe at his best. Rolling his eyes, smirking, and interupting Ryan over 80 times. I guess when you have the track record of the past four years…you have to act the way Joe did last night. I also was wondering why Joe was laughing so much last night…did he take a couple of hits of laughing gas prior to the debate? The party of Big Bird should be so proud of Joe Biden, a so-called practicing Catholic who’s cool with abortion! Nothing these modern day liberals do shocks me anymore. Joe throwing the CIA under the bus last night might bite Barry in rear…now we wait for the “leak” from the CIA that damage Obama’s fairy tale further.

  6. Cynical Susan

    From your link:

    “UPDATE: Obama Supporters Threaten To Kill Romney If He Wins Election”

    Funny — I haven’t seen any of these threats — are they like the threats to kill Obama?

    “Despite the issue receiving national media attention, Obama supporters continue to threaten to riot if Mitt Romney wins the presidential election, raising the prospect of civil unrest if Obama fails to secure a second term.”

    In all the e-mails I get from Democratic and progressive groups, not one has suggested civil unrest should this happen.

    “The new threats continue to dominate Twitter and the vast majority make no reference to press coverage of the issue over the last week, illustrating the fact that they are a legitimate expression of how many Obama voters plan to respond if Romney comes out on top, and not merely a reaction to media hype.”

    Well, I’m not on Twitter, so I guess I’m out of the loop. But even the most ahead-of-the-pack journalists that I’ve read haven’t picked up on this. Sounds like American “Thinker” or Fox “News” or “National Enquirer” reports, to me.

  7. Todd Zaino

    No Cynical the above link is not from Fox News or American Thinker…I looked to find it as well. Perhaps Mr. Woodcock reads other sites than the ones you mentioned. Mr. Woodcock’s link might be on to something here… I could also see Obama losing the White House fair and square, and then declare Executive Order and become dictator? His hubris is such that I can totally see it!

  8. Cynical Susan

    ” I could also see Obama losing the White House fair and square, and then declare Executive Order and become dictator?”

    …or have some help from the Supreme Court! Or Florida’s Attorney General!

  9. Richard

    Jack’s raisins are bigger and wealthier after Debate II:

    The two polls afterward gave the debate to Obama 41.5% to 34.5%

    But the line item poll issues (economy, health care, Taxes, deficit) went to Romney. It looks decisive. Of course the spin will be the top line but the polls will reflect the line items and further diverge from commentary.

    Despite Obama’s slight edge overall, Romney was seen as better able to handle most issues. The trend was most notable in the CNN poll: Romney had an 18-point edge among registered voters on the economy (58 percent Romney, 40 percent Obama), a 3-point edge on health care (49 percent Romney, 46 percent Obama), a 7-point edge on taxes (51 percent Romney, 44 percent Obama), and, largest of all, a 23 percent edge on the deficit (59 percent Romney, 36 percent Obama).

    Obama’s only lead was on foreign policy, where a slim margin of 2 percent of registered voters who watched the debate said he would handle the issue better (49 percent Obama, 47 percent Romney).

    The CBS poll also had 65 percent of respondents saying Romney would handle the economy better (though that decreased from 71 percent before the debate). Only 34 percent said Obama would handle the economy better, but that was a rise of 7 percentage points….

  10. J.R. Dunn

    The most single telling moment of Tuesday’s debate – and possibly of any of the debates – came early, when Obama attempted to interrupt Romney one time too many. The governor rebuked him, politely but firmly, and Obama simply turned and went back to his stool.

    Now, you can get away with anything if you carry it off with enough in the way of panache. There are plenty of politicians who would have gotten away with what Obama was trying to do. Lyndon Johnson would have brushed aside all protests. Richard J. Daley would have blustered his way through. FDR would have charmed his way into taking over the entire debate. Reagan would have added humor. Harry Truman, Churchill, Maggie Thatcher… They all had the gall to draw the spotlight to themselves, the effrontery to make it work, and the class the force audiences to accept it.

    But Obama… Obama has none of these.

    For a fleeting instant, Americans saw Obama the way that Putin, Jiang, Khamanei, and Jihadis see him. It was not an impressive sight, and it cannot be made up for.

  11. Todd Zaino

    Easy there Cynical…even the New York Times has said that Bush beat Gore in 2000 fair and square. Are you still fighting that old battle 12 years later, well I guess if I had to hitch my wagon to Obama, I too would have to find new ways to amuse myself as well.

    I must have missed the memo…I didn’t realize that the townhall format meant Romney had to face off against Obama and Candy Crowley. Looks like a great a topic for your class Colin.

  12. Matt C. Abbott

    It’s no secret that President Obama supports abortion-on-demand. And, of course, he wants us taxpayers to help fund abortion via Planned Parenthood. In fact, he’ll even be less than truthful (imagine that!) in an attempt to portray the abortion giant as an organization that cares about women’s health.


    President Barack Obama has, once again, misled Americans when it comes to the issue of Planned Parenthood and what legitimate health care it does or doesn’t provide. During Tuesday night’s debate, Obama falsely claimed the abortion company does mammograms. It does not.

    ‘There are millions of women all across the country who rely on Planned Parenthood for mammograms, for cervical cancer screenings,’ Obama claimed….

    Planned Parenthood itself has admitted that it does not perform mammograms for women-something the Komen for the Cure breast cancer charity confirmed last year….

    But, hey, what are a few lies here and there when it comes to protecting the libertine left’s “sacrament” of abortion?

  13. Todd Zaino

    All four of these debates are completely so one-sided. Last night CNN’s Candy Crowley wanted to be a bigger part of the show than she should have been. She’s walked back her comment from last night…big deal-she accomplished what she wanted to do. Last week we discovered that VP debate moderater, Martha Raddatz , actually had a younger Obama in attendance at the first of her three weddings. No conflict of interest there…nothing to see folks…keep moving! Jim Leher…PBS, enough said! The last debate this Monday in Florida will feature CBS’s Bob Schieffer! Which leads me to ask…why not have the debate in Obama’s Chicago home with Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann acting as Obama cheerleaders/debate moderaters. The crap that liberal Democrats get away with is truly unreal!

  14. Cynical Susan

    ” Last week we discovered that VP debate moderater, Martha Raddatz , actually had a younger Obama in attendance at the first of her three weddings. ”

    Yes, 20 years ago, he was a guest of her then-bridegroom. You don’t keep everything that comes with a failed marriage, as most divorced people know.

    1. Cynical Susan

      Or….. they might have said “small world, eh?” Seriously — if Obama was invited by Raddatz’s first husband to a wedding 2 decades ago when he was NOT a senator or the president, and she’s been married twice more since then, how tight must they automatically be? I know someone who went to a party and was struck by how familiar a woman across the room seemed, and then he realized that he’d been married to her when they were young. Friendships and alliances don’t necessarily transcend divorces.

  15. Todd Zaino

    Candy Crowley could have worn an Obama/Biden 2012 pin during the debate and the left wouldn’t have batted an eye. Ms. Crowly also interupted Romney 29 times and Obama only nine times…she also allowed Barry to have an extra three minutes of air time. It will all come out in the wash come Nov 6th. Americans having gotten a really good look at Obama can smell a rat, as much as the media, and educators try to pump up the left, the six year nightmare of Pelosi/Reid/Obama is coming to an end. Enjoy the ride.

Comments are closed.