Sunday, November 4, 2012

Obama Admits Failure on Jobs: No Improvement This Year

Hacker Boy (hacking into this disgraceful blog in the name of truth, justice and the American way, and still not commenting on Skip's allegation that I am Piers Morgan, wwho learned hacking into blogs while working for Rupert Murdoch in Britain):  "Skip, you just keep getting worse.  You know that Obama did not admit that he has failed on jobs, or that there has been no improvement this year."

Skip:  "Did i not hear Obama correctlyl when he said that the "jobs report" for October, put out by the Labor Dept. on Friday, had the highest numbrer of "jobs added" in EIGHT MONTHS--the "right direction?  Does that not mean that we started this year with BETTER job "creation" than we are ending it, and that the last eight months have been BAD?  Is that not an admissioin of FAILRUE?  Is that not an admission that this year has been a LOST YEAR for the labor market, as we have had NO improvement over the year?  Why, Hacker Booy, are not all of these tings factg?

Hacker Boy:  "Skip, you may be quoting the factgs correctly but your interpretation is outrageous.  We have finally turned the corner, and you know it?

Skip:  I can always count on Hacker Boy.  So we have "turned the corner", jsut like we did this same time last year, and at the beginning of this year, onlly to BAcK right around the same corner?  Don't you think it is outragoues to assert that we have had EIGHT MONTHS of BAD NEWS, but we shuld forget that because of a SLIGHT "uptick" in "jobs created" in the ONE MONTH that INDIVIDUALS in the Labor Dept. had teh MOST incentive to do their best to make these numbers look good?  No, I stand by the headline.  These numbers are mere estimates, subject to massive REVISION, and they only mean anything OVER TIME."

When Obama said that this month's Jobs created" of 170,0000, when we started year over 200,0000, was the "best in eight months, Obama was ADMITTING * monsts of FAILURE.  170,000 is not enough.  But it is especially not enough when you realize that the number is the HISHEST in 8 months.  Ever siince 2010, the number of "jobs created" has STUCk at an average of about 150,0000 per month.  That is a BAD number, and not improving.  Consistently, for 2010, 2011, and 2012, these numbers have seemed to "improve" in the fall, winter, and beginning of the next year, only to get BAD in the spring and summer.  That is exactly what happened in 2012, repeating the same pattern of 2010 and 2011.  But this time GDP has STUCK at a "growth" of 2% and less for ALL THREE QUARTERS.  That did not happen in 2010 OR 2011. New unemplyment claims (based on an actual "cunt", even if seasonally adjusted and revised the next week, while this monthly numbers are based on very fallible "surverys) have NOT IMROVED this entire year: in a range of 351,0000-392,000 this ENTIRE YEAR< and now basically right in MIDDLE of that range.

These monthly numbers really have become almost useless, unlessl you look over periods of time like the eight months Obama referenced.  Dobut me?  REalize that that these monthly numbers on "job creation" were REVISED upward for the last 2 months by 84,00000. This has become typical, as these numbers are REVISED by tens of thousands, and even hundreds of thousands, on a monthly and yearly basis.  As stated, these monthly numbers are NOT "counts", but "surveys".  They are simply NOT RELIABLE:  certainly not except over substantial periods of ttime.  There are jsut too many "sources" of data, and too many chance s for individuals to distort individual piecs of data (which can substantially distrot the SURVEY results). 

I do prefer the new unemplyhment claims number, released weekly each Thursday.  At least that is based on a COUNT, even though that count is then ADJUSTED with a subjective "seasonal adjustment" formula. Notice that, even then, there are "technical glitches" in the weekly report, such as the FAILURE to report new claims filed in California, in whole or in part, a few weeks ago (leading to a number the Labor Dept. ADMITTED was distorted).  If the Labor Dept. can't even get a COUNT right, and tell when states are "reporting" (or failing to report) th econt in a way leading to error, then just how reliable is the MONTHLY report based on really falible SURVEEYS.  Again, we KNOW they are fallible, becaue they keep being CHANGED for MONTHS and YEARS after they are first reported. 

Then look at the unemplyment RATE.  It suppossedly went WAY DOWN in September, with a FICTIONAL "survey" showing 873,000 "jobs added" (the "household survey").  But the official employer survey showed onlly 114,0000 jobs added: not enough to lower the unemplyment rate AT ALL.  Yet, the Labor Dept. reported that the unemplyment rate FELL in September by the "most" this year, even though the number of j"jobs added" was BAD.  Then, for October, the Labor Dept. reported that the unemplyment RATGE ROSE, to 7.9% (individuals in the Labor Dept. moving Heaven and Earth to make sure it stayed under 8%), even though the official number of "jobs added" INCREASED from 114,0000 (apples to apples, even though number revised upward for September in same report) to 170,0000.  This merely shows you that these numbes CANNOT BE TAKEN SERUSLY as ONE MONTH numbers.  Or two month numbers.  Or even three month numbrs.  No, something like the 8 months where Obama ADMITS he FAILED to establish any ind of improving trend, are necessary to see how we have been doing.

Even with all of this , notice how CONSISTENT the OVERALL inforamtion is  NO IMPROVEMENT in new unemplyment claims this year, and in fact, the BEST period this year was mid-January to mid-March, when the number was in a weekly range of 351,0000-to 365,0000.  We are now above the TOP of that rangfe during the winter.  No improvement.  GDP has sTALLED at a rate no better than 2%  the WORST since the first 6 months of 2009 (in other words, the wort 9 months of the Obama Presidency).  We actually had a farily strong recovery BEGINNING in the second half of 20009, until Obama policies dERAILED it. We have been SUTCK ever since.  Montly "jobs added", as Obama said in that speech I heard on Friday, are STUCK:  no "improving trend", as they WENT DOWN a good part of this year, and we still have not reached the levels of January and February.  The unemplyment rate started the year at 8.3%, and--despite Labor Dept. FICTIN these last two mnths--"doppred" no significant amount (a mere .4%),  No.  OVERALL, and OVER TIME, which is the only way to look at these numbers, this is a dismal record of FAILURE.

Wore, there is no indicaitn at all that Obama is going to revise his policies that led to thhis faiure:  there being every indicatin that Obama intends to DOUBLE DOWN on his olicies. ObamaCare alone will make any economic recovery impossible. 

What a dismal record, and a dismal prospect, but it is worse than that.  We have MORTGAGED OUR FUTURE for almost no gain.  The Federal REeserve has pumped TRILLINS of "stimulus" into the econmy . The only reason that GDP "rose" 2% in the third quarter was DEFENSE DEPARTMENT spending that Obama has promised to CUT (but obviusly skewed to help the numbers when he needed them most). We are running a dficit of 1more than 1 TRILLION dollars a year.  The only reason it is that "low" is that Bailout Ben Bernanke and the Fed have been keeping it ARTIFICIALLY low. That, and other policies, have ensured that we CANNOT have a real recovery ,and have created a "stalth inflatin" when we should really be in deflation.  You have noticed HIGH fod and energy prices.  Every time it looks like a recoery MAY start, it is CUT OFF by spurts in prics and the sheer dominance of the monster the Federal Government has become. 

No.  The "jobs reort" on Firday was a BAD report.  "jobs created" bounced up slightly, but other numbers (including the unemploymetn rate and hours workd) deteriorated.  New unempyment claims STAYED right at their same BAD level, although they are not part of teh monthly report.  As a weekly report, based on an underllying actual count, they provide more "trend" info.  And that info is BAD.  Take all of this informatin together, and ou get a pretty darn consistent view of a STALLED economy, despite these TRILLIONS in both deficit spending and Fed money printing.  This is disaster.  And Obama merely promises more of the same, only more so.

I COULD have endorsed Romney based on the above, and was mildly tempted to do so:  on my brothers' theory that Romney ha a CHANCE of being better than this.  And he does.  I jsut don't think the chance is all that good.  I regard romney as jsut a better manager than Obama, but still 'politics as usual'.  I don't think " politics as usual" is enough.  But I finally did endorse Romney:  soely because of the terrorist attack in Behghazi.  Obama wants to be elected again over the BODIES of 4 Americans in ibya.  I jsut can't accept Obama' s treatment of the terrorist attack in Benghazi as merely a POLITICAL EVNT to be "handled" POLITICALLY, by "spinning it" as happening becaues of an anti-Muslim video.  As I said:  Obama wants to be elected President over the bodies of 4 Aemricans resulting from an attack Obama saw as nothing more than a political challegne.  Unacceptable.  And I refused to accept it.  That is the ONLY reason I changed my endorsement from Gary Johnson to Mitt Romney.  Gary Johnson was always merely a protest vote, even though I rally would probably prefer Johnson as President.  After Libya, I jsut could not stomach helping Obama iwtih a protet vote. I like to feel I would have felt that way even if I were otherwise an Obama supporter.  We will never know, because I never have been an Obama supporter.  I have always known he was, and would be, an economic disaste, as he has been . But I still question whether, in practive, Rmney will be better.  I am still morally certain that John McCain would NOT have been better on the economh, although I do not believe that McCain would have reacted the way Obama did on Benghazi.  As I have said, I acutally do not believe that ANY previous American Prsident would have acted teh way Obama did regarding the Benghazi terrorist attack:  Dmocrat or GOP.  The man, Obama, is simply unacceptable as President of the United States.  I will be ashamed of my country if we re-elect Obama on Tuesday  I would not have said that before Libya. 

P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).  CNN, by the way, actually said it was GOOD NEWS that the unempoyment rate went UP on Friday.  I may do a full article to commetn on this, but yu can see just how PARTISAN CNN is. They will say anything to get Obama elected.  Yes, I am fully aware of teh fallacius reasoning behind the outrageous CNN statemetn, and I will debunk it if I find the time.

No comments: