Yes, things can change. Today's polls are less than meaningless, and really EVIL things. Is the media REALLY telling us that we should support only a candidate up there is the polls? Is the media reallly that EVIL and stupid? Well, yes they are.
The South Carolina debate, for example, added a possibly real contender (Herman Cain), and DELETED one. The one deleted was Tim Pawlenty, R.I.P. If Pawlenty cannot do better than this when he was supposedly the "main serious contender" on the stage, then he has no chance. No one knows who he is, and it appears that it is going to stay that way.
I have stated before, in this blog, that I just did not know enought about Pawlenty, but that what I did know failed to impress me. Well, Pawlenty failred to impress me again in South Carolina--which only looks good in comparison with Mitch Daniels, who DISIMPRESSES (to coin a word) me. In other words, Daniels affirmatively convinces me I would never vote for Danels (not in that South Carolina debate). Pawlenty is not THAT bad (few are), but he came across as an ESTABLISHMENT POLITICIAN who only talks "bold" when he thinks it is SAFE to do so (like calling for the release of the bin Laden pictures). Pawlenty has been out there a long time running for President, WITH ATTENTIOIN, and the mee fact that he failed to give me a solid impresssion of himself over that time is enough to indictd hmn. When you add the South Carolina debate, Pawlenty is CONVICTED of wimpy, establishment Republicanism. He is too much of a careful politician to get elected in today's Repubilcan Party (absent a complete makeover). Rick Santorum was much better--even with the handicap of being in politics so long that he is incapable of sounding as spontaneous and fresh as Herman Cain. You get the feeling, and I have always gotten the feeling, that Santorum means what he says (mainly), even if he is not a chrismatic leader. And he says the right things--always pretty much has.
Pawlenty had his chance to make a mark, and failed. Next time he will have more people on state, and LESS chance to make people remember him. Romney is at least as good at the smooth, handsome delibery (even if usually uninspired), and Pawlenty is going to disappear. But I saved the clincher for last.
Pawlenty gave a Hannity interview after the debate, and kKPawlenty was beyond unimpressive. Pawlenty's "signature" "bold" move (obviously calculated) in the debate was to favor the realsease of pictures of Obama's dead body . But Hannity tried to feed him, in the interview, a SOFTBALL q2uestion about how the Obama Administration has paid too much attention to Muslim sensibilities (as they have), even in the Osama raid. Pawlenty BLEW THE QUESTION.
Yes, President Obama deserves credit-if not the overblown, hysterical fawning of the mainstream media--for at least following through on the Bush policy to "get" bin Laden. Obama and the mainstream media were even again ENDORSING (as far as I could tell) the Bush phrase, "War on Tterror" again, after the Obama Administration had tried to eliminate it to APPEASE Muslim extremists. It was ridiculous, however, for us (apparently following Obama's wishes--maybe his main contribution to the operation to get bin Laden) to following MUSLIM LPROTOCOL with regard to the body of bin Laden. If bin Laden was a "good Muslilm", then we ARE at war with Islam. I don't believe he was, and I think it is ridiculous to act like he was to avoid "offending' Muslims. No, we did not have to drag his body through the streets, but this idea of catering to Muslim sensibilitiees with regard to a MONSTER leaves me totally cold. It is the WORST thing about Obama (this catering to our enemies).
What did Pawlenty do, in answerfing Hannity? Well, he sort of made my point--SORT OF--while being led by Hannity. However, even while being invited by Hannity to criticize Obama in a softer way than I do above, Pawlenty proceeded to give me WHIPLASH. Yep. I kid you not. Pawlenty ended up, after saying almost the exact opposite, saying that he had NO PROBLEM with our "respectd" for Muslim sensibilities" in the way bin Laden's body was handled, because we don't want to "stir up" Muslims looking for a reason to act against us. Say what? NO. You just can't do this. Pawlenty lost my vote, forever and ever (at least until he runs against Obama, which I am sure will not happen). Too much establishment politician trying to be all things to all people, and too little principle.
Tim Pawlenty, R.I.P. (politically speaking--he may be a perfectly fine human being).
P.S. Hannity, by the way, seemed unable to really follow Pawlenty, for good reason this time. Sometimes Hannity is all about agenda, and does not let his "guests" have much of a chance. This was NOT the case here. For once, I sympathized with Hannity, since I fouund it virtually impossible to follow the convoluted "reasoning' of Pawlenty. And nope, the above was not proofread or spell checked (my bad eyesight).
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Herman Cain, Winner, Even if He Does Spell His Name Wrong
Yes, I spelled Herman Cain's name "Herman Kane" in my original article yesterday, and even now I have left the incorrect spelling in the body of yesterday's article (for more than one reason--including my eyesight making editing somewhat difficult, for a person who does not really know how to do a computer search and rfeplace). Can I help it if the man does not know how to spell his own name?
