Remember, the BASE numbers in figuring the unemplyment rate, and jobs "created", were CHANGED ("adjusted") in January. The Labor Department itself said tlhat you could NOT "compare" the rate for January with the rate for December, because of the changes. This led to two questions. First, what GOOD are these numbers, if they not only are suject to MAJOR revision in future months, but cannot even be compared with prior onths? Second, WHY could not--for comparison sake, you do 'pro forma" numbers for DECEMBER jusing the new calculation method, OR give a number for January using the same calculations that were used for December? These kind of questions make these monthly emplyment numbers pretty much USELESS. Gallup, for example, comes up with a different number fort eh unemplyment rate on a regular basis. Thesese monthlly numbers are simply UNRELIABLE. And we haven't even gotten to the quetionof glitches in the seasonal adjustment--perhaps because the seasonal pattern has CHANGED for the economy.
Thus, the Labor Department itself is telling us that the ONLY "comparison" that is going to mean anything is the comparison WITH JANUARY. And the monthly "jobs created" number is pretty much ficiton. Since the ONLY comparison that means anything is WITH JANUARY (where, supposedly, the same calculating calculations and assumptions were used, which is NOT turue for "comparison" with lasst year, or with when Obama took office), this latest unemplooyment rate is BAD news for Pressident Obama. His "performance" on teh unempllyment rate this yhear can ONLY be measured by comparison with January, and he is off to a BAD start. February did NOT improve at all. The unemplyment rate stayed at the same rate initially reported for January (8.3%). You can never be sure when these numbers will be REVISED, which merely emphasizes how they don't mean nearly as much as the media (or Obama) would like you to believe. The numbers are written on water. Still, look at the position President Obama is in. He not only faces "comparison" with his original PROMISE that the unemployment rate would not go above 8%, but he mucst eventualy face the fact that the ONLY "comparison" that means anything over the next year is comparison with that 8.3% unemplyment rate for January. Comparing any other numbers, without major adjustments (to take into account the MAJOR adjustments that have been made in the way the numbers are calculated) is worse than meaningless. It is DISHOENST. Waht am I saying? We are dealing with our Liar-in-Ch;ief here, and his minionins (liears) in the media.
Thus, you can expect LIES (including from the unfair and unbalanced network). But Presdient Obama has used up everyone's patience. I don't think the lies of either Obama or the media are as effective as they once were. And that is not ONLY from peopple like me pointing them out. Peple are just not as dumb as Obama and the media think they are. No, most people don't pay the kind of attention to this that I do, because they have actual LIVES. It still sinks in that they are not being told the turth.
Does ANY ONE (outside of CNN, MSNBC and the rest) pay ANY attention to an Obama SPEECH these days? I think not.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Again, one of the questions that remains here is whether February--as really happened last year--willl reflect the HIGH WATER mark for the economy until we reach at least the fall That has been the pattern of the past two years. IF it repeats, President Obama is in MAJOR trouble. Yes, the mainstream media is telling you you shouyld SELL OUT your country to punish RUSH LIMBAUGH (lol--a man not running for anything) for going overboard with his partisanship. ONLY CNN , MSNBC, and the rest are this STUPID, and this willing to SELL OUT THE COUNTARY. Of course, you and I know that the media is being DISOEHONEST here. That is what they do. Is there real reason for saying that the GOP should be PUNSIHED, rather than saing that people would be cuttin goff their nose to spite their face if they fail to elect people to "save" the country because of RUSH LIMBAUGH, that the meedia really thinks that people should vote for actual candidates based on a few sentences from LIbmaugh? Of course that is not the REAL reason that the media makes so much of Limbuagh's statements (in conttext, stupid, but not nearly as ad as the media themselves said about WoMEN like Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell--not to mention what Obama supporters like Bill Maher have said. The media LIES. They want to tar the GOP with Rush Limbaugh, and iwth a relatively meaningless (in terms of issues fac ing this country) statements of Limbaugh, BECAUSE THE MEDIA OPPOSES THE GOP. In other words, the media is trying to suggest that they think badly of the GOP because of Rush Limbuagh ("guilt by associatioin"), when the media really wants to DEFEAT the GOP (and elect Obama--and is attempting to USE Rush Limbaugh to accoplish tthat PARTISAN goal. I say this as a person who does not support the GOP myself, although I hardly support Obama and the Democrats. IF the GOP can do better on the economy thatn Obama, the media tells lyou that you (especailly if you are a woman) should still vote for Obama because LIMBAUGH has "insulted" women. Yu women out there shouyuuld be INSULTED. The media is caling you STUPID, and basciallly saying you are--and shuld be--willing to SELL OUT your country merely because a single person allegedly insulted you This is selling out your country, because if the GOP can really do better on the economy, then what matter is it that there was this insult. If the GOP cannot do better on the economy, then WHY SHOULD YOU VOTE FOR THEM ANYWAY. In either case, what Rush Limbaugh said is IRRELEVANT (not a matter of opinion, but an objective fac ct). The bottom line, as this blog has repeatedly told you, is that it is OBAMA and the DEMOCRATS who are FANATICS on the LEAST IMPROTANT matters. They are FANATICS on "social issues"--making a RELIGIN out of providing FREE contraceptin as a BRIBAE to women. They are FANATICS on "gay rights". To listn to them and the eqully fanatic people in the media, it is THES THINGS (and things like a few sentences from Rush Limbaugh) that people SHOULD vote ujpon, and not UNIMPORTNTANT things like whether this country will survive the next four years under Obama (which my whole family sayis tit will not, inccudling my 89 year old mother, in criticizing ME for saing I cannot support Mitt Romney, even against Obama).