Obama Loses 388,000 Jobs Last Week: No Improvement This Year (Media Lies Agan Eposed)

Remember the articles posted n this blog last week, where I exposed the LIE (pushed by the unfair and unbalanced network, and other media liears) that last week's initially reported jobless claims number was the "lowest in four years"?  Again, this bog was right, and the meia LIARS worong.  As this bog tol dyou wuld happen, last week's number on new unemplyment claims was rEVISED this week to 352,000 (up 2,000 from the 350,000 initially reported last week).  Since the low this eyar has been 351,000, in February, and was at least as low as 352,000 another week, the media LIED again.  We not lony did not hafvve the "lowest number" n four years, but we ddid not even have the lowest number this year.  yep. That is exaclty what the revision of 2,000 means to the some of the HEALDINES last week.  Notice how my other predictin has been confirmed.  The meid is now set up to use the SAME HEADLINE for a FUORTH time snce the number of new unemployment claims fell to 351,000 early this year, the NEXT time the INTITIAL number is again r(if ever) reported at 350,000. THRE TIMES our lying media has proclaimed a "new four yar low", and THREE TIMES it has proven to be a LIE.  Why not go for four?


Well, the media problem is that today's numbers confirmed that last week's aberration of 352,000 was total FICTION.  Today, the Lbor Department reported that the (seasonally adjusted) number of new unemplyment claims last week rose 34,000, to 386,000.  That is the SAME weekly number that was reported for most of June, until the last few weeks, within a few thousand.  Note that I have ADJUSTED my CORRETIN of the FALSE assertin that the nmber (even seasonally adjusted) is realy 386,000.  I have preivously CORRECTED the FALSE media report each eek by ADDING the EXPECTED revision next week of at least 3,000.  However, for the last 3 sraight weeks, the revisin has been 2,000.  Thus, to be conservatgive, I have made my own "adjustment' of this week's, number by 2,000, instead of my usual 3,000.  Note, however, tghat MY weekly "estimate' of the actual, revised, number has been MORE ACCURATE every single week than the medai number.  President score (on weekly joblesss claims numbers and everything else):  The Maverick Conservative 10,491  Media 0.  This was why The Maverick Consrvative was able to CORRECLY assert, in foresight, taht last week's intitial estimate ws NOT the "lowest number in four years", or even the loest number for this year.


Now read my article osted last night.  As I told you, if the number of new unemplyment claims reproted todayrose back into the 380,000-390,000 range, it means you can DISCARD last week's 352,000 number as if it never happened.  It was obviusly FALSE (a GLITCH of the "seasonal adjustment").  Why "discared" the 352,000, and not the 386,000 (or 388,000)?  That is because the 386,000 is CONSISTENT with previus numbers, while the 352,000 was obviusly not.  No, there is NO WAY that the "job market' actually fluctuated this much over a two week tie. There are seasonal GLITCHES here, and it is absurd to deny it.  Now is it possible that the seasonal glitches also make today's number unreliable?  Sure it is.  We will have to see next week, and succeeding weeks, to see for sure jsut how unreliable this weekly nubemer has become.  However, that does not change that we must DISCARD the 352,00 number of last week, and NOT include it on any "trend chaRt'.  It was obviusly FALSE, and created by a major glitch in the "seaonsla adjustmetn".  We will see next week if it looks like we are bakck to "normal", or wehthre these fictinal weekly "fluctuations" will continue.  As this blog correctly told you, last week's number (even if you did not know about chaNges in seasonal plant retoolings) was "too good to be ture". 


Bottom line:  Obama has FAILED on jobs this entire yyear.  We are back at the same level we began the year, as far as layoffs are concerned, and NOT IMPROVVING.  We have to "throw out" the obviusly ficitnal number of last week, and now look to see if we are really back at a consistent BAD number of around 390,000 a week.  Time will tgell, but this week's number has CONCLUSIVELYL shown that last week's 352,000 has to be IGNORED.  If you have FALSE data onts, you have to throw them out. 


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