Read yesterday's posted article in this blog, and see who was right: The Maverick Conservative or the despicable AP/Yahoo "New2s". The articles in this blog have been telling you that BAD monthly empoyment numbers were already 'baked in" for June because of previouis economic data--especially the unimproving number of new unemployment claims each week. Thus, this blog correctly PREDICTED yesterday that the June emplooyment numbers whuold show SOME "job growth" (because the weekly number of new unemplyment claims has not gotten substantially WORSE, although it has deteriorated slightly and definitely NOT IMPROVED), but that the "job growth" could NOT BE GOOD (unless the number was inconsistent with other data). This turned out to be exactly right.
80,000 jobs were "creatged" in June. That is a BAD number--really not much different than zero. The number is "seasonally adjusted", and subject to substantial REVISION (although, unlike the weekly number of new unemplyment claims, the revisioin is not ALWAYS in the same unfavorable direction). The unemployment rate--a poll--stayed at 8.2%. You will remember that the CALCULATION of both the unempllyment ratge and employment numbers was CHANGED in January, making even the Lbaor Department say tat you really can't compare this year's numbers (in any confident manner) with last year's numbers. Thus, what matters is how we are doing THIS YEAR (for comparison purposes, since those are the numbers that can best be compared on an "apples-to-apples" basis).
The January unemplyment rate was 8.2%. Thus, the unemplyment RATE has not really changed THIS ENTIRE YEAR. "Job creation" has TANKED since Januarty-February (when changes in calculation had the most effect AND when the "seasonal adjustment" was SUSPECT, including because of the good weather)--reaching less tha 100,000 for at least the last 3 months. As this blog has told you week after eek, the number of new unemplyment claims has NOT IMPROVED this entire year, desite apparent "improvement" in January and February, which has REVERSED (apparently) over the past three months until we are at about the same level at which we started the year. At the same time, economic "growth rate" has DELCINED to less than 2%. This data all provides a CONSISTENT picture of OBAMA FAILURE ON JOBS: no improvement in the job market this entire year, and very little i"improvement" in the economy n general. The "apparent' "improvement" in January and February was probably FICTINAL, as changes in calculatin and glitches in "seasonal adjustments" probaly resulted in numbers a little better than reality. Does that mean that present numbers may be a little worse than reality? Sure, it does, but the overall picture is of a job market and an economy NOT IMPROVING, and which have not improved this entire year.
The problem is that there does not alppear to be any reason things will get any better, and many reasons they MAY get worse. Europe is a disaster area. China is in some trouble, to the oknt that the truly STUPID peole on Wall Street are counting on "stimulus" in China--as well as Europe and the U.S (from Bailout Ben Bernanke)j--to "save" us. This Bernanke idea that central bannkers and governments can, and SHOULD, bail out Wall Street and financial people is one of the evils of our time. One of my brothers calls this Bailout Ben "olution" to problems the 'money button", where Ben Bernanke (and other "central bankers" and governments) have an electonic "button", where al they have to do to CREATE INFINITE AMOUNTS OF MONEY is to PUSH THE BUTTON--and the money "magiclaly" appears electronically. This is an obvius "improvement' on the old money "printing press", since yu don't even have to physically print any money (the only apparent expalnation for the LIE by Bailout Ben that the Federal Reserve has not been engaging in the printing of money). But there is no actual reason to believe that we can push the "money button" ans "solve' the major problems in Europe, and around the world.