Yes, I know the Biblical story of Cain and Abel (sp.? I am no longer sure). But "Cain" has always struck me as a FIRST name (whether that is true in the Bible or not). Further, I am fully familiar with "Citizen Kane" (the movie masterpiece from Orson Welles). Therefore, you can see why I thought Herman Cain would not make such an elementary mistake in spelling his last name (or his ancestors would not make such a mistake). Why would you want to spell your last name like the Biblical Cain? Beats me.
But a rose by any other name is till a rose. Herman Cain was still the obvious and CLEAR winner of the Republican debate in South Carolina. It was not close. That is true even if "Cain" does not know how to spell his own name, or at least how he should spell it. For those who say that identifying with "Citizen Kane" is at least as bad as identifying with a brother killer, I respectfully disagree.
YHou should be able to see that my analysis of the Republican debate in South Carolina was truly OBJECTIVE. I did not even know how to spell the name of the man I have declared the clear winner. Yes, he was that impressive.
Cain now has the challenge of showing he is for real. Ron Paul justly has a following which appreciates Paul's devotion to PRINCIPLE over political speak. But that following is not enough to make him President. Kane faces the challenge of convincing people that he is a CREDIBLE President. He went a long way toward convincing ME last week, even if I did not know how to spell his name. Yes, I had even heard a few interviews given by Cain to media outlets. He was impressive in those interviews, but hardly the revelation he was in the debate. The debate should at least give him a chance to make his case, and I am ready to hear it. Next time, I will know how he mispells his last name. Progress for him already (assuming all of those sources on Google are getting it right). And yes, I remain impressed by former Senator Santorum. I am willing already to put Cain and Santorum right there with Romney and Huckaby (where, for me, Huckaby would be fourth in this group, if Cain fulfills his promise). Nope. Gingrich, Pawlenty, Daniels, Johnson and Paul (despite my respect for, and agreement with most of, his principles). That is ow I rank the two tiers of the Repubican candidates at the present time. Nope. I don't see either Donald Trump or Sarah Palin running, and I think they would be wise not to run (despite my respect for Palin, who I could even vote for in a primary, even as I think she as ptretty mcuh not positioned herself to win the Presidency this time). I like Michelle Bockman at least as much as I like Palin. But I do not see her as the candidate, unless she really catches fire. She probably has MORE chance thaan Daniels, Johnsn, Paul, Pawlenty and Gingrich to catch fire, as those five will NOT be the nominee (fearless early prediction).
Yes, I know the Biblical story of Cain and Abel (sp.? I am no longer sure). But "Cain" has always struck me as a FIRST name (whether that is true in the Bible or not). Further, I am fully familiar with "Citizen Kane" (the movie masterpiece from Orson Welles). Therefore, you can see why I thought Herman Cain would not make such an elementary mistake in spelling his last name (or his ancestors would not make such a mistake). Why would you want to spell your last name like the Biblical Cain? Beats me.
But a rose by any other name is till a rose. Herman Cain was still the obvious and CLEAR winner of the Republican debate in South Carolina. It was not close. That is true even if "Cain" does not know how to spell his own name, or at least how he should spell it. For those who say that identifying with "Citizen Kane" is at least as bad as identifying with a brother killer, I respectfully disagree.
YHou should be able to see that my analysis of the Republican debate in South Carolina was truly OBJECTIVE. I did not even know how to spell the name of the man I have declared the clear winner. Yes, he was that impressive.
Cain now has the challenge of showing he is for real. Ron Paul justly has a following which appreciates Paul's devotion to PRINCIPLE over political speak. But that following is not enough to make him President. Kane faces the challenge of convincing people that he is a CREDIBLE President. He went a long way toward convincing ME last week, even if I did not know how to spell his name. Yes, I had even heard a few interviews given by Cain to media outlets. He was impressive in those interviews, but hardly the revelation he was in the debate. The debate should at least give him a chance to make his case, and I am ready to hear it. Next time, I will know how he mispells his last name. Progress for him already (assuming all of those sources on Google are getting it right). And yes, I remain impressed by former Senator Santorum. I am willing already to put Cain and Santorum right there with Romney and Huckaby (where, for me, Huckaby would be fourth in this group, if Cain fulfills his promise). Nope. Gingrich, Pawlenty, Daniels, Johnson and Paul (despite my respect for, and agreement with most of, his principles). That is ow I rank the two tiers of the Repubican candidates at the present time. Nope. I don't see either Donald Trump or Sarah Palin running, and I think they would be wise not to run (despite my respect for Palin, who I could even vote for in a primary, even as I think she as ptretty mcuh not positioned herself to win the Presidency this time). I like Michelle Bockman at least as much as I like Palin. But I do not see her as the candidate, unless she really catches fire. She probably has MORE chance thaan Daniels, Johnsn, Paul, Pawlenty and Gingrich to catch fire, as those five will NOT be the nominee (fearless early prediction).
