36,000 more jobs lost as US unemployment remains at 9.7%

The unemployment rate in February remained at 9.7% as even more jobs were lost. You might be wondering how the unemployment rate can stay steady as jobs are lost, but accounting gimmicks are the explanation. For instance, as people give up looking for work, they are not considered unemployed anymore as that number only includes those that don't have jobs but are looking for them. Being that the unemployment rate is still essentially 10%, recall that Obama rammed through his stimulus boondoggle to keep unemployment from going into the double digits:

How's that stimulus working out for you all? Here is what has been happening with Biden's 3-letter word last year:

January US jobs lost: 598,000 jobs
February US jobs lost: 706,000 jobs
March US jobs lost: 742,000 jobs
April US jobs lost: 545,000 jobs
May US jobs lost: 345,000 jobs
June US jobs lost: 467,000 jobs
July US jobs lost: 247,000 jobs
August US jobs lost: 216,000 jobs
September US jobs lost: 263,000 jobs
October US jobs lost: 190,000 jobs
November US jobs lost: 11,000 jobs
December US jobs lost: 85,000 jobs
January US jobs lost: 20,000
February US jobs lost: 30,000

Total US jobs lost under Obama: 4,465,000 jobs

4.5 million fewer jobs to lose, and that's neglecting the corrections that were made to the jobs numbers from last year that showed even bigger losses. Recall that the stimulus package was supposed to stop the unemployment rate at 8%! A crisis could become a calamity? Remember that? Here's how that looks (via Michael's Comments):

And the jobs picture:

Ouch. From the AP via The Detroit News: Unemployment rate unchanged as 36K jobs lost

The unemployment rate held at 9.7 percent in February as employers shed fewer jobs than expected, evidence that the job market may be slowly healing.

The Labor Department said employers cut 36,000 jobs, below analysts' expectations of 50,000. Analysts expected the jobless rate to rise to 9.8 percent.

The severe snowstorms that hammered the East Coast last month may have affected job losses, but the department wouldn't quantify the impact.

That's right - the AP is pinning the bad numbers on -- GLOBAL WARMING! That's the lapdog MSM taking its talking points directly from the White House (White House economic adviser Larry Summers hints that bad economic data on the way due to... global warming)

...Economists estimated before the report that the storms could inflate job losses by 100,000 or more. That would mean the economy generated a net gain in jobs last month, excluding the impact of the snow, for only the second time since the recession began in December 2007.

As for when the recession started, it is important only insofar as political points go. However, backdating the recession back to 2007 sure makes it appear that most jobs were lost under Bush. I mean Bush had control for a full 13 months since December 2007, and Obama only 10 months, so surely it's mostly Bush's fault, right? Except that most of those jobs were lost under Obama in his short time in office. But it's Bush's recession, right? December 2007? Well, let's look at that claim also through GDP numbers:Well, so much for that. The recession began in Q3 of 2008 according to the GDP, not December 2007, since it was in Q3 that the GDP began being negative for at least 2 consecutive quarters. The MSM simply cannot ignore the GDP numbers to pinpoint when the recession started, but use a positive GDP to pinpoint when the recessions ended. Well, they technically can, and are, but shouldn't because of the blatant hypocrisy.