What about here? We have a deficit still out of control. The Obama Administratin are putting out mor regulations every day, except when Obama announces some cosmetic, political "initiative" to "reduce" the burden on business). TAXES are set to RISE next year, includnig the supposed end of the FRAUDULENT "payroll tax credit"). ObamaCare alone puts more of a BLACK COUOUD over our economy than any other law in the history of this country. And, with the Supreme Court betrakyal, there is no "clean' way to end ObamaCare. That is why the Supreme Court decisin was BAD for President Obama, as well as for the country. We alrady have "stealth inflation", as FOOD prices are going through the roof, while even gasoline prices are HIGHTER than they shuld be (much highter). Notice how our poilicies have made a real "recovery" IMPOSSIBLE. IF we actualy started to 'improve" in any substantial way, OILK and GASOLINE prices will EXPLODE (along with inflatin in general)--stopping any "recovery" in its tracks. Taht is also the effect of our ever building DEBT. It is also the effect of ObamaCare and ever increasing regulatin HANGING OVER the economy. There is no chance for a real recovery, and little chance for any "blip" of real "improvement" for the economy by electin day. This blog has alrady predicted that Obama will LOSE the electin, IF the econmy does not show substantial improvement by electin day (or at least apparent "improvement").
Against all of this, what are the economic fascists on CNBC counting on? GAS PRICES (lol). Yes, gasoline prices are the third highest they have ever been, and SHOULD be around that $250 that Michele Bachmann was "ridiculed" for "promising", but the truly stupid peole on Wall Street are "counting on" the drop in the price of oil and gasoline to "bail us out" (along with, of curse, Bailout Ben Bernanke "having their backs"). What can you say abut a fantasy this ludicrous? Oil and gasolne prices have dropped--not nearly as much as they should have dropped--because of a WEAK world economy (whihc has resulted in a STONGER DOLLAR--hurting our economy is some ways while helping it in thngs like the price of oil in dollar terms). Problem? Not only do oil and gasoline prices remain TOO HIGH, but they are offset by things like FOOD (which I can tell yuu--as I do my own grocery shopping--has SKYROCKETED). Then there is the HEAT WAVE (which "helped" the eocnmy n January and February, and reduced the need for heating oil, but is now INCREASING UTILITY BILLS). It is obvius that lower gasoline prices WILL NOT SAVE US, although the Bernanke-caused spike upward in gasoline prices this spring had something to do with the seasonal stalling of the economy this spring.
Doom and gloom? Maybe, but I call them the way I see them. The econmy has really been stalled since the end of 2009, and the underlying "piollars" of our "free market" econmy are ROTTING. It is hard to see how we can have any 'recovery" before things get worse again. No, they are not getting substantially worse YET, but we are constantly on the preciice, with NO way to actually "recover". So, yes, I am pessimistic. We are gong down the wrong path, with no margin at al for error. Some DRAMATIC change of directin is needed, and even that cannot be done without pain, but there seems no prospect of such actin (not a government 'solution" with a political "magic wand" or Bernanke's "money button", but a return to a real "rfree market" economy without government siphoning all of the vitality out of the private sector).
"Skip, how can yoiu be popular, if you keep saing things this pessimistic?" Ah. President Obama LIES to yo, and says he does not care aobut politics in things like ObamaCare and "gay rights". But you will NEVER be told what I think you want to hear in this blog. Even Rush Limbaugh will do that more than this bog will. Let me be very clear: I have said repeatedly, and sy now, that a POLITICIAN must be POSITIVE to get elected. That was the genius of Ronald Reagan: He could remain amiable and positive, while still asserting strong principles that may have had negative aspects, but which Reagan presented POSITIVELY and with a POSITIVE vision of the future. Taht is what a conservative running for office needs to be: PRINCIPLED, but POSITIVE (and with a visin). We have NO such politician now. However, I think that peole are ready for "plain talk" (not from John McCain, who never gave it). People will accept a "negative' view of where we are, if only they see a VSIIN of where we CAN BE. Regan was able to do that. No prsent conservative politician can. And I am to much of a pessimist to do it. I think I do have the "vision". I just see the problems of where we are too clearly, and am too honet with myself to pretend I see an EASY way out. The way out from here is HARD, although a few leaders like Reagan could make it easier. The problem is that we are not even on the path of a "way out", but digging ourselves steadlily deeper into the swamp.
P.S. No proofreaidng or spell checkng (bad eyesight).