Unemployment Benefits and Mainstream Media/AT&T/Yahoo Propaganda

"Jobless in Iowa: a third of the unemployed in Iowa have been looking for work fo more than six months"


This is a test (sort of like the real Sherlock Holmes, as distinguished from the Hollywood "action herro", challenging Watson to "apply my methods, which I have taught you"). Do you understand that the above ridiculousheadline is part of teh Mainstreammedia PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN designed to FORCE tehGOP (cowards that they are) to pass Obama's "jobs bill", or at least the payroll tax cut and the extension of unemployment benefits.


Why is the quoted headline ridiculous? Why pick out Iowar? Does the headline not highlight that BarackObama has FAILED on jobs (not to mention Ben Bernake: The Worst Failurein the History of World Finance, since his appointement early in 2006)? This is hardlyl "news". This "story" has been told over and over again. "Discouraged workers", as a matter of fact, might be part oft eh explanation as to the supposed "drop" in the unemployment rate this past month (along with many other factors having nothing to do with any real improvementin the job markte) Therefore: WHY is this non-news about a single state FEATURED on AT&T/Yahoo this mornning,? And remember that Yahoo "partnership" with ABC. I originally assumed this was an AP story, but the more I look at the headline the more I wonder. And, as I was writing this article, I realized I did not really check the original source of the story with any care. That is why I have tried to delete references to the AP above.


Have you applied my methods correctly, Watson? We knnow that Iowa is the first caucus state in the GOP nomination process. That is why Iowa is getting all of this attention. You must have gotten that far. But why this story? The GOP candidates hardly differ very much on most things connected to the econmy. Sadly, they don't even differ that much on something like the 'payroll tax cut", where--in debate--they PNDERED (except for Michele Bachmann) to the idea that a failure to extend the fraudlulent "payroll tax cut" would represent a "tax increase" that you don't do in a recession. Yep. GOP candidates have now gone so far as to consider a TEMPRORARY STIMULUS GIMMICK/bribe as a real tax cut to which the people are now "entitled". Give me a break. I digress (not really). Yet, it is OBVIOUS (to me, in the role of Sherlock Holmes), without even reading the disgraceful article, to know what the purpose of teh article was.


This natiion has long capped unemployment benefits at six months, since the whole idea of unemployoment benefits is to cushion a TRANSITIOIN from one job to another, when people are laid off. Unemployment benefits are not supposed to be WELFARE paid over an extended periosd of time. Yet, this is a case of another FAILED TEMPORARY POLICY becoming an "entitlement. We extended the unemployment benefit period on an EMERGENCY, TEMPORARY BASIS (lool). First, it was extended to one year (which might be a reasonable "compromise" for those to cowardly to say "enough is enough"). Then it was extended to 99weeks. Now, as the article indicates, we are PAYING lots of people NOT TO WORK for almost TWO YEARS. This is absurd, and the longer it goes on the more absurd it becomes (as people learn to take advantage of the system--not all, but this blog has personal knowledge of manny).


Thus, the quoted headline, this far into a "recovery", merely indicates why the GOP should REFUSE to continue to extend unemployment benefits for a ridicuous period, when we can't afford it. But the story is INTENDED to put tpressure on the GOP, through GOP Presidential candidates and politicians gearing up for te 2012 Presidential election, to do the cowardly thing and FORCE GOP memebers of Congress to "do something" on the "payroll tax cut" and extension of those extended unemployment benefits. See the Jeff Flake quote in the previius blog article, from an AT&T/Yahoo featured article that was definitely from the AP. That is the Media PROPAGANDA message: "You people of the GOP have to DO SOMETHING, or Barack Obama is going to be able to succesffully run against Congress. And these are 'popular' programs that you are threatening to end-NEEDED programs."


Thus, the mainstream meida is sending the not-so-subtle message to GOP candidates in Iowa, and to members of Congress, that they MUST make sure to pass those items on the MEDIA agenda--or make sure they are passed, as to GOP candidates--or be destroyed by a combination of this media propaganda campaign and Barack Obama's heavlity financed campaign train . What is the LEAST the mainstream media and the Democrats expect to get out of this kind of article? Right (I hope you got it, Watson). They expect to pit GOP people AGAINST none another, as the COWARDS want to get in on the bribes, while the conservatives (admittedly sometimes cowards in the other direction) want to actually apply PRINCIIPLE. Idealy, the mainstream media would like to see the GOP Presidential candidates--at least the main ones, which may not reduce to only two--basically attacking CONGRESS (namely, the GOP members of Congress). That would cause the media TV people to have orgasms right there on your TV screen.


Meanwhille, what tdoes the Iowa "numbers" have to do with what POLICY we should pursue? Isn't the issue we shoud be pursuing HOW to get peopleback to work, and not looking for an excuse to PAY PEOPLE NOT TO WORK for an extended period of time. And, as staed, why is Iowa more imortant than Texas or California? And where do we draw the line? A fourth? A fifth? ANYONE who is, in good faith lo0king for work? ; What do the NUMBER have to do with the correct POLICY? I understand the POLITICAL reason that the number matters, and that is what the mainstream media PROOPAGANDA/EXTORTION relies upon. But it is sad when we determine economic policy by the NUMBER of peoiple we can BRIBE. Why do people who can't find work NOW "deserve" longer unemployment benefits more than people who could not find work in 2007? Because there are more of them? Well, that is the POLITICAL reason. It should have little to do with POLICY--especially after the "emergency" is supposedlyl over.


No, I am right on this. This article, with the headline quoted above, is pure PARTISAN PROPAGANDA by the media pushing the Obama agenda (which happens to also be their agenda). The idea is to divide the GOP, and get Obama elected.


"But, Skip, are they not succeeding with YOU. You are about as divisive a force as theGOP has ever seen--refusing to even recognize the 'Grand Outdate Party' as a legitimate vehicle for consrvatives anymore.?"


There is some justice in that last "charge", but only some. If the GOP actually STOOD for anything, s Democrats now clearly stand for SPENDING an dBIG GOVERNMENT, then these "divisons" would hardly matter. That is true of Democrats nowadays, where the "dissenters" have no effect on the overall Democratic message. Sure, this is PARTLY because Democrats have Obama as President, and he speaks with one voice (albeit a voice wich sometimes says exacly opposite tings on ne day than he says on the next). But this is ony PART of it, as you can tel you considering the second term of George W,. Bush, and even parts of the first term. The "politics as usual" crowd in the GO stil does not "get it". Until they do, it is useless to worry about "dividing" the GOP. The Grand, Outdated Party is simply incapable of being a positive force for this country so long as it is willing to be "leftist Democrat light". As long as the GOP buys into the idea that "government solutions' are fine, so lng as they come from the GOP (and the peole know whree their BRIBES are coming from), the GOP will remain useless. The GOP can NEVER, over any length of time, compete with Democrats on government BRIBES. It cannot be done. What the GOP has to do is show people that a government/culture based on BRIBERY is fatal for EVERYONE. If you don't believe that, you should look at Mexico, where "mordida" is a way of life.


The media propaganda marches on. The GOP cowards continue to fail to counteractit--often buying into it. You should be able to see, Watson, why I am a pessimist. I am not sure how our country survies this (as the contry it has been). We need LEADERS that we do not seem to have.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).