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Herman Cain, Winner
Yes, I saw most of the Republican debate in South Carolina. Yes, every single Republican made more semnse thamn President Obama--giving lie to the mainstream media view that the Republican "field" is a lackluster group. Of course, the favorites were not een there, giving even more lie to that maistream media view (albeit those favoites are not necessarily, or even likely, to be more impressive than those who did appear in South Carolina).
Gary Johnson, for example, came across as a Republican Jerry Brown: impressive, but with the smell of "moonbeam" (or is it stink of brimstomne) about him. I live in El Paso, which is virtually part of New Mexico (some of you may thik part of Mexico, but problems of our sister city, Juarez, Mexico, have not yet filtered into El Paso). Gary Johnson was governor of New Mexcio, and even then had the reputation of marchig to hios own drummer. Imn his ownm way, he is as nuts as Ron Paul, with views on drugs and abortion that are out of step with all but the nmost libertarian of Republicans. He will not win the nominationi. Nevertheless, he was pretty impressive. And I personally, as a libertarian leaning conservative, have some sympathy with his views on illegal drugs (MORE sypathy with taking on the FDA, which I wish these "libertarians" who want to talk about marijana and cocaine would do FIRST). But I have no sympathy with his views on abortion (albeit he is an old style "moderate" on abortion, before the EXTREME position became the orthodoxy of the Democratic Party and the mainstream media, who are in bed with Planned Parenthood). I will not vote for Johnson, except MAYBE against Obama. But he was not bad. And he has climbed Mt. Everest. Has Barack Obama accomplished ANYTHING like that (disregarding Obama joining the navy Seals and personally shooting bin Laden)?
Ron Paul was Ron Paul--a man of principle who I agree with on most domestic issues, although I disagree with his ISOLATIONISM discredited at Pearl Harbor (not to mention on 9/11). He is too libertarian for me, but not by much. You know he is NUTS, hoever, when I tell you he is the only P{ERSON I know (not just candidate) who would dismantle more of the Federal Goverfnment than I would. I have to admit that Ben Bernanke (really terrible failure and destroyer of American preinciples at the Federal Reserve) is sinle handedly making me look more favorably on Paul's crusade against the Federal Reserve. Paul should send flowers to Bernanke for being on his team.
I will address Tim Pawlenty separately, in a separate article, but we can say he was UNIMPRESSIVE. In my view, Pawlenty sealed his fate: he will not get the nomination. But I thought that about McCain (CRRECTLY, except Repubicans in gneral, and conservatives in particuluar, were too slow to follow my correct thinking there). The ex-Senator from Pennslyvania (don't want to attempt his name here, wihout looking it up) was FINE, and I could easitly vote for him in the Republican primary. Yes, he lost for the Senate in Pennsylvania in 2006, when almost no Republicans won state wide races, but that hardly means anything as to whether he should be President. He had won TWICE in Pennsylvania, and few Repubicans can say that as to a state like Pennsylvania, on a statewide basis. It is merely a mainstream media smear to overemphasize that loss. The reason he was not so impressive in the debate as Kane was thet he did not stand out--coming across aws a politician saying the same things he has said so many times beofere (solid as those things were). In short, he did not TAKE IT TO OBAMA, the way he is going to have to do to win a general election.
Tht brings us to Herman Kane. He is a black businessman who has never held political office. He also WON the debate, hands donw. There is not even any doubt about it. His is a cas where I totally agree with the Fox "foucs group" and (unscientific) poll (much as I hate both focus groups and polls). Kane gave direct and convincing anseres to questons, as if he knew what he was talking about and was able to explain it to YOU. Yes, Kane came across s a SANE Donald Trump who CAN take the fight to Obama. I cannot yet say I will vote for him, but there is absolutely no doubt he won the debate. To paraphrase the theme song of "The Nanny", Kane came across as wearing bright colors, while everyone else was wearing plaid. He was articulate, with a resonating voice--reminding you of a convervative Barack Obama--with the difference that Kane has actually accomplished something in his life outside of government.
Why won't I say that I will vote for Kane? Well, from this debate I wouldd. But the Presidency is not all about debate and WORDS. Otherwise, Obama might be a decent President, which he is not. So I will have to see more of Herman Kane. But he was very impressive.
I am cursed with a good memory. In this blog, I said that Michael Steele was the most impressive Repubican candidate in 2006, even though I knoew he was not quite a conservative the way I would define the term. And I was right. Steele came across as the most impressive Repubican candidate of 2006. Problem: he let me and everyone else down after that--including as Repubican Party chairman. Steele eventaully showed himself to be an ordinary polittician who could not live up to his own words and impressive manner. I am no longer impressed with Steele. Similarly, Alan Keyes (another black man with no pubic office experience) was the most impressive DEBATE performer in TWO Presidential years (if my memory is correct). Keyes articulated my bliefs better than anyone. Yet, he would eventually show, in combination with the truly despicable "leaders" of the Repubican Party in Illinois, that Keyes had no substance either. Yes, Kane has more accomplishments than Keyes, and there almost has to be SUBSTANCE to Kane. But I have not forgotten appearances can be deceiving. Can Kane go out and WIN a major political campaign, when he has never done so? Maybe.
