"WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - The number of people applying for unemployment benefits essentially held steady at 444,000 in the latest week, the Labor Department reported Thursday. Claims actually fell by 4,000 for the week ended May 8, but the data was revised up by 4,000 for the prior week. The net effect: no change from last week's headline number."
I am never wrong. In last week's weekly article on jobless claims--to correspond with the weekly release of the initial unemployment claims number from the Labor Department--I told you that last week's number was really UNCHANGED. TI told you (you can look it up) that the reported decline of 4,000 was so statistically insignificant as to represent no change--being well within the margin of error. The reported "decline" was from 448,000 to 444,000. I have repeatedly told you that this kind of meaningless "decline" is even within the REVISION of the number made every subsequent week. That is what MarketWatch (a mainstream media financial News" outlet, but not as absolutely corrupt as the AP) is telling you in the quote above. Last week's number was revised to 448,000 (no change), and this week's number of new unemployment claims (layoffs) was reported as that SAME 444,000 (the "decline" of 4,000 being again statistically insignificant, and withint the possible revision amount as well as within the margin of error inherent in the statistic).
What about the CORRUPT Associated Press (reported as usual on the equally corrupt Yahoo News)--the AP being the most corrupt "news" organization to ever exist on this planet (including Pravda, under the old Soviet Union, in the comparison sample)? What do you expect. The corrupt AP LIED to you again, and Yahoo "News" lied to you by using the corrupt AP article, as follows:"WASHINGTON – New claims for unemployment benefits dipped for the fourth straight week, a sign the job market is improving at a slow but steady pace."
Read the first quote from MarketWatch. Then read the above LIES from the utterly corrupt liars at the Associated Presss (and Yahoo). Q.E.D. As Marketwatch said, the "headline number" was UNCHANGED this week from last week at 444,000. And the revised number was UNCHANGED last week. Either way, there has not ben a decline for "four straight weeks". Only an organization as corrupt as the AP would even dare assert otherwise. That is beside the point that the number has not really "improved" for two straight Weeks--the total 4,000 "decline" over that period being statistically meaningless. "Steady" improvement my ass!!!! Another LIE from the liars at the Associated Press, brought to you by Yahoo. It gets worse.
I have been bringing you these weekly articles for at least the past six months. Over that entire time there has been NO--none, zilch, nada--in the jobless claims number. I have explained that week after week, as the corrupt AP has lied to you. Yes, there has been "noise" over that time: the weekly numbers going up and down. But the number went as low as 535,000 in the November-December time period, and the four week average went as low as 442,000 during that time period (that r week average being 450,000 this week).
My headline is correct. Obama has utterly failed. For six months, there has been NO IMPROVEMENT in this weekly number. It has bounced up as high as 490,0000 (without the liars at the AP saying the labor market was getting worse), and has several times bounced down to about this same level. Overall, it has stayed the same. In other words, despite the AP lie, the labor market has shown NO improvement at all for six months--much less a "steady" improvement. That is not just a lie. That is a 1984 style Big Lie. George Orwell was writing about today's Associated Press when he wrote about the technique of the Big Lie.
For at least these six months of no improvement in the unemployment claims number, the AP has maintained the same storyline--the Big Lie--of a "slow, steady improvement" and consistent "trend--regardless of the actual facts". You just don't get any more corrupt than that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment