SOME of the media outlets may be finaly getting it--after only abut TWO YEARS of instruction from The Maverick Conservative--as The Maverick Conservative gets it RIGHT every week, while the media gets it WRONG. If you doubt this, look at this blog's posted articles every Thursday or Friday EACH WEEk, including last week. Here is the Bloomberg headline today, which abut gets it right (for a change, where ANY of the media are concerned):
"JJobless claims in U.S. hovered last week near 2012 high"
None of the usual lies, at least in this Bloomberg article, about how the number of new unemplyment claims"fell" 6,000 last week, tto 386,000. In fact, Bloomberg did NOT put the usual, MISTAKEN, emphasis on today's FICTITIOUS number, but gavve lat least as much prominence to the REVISION this week of the number of new unemplyment claims for the previus week. Taht revisin--as this blog lpredictged last week, although it was slightly WORSE than usual--was from 387,000 t9 392,000. Notice how much of a FICTION it is to say that the number "dropped" 6,000 this week, when the INITIAL NUMBER (before next week's revision) stayed abut the SAME (386,0000 not being materially different from the 387,000 INITIALLY reported last week, and LIKELY to be revised to AT LEAST 389,000 next week. This upward revisin of 3,000 or more is CNONSISTENT each and very week, to the extent of making the initial report a constant GOVERNMENT LIE. The number of ne unemplyment claims filed the previsou week is "released" every Thurssday, but it is ALWYAS (with very rare exceptions) an UPWARD revision of at least 3,000. This week the UPWARD revisino of the previious week's numbers wsa a full 5,000.
Do yu EVER doubt this blog? If so, look at last Friday's article on the jobless claims numbers released last Thursday. You will remember that the MEDIA HEADLINES said that the number of jobless claims FELL slightly, to 387,0000 (from the previus week's REVISED number of 389,000--revised from the same 386,0000 initially ereported this week). The media headline was a LIE. This blog's headline was CORRECT: "Jobless calims ROSE slightly last week, to 390,000 ." Note that this blog told you the number ws usually revised AT LEAST 3,000, and sometimes more. In this case, this blog was "conservative",as the number has been revised to 392,0000 (instead of the expected 390,000). But this blog was EXCTLY right that the revision meant that the number of claims ROSE, rather than fell.
But Bloomberg has it right. The important FACT here--a feew thousand here or there not meaning much, except that the CONSISTENT UNDERSTATEMENT calls into questin the entire process--is that we are NOT IMPROVING. Note that Bloomberg correctly says that we are HOVERING near th HIGH for 2012 (that 392,0000 number), and we are doing so WEEK AFTER WEEK. Her, no improvement means NO improvement.
Obama has FAILED on jobs again, and we are NOT "going in the right directino". If anything, we are "going in the wrong directino". As this blog has noted, although it was FICTION (as this blog noted was probble at the time), the nmber of jobless claims 'droped' to abut 350,0000 in several February weekly reports. If yu believe lthose numbers, we have GOTTEN WORSE. If you don't beleive those February numbers, and they are surely misleading, then the situatin wsa NEVER THAT GOOD IN THE FIRST PLACE (desite lthe media having orgasms about hwo the labor market was "improving").
Nope. It is not like these are GOOD numbes. 390,000 is a BAD number. 400,000 is the "psychological" number here, where everyone admits that the "sky is falling" if we go above 400,0000. But there is little material difference between a cONSISTENT number around 390,000, and a number around 400,0000. A GOD number here is 300,000, or below. "Progress", which the LYING media asserted we were making in February, would be to at least go CONSISTENTLY below 35l0,0000. After all, we reached a "low 9f 375,000 n February of 2011. We have really "improved" LITTLE since then, especially when yu consider that the FORMULA keeps changing every year (m,aking year over year comparisons difficult).
I repeat. This number is yuet another indicatin that President Obama has FAILED on jobs. Further, it makes it IMPOSSIBLE for the MONTHLY "jobs numbers" to be GOOD. If the June jobs numbers were "good", that would just call into queston the NUMBERS. The "labor market" for June is already BAKED IN. Most of June has already happened, and you can't turn these numbers around "on a dime". Thus, "good" employment numbers for the onth of June are effectively IMPOSSIBLE.
As this blog has told you, Obama is running ut of time. As sated, you can't turn these numbers around "on a dime". With ObamaCare LOOMING over tlhe economy, especially after the Supreme Court decisin, and with the situatin in europe, i it is hard to see how Obama's CONTINUATIN of his FAILED policies can possibly produce any 'better" results by November. This blog has already PREDICTED that OBAMA LOSS this electin if the economy does not materially IMPROVE by election day. We are almost at the pont, again, where it is BANKED IN that the eocnomy CANNOT "improve" by electin day.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). No, I still don't understand how "phantom underlining (not by any conscious actin on my part) "crept" into a previous article today. It almost makes me believe in Hacker Boyo (Piers Morgan)--a figure of my own inventino (I thought). ObamaCare really is a BLACK CLOUD hanging over the economy. Even apart from other Obama/Democrat threatened tax incrfeases, ObamaCare contains MULTIPLE TAXES beyond even what the Supreme Court called the TAX if you don't give in to EXTORTIN and buy health insurance of the type the government is going to FORCE you to buy. Obama is "celebrating" the Supreme Court decisin. However, the decisions MAY hve cost Obama any chancee of winning the electin--because it DOOMED the econmy. That is aide from "energizing" the OPPOSITIN to Obama: for lpeple who are ot as tried of BETRAYAL as I am, and could not stand more of it from Mitt Romney. Chief Justice John Roberts, who I was muchMORE confident of than I am of Romney, shows lthe FRUSTRATIN that conservatives like me have with "estalbishment" GOP figures.