The above headline is correct. Here is th eheadline from our medi a LIARS (the headline being featured on by the liars at CNBC and an exactquote from the liars at marketwatch.com):
"U.S. Jobless Claims Unchanged at 3670,000" (a LIE)
Segue to last Thrusday. This blog's headline (next week's news this week, even if you NEVER hear it from the media): "New Unemplyment Claims Rise." Media headline: "Jobless Calims Drop Slightly". The media LIARS reported that jobless claims/new unemplymnet claims DROPPED 1,000, from 368,000 to 357,000. That was a LIE (comparing apples with oranges, as usual). This blog reported that the REVISED number for jobless claims was LIKELY to be reported this week as 370,000, UP 2,000 from the previious week. Again, this blog was EXACTLY RIGHT, just as this blog was right the week before (when the number for the previous week wasREVISED upward from 365,000 to 368,000).
The ONLY "comparison" you can make, if you are not a LIAR (as "journalists" ALL are), is between this week's UNREVISED number and last week's UNREVISED number. Or, you can ESTIMATE next week's REVISION, based on the CONSISTENT upward revision of 3,000 or more. Either way, you arrive at a conclusion that new unemplyment claims ROSE 3,000 this week. You can either compare this week's UNREVISED number of 370,000 with last week's UNREVISED number of 367,000, or you can compare next week's likely REVISED num ber for this week, 373,0000, with this week's REVISED number for last week , 370,000. Either way, you get a RISE of 3,000 in the number (not 'unchanged"). But the media LIES on these numbers every single week. You would think they would get tired of this blog exposing them as LIRARS, but they do not. Even supposed "business" networks, like CNBC, and supposed "business" websites, like marketwatch.com, LIE. Yes, CNBC lied. Message to Jim Cramer: This continues to mean YOIU, You are a dishonest person. Does it ever bother you? It does not appear to. Oh, in case any of yu are fool enough to watch CNBC, you won't hear Jim Cramer talk too much about these jobless claims numbers. He has his OWN LIES to tell, and he does. But Cramer is fully complicit in this LIE, as lhe provides no insight at alll. IN fact that should be Cramer's epitaph: "Here lies a man who NEVER provided any ingight." As usual (the usual media plyoy): I invite Cramer, or anyone from CNBC or anyone who wants to try to defend them, to comment on this blog. Your only limit will be Googe. I NEVER edit a single comment, or delete one (a sad admission here, since that means that you can SEE how FEW comments there have EVER been to this blog).
Oh. What do these numbers MEAN? This blogt has already told yu that, week after week. There has been NO IMPROVEMENT in new unemplyment claims for basically this entire year. They reached a low of 351,000 in early to mid-February, after dropping below 400,000 at the end of last year and the beginning of this year. The number then settled into a range of 350-365,000. Then there was a three week SPIKE (probaly totally seasonal adjustment problems, which also probably account for the FICTIONAL "improvement' to 351,000). For that 3 weeks, the numbers were 388,000, 339,000 and 392,000. Then the number dropped back (not a rea l "improvement", but just returning to the normal "NO IMPROVEMENT" after that fictgional spike upward) to the TOP of the rnge that has existed for almost ALL of this year. Thus, the past 3 weeks have been 358,0000, 370,000 and the expected 373,0000 (after nestxt week's expected REVISION). You can see that the number is NOT IMPROVING, and has not improved for more than four months--essentially this entire year. Nor, of course, is the number getting worse. We are STUCK--STALLED. It is the pattern of 2010 and 2011 repeated: deja vu' all over again (to quote Yogi Berra).
Now there is a SLIGHT improvement year-over-year. The low LAST February was 375,000. By the way, a GOOD number needs to be below 300,000, or even 250,000. When George W. Bush had numbers like taht, the media (and Democrats) wre asserting that MEANT A RECESSION was going on. But there has been a SLIGHT year-over-year 'improvement. 2011 was SLIGHTLY better than 2010, and 2012 has been SLIGHTLY better than 2011. But the pattern of NO IMPROVEMENT from the beginning of the year until the fall has REPEATED for thre straight years now (assuming that we continue not to improve until this fall). This all means a TEPID 'recoery": the WORST "recovery" since the Great Depression--all under OBAMA. That is the situation: Obama wants to calim "credit" for the WORST RECOVERY since the Great Depression. You know what? I think he DESERVES that credit (sarcasm disease recurring).
Thus, it is ture that we are STALLED, at a high level, as to this measure of layoffs in the job market. I might mentin taht you would EXPECT this weekly number of new unemplyment claims to look a LIITTLE better in a STALLED economy. That is because so many people have already LOST their jobs, and so many peole are no lnger even participating in the job marke. With labor 'participation" so low--record lows--there are NOT THAT MANY JOBS LEFT TO LOSE.
No. The economy is not "falling off of a cliff" (YET). But it is STALLED, and has really been stalled for at least 2 1/2 years (since the beginning of 2010, affter the intitial "bounce back" in the first half of 2009, before the Obama policies had a chance to STALL IT OUT). Notice, by the way, that thee economy WENT BAD after Democrats, including Barack Obama in the majority, got control of Congress in January of 2007. That is one of the things that makes Obama such a liear. He says that he "inherited" an "economic mess". Hogwash. SENATOR Obama was one of the people who CAUSED the economic mess in the first place, and then he FAILED (when his party controlled all branches of government for two years) to produce any real recovery. It is really worse than that. President Obama, and his plicies, makde any real "recovery" IMPOSSIBLE.
Thus, we are STUKC IN THE MUD: spinning our wheels to no effect, as we HOPE to avoid final Armageddon. I guess this is the "hope" Obama was talking about: the hope that we can somewho SURVIVE OBAMA.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). By the way, I jsut realized. You know this blog's recurrent, correct headline: "Bill Maher and The Maverick Conservative Agree that Barack Obama Is Not a Christia." Well, I may be doing President Obama an injustice. Sure, the evidence is that Obama is not a Christian, and never has been a believing Christian. But look at how many Christians he is CREATING. It is like Hugo Chavez, whose heroes are Karl Marx and Fidel Castro, turning to "God" for divine intervention wit his cancer. How many people are PRAYING for help, because of what Obama has done with the economy? A new "conspiracy theory": Obama may be engaged in a dark, devioius plot to INCREASE the number of Christians in this country.