I would emphasize that I don't think Steele and Keyes failed to live up to the promise of their words and manner because they were BLACK. There have been more than enough white Repubicans who have done the same thing. Keyes and Steele failed because they revealed themselves to be POLITICIANS without real substance (ven though they had limited success as politicians). That was why they ultimately betrayed their promise--not because they are black. It is not because he is black that I hesitate on Kane. It is because I have little but words, over a short period of time, uon which to evaluate him. I would already vote for him ahead of everyone one the stage in South Carolina, except maybe one (and that one is NOT Tim Pawlenty--white establishment favorite). I could easily vote for Kane, if he continues to devlop on, and extend, his early promise.
In the meantime, it can be said, as an absolute fact, that Kane "won" the debatge in South Carolina. It was not even close, which was fairly bad news for the rest of the people on the stage. Kane is laready sure to eclipse Gingrich. Trump is a joke. Romney (my choice in 2008, but somewhat by default, een though I made the correct decision long before Limbaugh and Hannity, in time to derail McCain if I had there kind of influence). comes across as an aloof, aristocratic establishment guy. Huckaby may not even want to be President enough (like Fred Thompson last time). There is actually a big opening for someone to catch fire--not because there is no "talent" in the field, but because there is little charismatic leadership shown so far in the field. All of them are better than Obama, but how many of them are showing they know how to take it to Obama, without turning people off? Michelle Bockman fits my views better than anyone, and yet I cannot yet see her as winning the Presidency. Mithc Daniels is a disaster in waiting, pushed by the same estalishment Repubicans who keep giving us the wrong people. Chris Christie is probably not running, although he would be formidable if he did run.
In hsort, Kane has a wide open field in front of him. It is up to him to take advantage, and show that the South Carolina performance was no fluke, but a real representatiion of the SUBSTANCE of the man. No, I had hardly heard of him before the debate, except a few interviews which were only moderately impressive. I was hardly inclined ahead of time to take Kane seriously. That appeas to be the case with a LOT of people. That surprise factor can cause you to overestimate a person, as stated above. It is up to Kane to show that people are not overestimating him because of one debate performance. .
Nope. As Kane himself effectively said, his lack of experience in public office is a GOOD THING--provided he has enough substance to get elected. "Experienced" politicians and political "insiders" (defnitely including Obama as an "insider", despite the Obama and media Big Lie to the contrary) have gotten us into this mess. I think everyone is open to trying the other way, so long as the person without experience in public office meets the burden of showing enough substance to overcome the ONLY "advantage" of experience. "Experience" merely give you comfort that you have a basis of evaluating a person with something beond WORDS. Obama--an "insider" without real experience--has shown us that WORDS ARE NOT ENOUGH. Sbustance has to be there.
Good luck, Herman Cain, winner. I am rooting for you, without promising to vote for you.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checkin (eyesight),m although neither would have helped the main error originally in this article (and still there in the bodyy, where it is too difficult for me to correct it). Yes, I apologize to Mr. Cain (as Google insists he spells his name, despite "Citizen Kane"). I did not spell his name correctly. No, my eyesight is NOT good enough to read the "graphics" that often appear on a television screen, or to pick out the spelling of names from print material. What is funny/ironic is that I would have spelled the name of Rick Santorum--the ex-Senator from Pennsylvania who was a clear second in the debate--CORRECTLY. But I thought I KNEW how to spell "Kane" (or "Cain", as he evidently spells it--benighted souls that his ancestors must have been to pick the spelling of the famous brother killer from the Bible). This kind of irony, where I knew how to speell "Santorum" and not "Cain", keeps me (a little) humble.
Gary Johnson, for example, came across as a Republican Jerry Brown: impressive, but with the smell of "moonbeam" (or is it stink of brimstomne) about him. I live in El Paso, which is virtually part of New Mexico (some of you may thik part of Mexico, but problems of our sister city, Juarez, Mexico, have not yet filtered into El Paso). Gary Johnson was governor of New Mexcio, and even then had the reputation of marchig to hios own drummer. Imn his ownm way, he is as nuts as Ron Paul, with views on drugs and abortion that are out of step with all but the nmost libertarian of Republicans. He will not win the nominationi. Nevertheless, he was pretty impressive. And I personally, as a libertarian leaning conservative, have some sympathy with his views on illegal drugs (MORE sypathy with taking on the FDA, which I wish these "libertarians" who want to talk about marijana and cocaine would do FIRST). But I have no sympathy with his views on abortion (albeit he is an old style "moderate" on abortion, before the EXTREME position became the orthodoxy of the Democratic Party and the mainstream media, who are in bed with Planned Parenthood). I will not vote for Johnson, except MAYBE against Obama. But he was not bad. And he has climbed Mt. Everest. Has Barack Obama accomplished ANYTHING like that (disregarding Obama joining the navy Seals and personally shooting bin Laden)?
Ron Paul was Ron Paul--a man of principle who I agree with on most domestic issues, although I disagree with his ISOLATIONISM discredited at Pearl Harbor (not to mention on 9/11). He is too libertarian for me, but not by much. You know he is NUTS, hoever, when I tell you he is the only P{ERSON I know (not just candidate) who would dismantle more of the Federal Goverfnment than I would. I have to admit that Ben Bernanke (really terrible failure and destroyer of American preinciples at the Federal Reserve) is sinle handedly making me look more favorably on Paul's crusade against the Federal Reserve. Paul should send flowers to Bernanke for being on his team.
I will address Tim Pawlenty separately, in a separate article, but we can say he was UNIMPRESSIVE. In my view, Pawlenty sealed his fate: he will not get the nomination. But I thought that about McCain (CRRECTLY, except Repubicans in gneral, and conservatives in particuluar, were too slow to follow my correct thinking there). The ex-Senator from Pennslyvania (don't want to attempt his name here, wihout looking it up) was FINE, and I could easitly vote for him in the Republican primary. Yes, he lost for the Senate in Pennsylvania in 2006, when almost no Republicans won state wide races, but that hardly means anything as to whether he should be President. He had won TWICE in Pennsylvania, and few Repubicans can say that as to a state like Pennsylvania, on a statewide basis. It is merely a mainstream media smear to overemphasize that loss. The reason he was not so impressive in the debate as Kane was thet he did not stand out--coming across aws a politician saying the same things he has said so many times beofere (solid as those things were). In short, he did not TAKE IT TO OBAMA, the way he is going to have to do to win a general election.
Tht brings us to Herman Kane. He is a black businessman who has never held political office. He also WON the debate, hands donw. There is not even any doubt about it. His is a cas where I totally agree with the Fox "foucs group" and (unscientific) poll (much as I hate both focus groups and polls). Kane gave direct and convincing anseres to questons, as if he knew what he was talking about and was able to explain it to YOU. Yes, Kane came across s a SANE Donald Trump who CAN take the fight to Obama. I cannot yet say I will vote for him, but there is absolutely no doubt he won the debate. To paraphrase the theme song of "The Nanny", Kane came across as wearing bright colors, while everyone else was wearing plaid. He was articulate, with a resonating voice--reminding you of a convervative Barack Obama--with the difference that Kane has actually accomplished something in his life outside of government.
Why won't I say that I will vote for Kane? Well, from this debate I wouldd. But the Presidency is not all about debate and WORDS. Otherwise, Obama might be a decent President, which he is not. So I will have to see more of Herman Kane. But he was very impressive.
I am cursed with a good memory. In this blog, I said that Michael Steele was the most impressive Repubican candidate in 2006, even though I knoew he was not quite a conservative the way I would define the term. And I was right. Steele came across as the most impressive Repubican candidate of 2006. Problem: he let me and everyone else down after that--including as Repubican Party chairman. Steele eventaully showed himself to be an ordinary polittician who could not live up to his own words and impressive manner. I am no longer impressed with Steele. Similarly, Alan Keyes (another black man with no pubic office experience) was the most impressive DEBATE performer in TWO Presidential years (if my memory is correct). Keyes articulated my bliefs better than anyone. Yet, he would eventually show, in combination with the truly despicable "leaders" of the Repubican Party in Illinois, that Keyes had no substance either. Yes, Kane has more accomplishments than Keyes, and there almost has to be SUBSTANCE to Kane. But I have not forgotten appearances can be deceiving. Can Kane go out and WIN a major political campaign, when he has never done so? Maybe.
I would emphasize that I don't think Steele and Keyes failed to live up to the promise of their words and manner because they were BLACK. There have been more than enough white Repubicans who have done the same thing. Keyes and Steele failed because they revealed themselves to be POLITICIANS without real substance (ven though they had limited success as politicians). That was why they ultimately betrayed their promise--not because they are black. It is not because he is black that I hesitate on Kane. It is because I have little but words, over a short period of time, uon which to evaluate him. I would already vote for him ahead of everyone one the stage in South Carolina, except maybe one (and that one is NOT Tim Pawlenty--white establishment favorite). I could easily vote for Kane, if he continues to devlop on, and extend, his early promise.
In the meantime, it can be said, as an absolute fact, that Kane "won" the debatge in South Carolina. It was not even close, which was fairly bad news for the rest of the people on the stage. Kane is laready sure to eclipse Gingrich. Trump is a joke. Romney (my choice in 2008, but somewhat by default, een though I made the correct decision long before Limbaugh and Hannity, in time to derail McCain if I had there kind of influence). comes across as an aloof, aristocratic establishment guy. Huckaby may not even want to be President enough (like Fred Thompson last time). There is actually a big opening for someone to catch fire--not because there is no "talent" in the field, but because there is little charismatic leadership shown so far in the field. All of them are better than Obama, but how many of them are showing they know how to take it to Obama, without turning people off? Michelle Bockman fits my views better than anyone, and yet I cannot yet see her as winning the Presidency. Mithc Daniels is a disaster in waiting, pushed by the same estalishment Repubicans who keep giving us the wrong people. Chris Christie is probably not running, although he would be formidable if he did run.
In hsort, Kane has a wide open field in front of him. It is up to him to take advantage, and show that the South Carolina performance was no fluke, but a real representatiion of the SUBSTANCE of the man. No, I had hardly heard of him before the debate, except a few interviews which were only moderately impressive. I was hardly inclined ahead of time to take Kane seriously. That appeas to be the case with a LOT of people. That surprise factor can cause you to overestimate a person, as stated above. It is up to Kane to show that people are not overestimating him because of one debate performance. .
Nope. As Kane himself effectively said, his lack of experience in public office is a GOOD THING--provided he has enough substance to get elected. "Experienced" politicians and political "insiders" (defnitely including Obama as an "insider", despite the Obama and media Big Lie to the contrary) have gotten us into this mess. I think everyone is open to trying the other way, so long as the person without experience in public office meets the burden of showing enough substance to overcome the ONLY "advantage" of experience. "Experience" merely give you comfort that you have a basis of evaluating a person with something beond WORDS. Obama--an "insider" without real experience--has shown us that WORDS ARE NOT ENOUGH. Sbustance has to be there.
Good luck, Herman Cain, winner. I am rooting for you, without promising to vote for you.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checkin (eyesight),m although neither would have helped the main error originally in this article (and still there in the bodyy, where it is too difficult for me to correct it). Yes, I apologize to Mr. Cain (as Google insists he spells his name, despite "Citizen Kane"). I did not spell his name correctly. No, my eyesight is NOT good enough to read the "graphics" that often appear on a television screen, or to pick out the spelling of names from print material. What is funny/ironic is that I would have spelled the name of Rick Santorum--the ex-Senator from Pennsylvania who was a clear second in the debate--CORRECTLY. But I thought I KNEW how to spell "Kane" (or "Cain", as he evidently spells it--benighted souls that his ancestors must have been to pick the spelling of the famous brother killer from the Bible). This kind of irony, where I knew how to speell "Santorum" and not "Cain", keeps me (a little) humble.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Debt Ceiling and the Mainstream Media: This Blog Hands Them Their Heads Again
Do your remember my articles on the mainstream media--dishonest political hacks all--FRAUD concerning the "deadline" of the debt ceiling?
The mainstream media was presenting propaganda piece after propaganda piece suggesting that there was some sort of hard and fast deadline for "raising the debt ceiling", and that Republicans would ruin the country if that deadline was not met. The INCOMPETENT (because they are dishhonest, along with their natural incompetence) media was almost directly saying that failing to raise the debt ceiling was just like that deadline (somewhat false itself) for shutting the government down, and that the government could not operate unelss the debt ceiling was raised "on time". You--fool that you are--may have thought that I could never be proven right on that, ecause you expect (as I do) that wimpy Republicans willCAVE again. Wrong, buffalo brain (May a deranged yak vomit on you--Johnny Carson/Karnak reference.)
You may have missed it, but Secretary of the Treasury Geitner (gag) "announced" that the "deadline" fro raising the debtg ciling was actually several months away (August 2), because of accounting tricks and supposedly more tax money being received by the Federal Government. I TOLD YOU SO. The "debt ceiling" does NOT "shut down the government". The government is still getting money, and it can still spend the money it gets. Indeed, the government can still BORROW money. It jusst can't borrow any NET money (can't INCREASE our debt). In other words, applying the debt ceiling ("the law", after all) would merely mean that we would be FORCED to do what Obama says he wansts us to do (anyone believe him? I thought not): Live within our means, like normal families with a maxed out credit situation. We would be able to spend only the o=money we have, and not borrow more. Nope. NO "automatic default". NO "shutting down" the government. Just no more borrowing. It would be like going "cold turkey" with a heroin addiction, but it could be done. We might well be better off. But the point is that there is NO DEADLINE where the government implodes. Until the debt ceiling is raised, we merely have to sop spending more than we havee (more, even, than our "credit limit").
But doesn't the debt ceiling eventually have to be raised, since even Repubilcans are projecting trillion dollar deficits? I am afraid so. But as SENATOR OBAMA said in 2006, when he voted against raising the debt ceiling, the debt ceiling has NO MEANING unless it is a signal to impose financial repsonsiblity. In other words, simply "raising the debt ceiling" as a matter of course VIOLATES THE SPIRIT AND LETTER OF THE LAW, and labels every politician who does so as a world class HYPOCRITE (voting for a "debt ceiling" which has no meaning). The debt ceiling is supposed to serve the function of a canary in a coal mine, and WARN us to TAKE ACTION to put our fiscal house in order.
"But, Skip, you can't expect Republicans to actually HOLD OUT for real "fiscal discipline" (Obama's phrase in 2006). It would be political suicide to let the Democrats, and mainstream media, pound Repubicans for putting the country in economic danger."
Ah, you are not such a fool after all. You saw where I was heading. As far as I am concerned, Repulicans are prretty much in the process of committing political suicide by making it clear they do NOT mean what they say. They had this whole drama over "cutting' last year's budget, and it was all a SHAM. Ryan's budget, which Repubicans already have conceded they will not be able to pass (as to those "Medicare vouchers"), does not balance the budget for TWNETY YEARS (balanced budget Amendment, anyone?). Every new Republican hypocrisy, and sham, puts another nail in the coffin of a party--especially an establishment---on its death bed (on life support), even as it is suppposedly riding high. When DONALD TRUMP (joke that he is) can spread FEAR through the politicians of your party (not to mention the media, and Democrats), you know you are truly in bad shape.
Nope. I do NOT give Repubicans a pass to do another SHAM. In fact, I am fast approaching the point of NOT voting Republican in the next electioni. This is no idle threat. I did NOT vote for McCain (although not for Obama either). Republicans are ALWAYS (these days--after Reagan) on the knife edge of lsing me as a voter. And I think there are more people like me out there than Republican politicians want to think about. Yes, you are right again. I hav e little respect for the vast majority of Repubican politicians, and NO loyalty at all to a Republican lParty which has betrayed me again and again. Mitch Danies, this continues to mean YOU (R.I.P. Mitch, politcially--politically you are a dead man walking, and if Rush Limbaugh lets you get the nomination, I will never listen to him again.). Yep. I am saying that I EXPECT the Repubican Party to force REAL, and dramatic, CUTS as an enforcement of the purpose of the debt ceiling. If the Democrats want let them, then I EXPECT Republicans to see just how bad it is to "live within our means' for awhile. If Republicns do not have that kind of guts, then I have no use for them. I anticipate I am not alone. And if the Speaker of the House, and establishment Repubicans, do not like it, they can lump it. They are living in a fantasy world if they think I CARE about their dinky political career, and their unwillingness to jeopardize it with real action.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (eyesight).
The mainstream media was presenting propaganda piece after propaganda piece suggesting that there was some sort of hard and fast deadline for "raising the debt ceiling", and that Republicans would ruin the country if that deadline was not met. The INCOMPETENT (because they are dishhonest, along with their natural incompetence) media was almost directly saying that failing to raise the debt ceiling was just like that deadline (somewhat false itself) for shutting the government down, and that the government could not operate unelss the debt ceiling was raised "on time". You--fool that you are--may have thought that I could never be proven right on that, ecause you expect (as I do) that wimpy Republicans willCAVE again. Wrong, buffalo brain (May a deranged yak vomit on you--Johnny Carson/Karnak reference.)
You may have missed it, but Secretary of the Treasury Geitner (gag) "announced" that the "deadline" fro raising the debtg ciling was actually several months away (August 2), because of accounting tricks and supposedly more tax money being received by the Federal Government. I TOLD YOU SO. The "debt ceiling" does NOT "shut down the government". The government is still getting money, and it can still spend the money it gets. Indeed, the government can still BORROW money. It jusst can't borrow any NET money (can't INCREASE our debt). In other words, applying the debt ceiling ("the law", after all) would merely mean that we would be FORCED to do what Obama says he wansts us to do (anyone believe him? I thought not): Live within our means, like normal families with a maxed out credit situation. We would be able to spend only the o=money we have, and not borrow more. Nope. NO "automatic default". NO "shutting down" the government. Just no more borrowing. It would be like going "cold turkey" with a heroin addiction, but it could be done. We might well be better off. But the point is that there is NO DEADLINE where the government implodes. Until the debt ceiling is raised, we merely have to sop spending more than we havee (more, even, than our "credit limit").
But doesn't the debt ceiling eventually have to be raised, since even Repubilcans are projecting trillion dollar deficits? I am afraid so. But as SENATOR OBAMA said in 2006, when he voted against raising the debt ceiling, the debt ceiling has NO MEANING unless it is a signal to impose financial repsonsiblity. In other words, simply "raising the debt ceiling" as a matter of course VIOLATES THE SPIRIT AND LETTER OF THE LAW, and labels every politician who does so as a world class HYPOCRITE (voting for a "debt ceiling" which has no meaning). The debt ceiling is supposed to serve the function of a canary in a coal mine, and WARN us to TAKE ACTION to put our fiscal house in order.
"But, Skip, you can't expect Republicans to actually HOLD OUT for real "fiscal discipline" (Obama's phrase in 2006). It would be political suicide to let the Democrats, and mainstream media, pound Repubicans for putting the country in economic danger."
Ah, you are not such a fool after all. You saw where I was heading. As far as I am concerned, Repulicans are prretty much in the process of committing political suicide by making it clear they do NOT mean what they say. They had this whole drama over "cutting' last year's budget, and it was all a SHAM. Ryan's budget, which Repubicans already have conceded they will not be able to pass (as to those "Medicare vouchers"), does not balance the budget for TWNETY YEARS (balanced budget Amendment, anyone?). Every new Republican hypocrisy, and sham, puts another nail in the coffin of a party--especially an establishment---on its death bed (on life support), even as it is suppposedly riding high. When DONALD TRUMP (joke that he is) can spread FEAR through the politicians of your party (not to mention the media, and Democrats), you know you are truly in bad shape.
Nope. I do NOT give Repubicans a pass to do another SHAM. In fact, I am fast approaching the point of NOT voting Republican in the next electioni. This is no idle threat. I did NOT vote for McCain (although not for Obama either). Republicans are ALWAYS (these days--after Reagan) on the knife edge of lsing me as a voter. And I think there are more people like me out there than Republican politicians want to think about. Yes, you are right again. I hav e little respect for the vast majority of Repubican politicians, and NO loyalty at all to a Republican lParty which has betrayed me again and again. Mitch Danies, this continues to mean YOU (R.I.P. Mitch, politcially--politically you are a dead man walking, and if Rush Limbaugh lets you get the nomination, I will never listen to him again.). Yep. I am saying that I EXPECT the Repubican Party to force REAL, and dramatic, CUTS as an enforcement of the purpose of the debt ceiling. If the Democrats want let them, then I EXPECT Republicans to see just how bad it is to "live within our means' for awhile. If Republicns do not have that kind of guts, then I have no use for them. I anticipate I am not alone. And if the Speaker of the House, and establishment Repubicans, do not like it, they can lump it. They are living in a fantasy world if they think I CARE about their dinky political career, and their unwillingness to jeopardize it with real action.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (eyesight).
Obama and Jobs: Failure (AP ad Yahhoo: Dishonest Political Hacks--Boycott Yahoo)
Friday's employment data for the month of Apil came out this morning. As expected (see articles over past two days), the unemployment rate "ticked UP" (to use the phrase of the despicable AP, as featured on the equally despicable Yahoo "News") in April. What you did NOT see from the despicable AP, or featured on Yahoo, was that the 9% unemployment rate in April is the SAME unemployment rate for January. In other words, the unemployment rate has NOT IMMPROVED this entire year--for 4 months.
Yes, the unemployment rate "ticked down" in March to 8.8%, to great mainstream media fanfare about how much progress Obama is making. That was after the rate "ticked down" in Feruary to 8.9%, from the 9% in January, although that was not how the DISHONEST people of the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" put it (or how Yahoo put it, quoting only the AP on its U-Verse "welcome" page). Nope. No word of "ticked down" in March or February. That is because these people are DISHONEST political hacks (boyccott Yahoo--as I figure you already pay no attention to the terrible AP). It was ME who told you that the supposed "progress" represented by the "ticks down" in February and March was meaningless, as the "improvement" was well within the margin of error--no improvement at all.. As you can now plainly see, there has been NO IMPROVEMENT in the job market--really the entire economy--this entire year (four months).
Yes, there has been little improvment in TWO YEARS, since the unemployment rate first "ticked down" (July of 2009) from 9.5% to 9.4%. And yes, the mainstream media is getting WORSE--blatantly distorting every "news" item. Yesterday, for example, the despicable AP (as featured on the equally despicable Yahoo) was blatantly HYPING Obama's trip to New York City as "bringing New York a moment of justice" (all about Obama, you know, who PERSONALLY shot bin Laden(, while also featuring as "major news" the minor drop in the mortgage rate. Meanwhile, the AP--at least as featured on Yahoo, despicable as Yahoo is--virtually ignored the TERRIBLE economic news yesterday--the rise in the new unemployment claims all of the way to the level of last summer. Meanwhile, the mainstream media has been HYPING a MINOR drop in commodity and gas prices as great "news" for Obama (all about Obama again, who has, in fact, CREATED the jump in FOOD and GAS prices). NO improvement in the economy in four months--this entire year? Doesn't matter, according to the mainstream media. Gas prices have finallly stooped rising, after 44 straight days. Talk about a "tick down"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (the fraction of a cent drop in the average price of gasoline.)
No, I am not ignoring the "fact" that 244,000 jobs were supposedly "created" by the economy in April (net jobs here, in contrast to the 1,725,000 gross jobs lost in the past 4 weeks). What is wrong with that number? It is obviously FALSE--at the very least, inconsistnet with the other numbers. See my articles over the past two days. Remember, despite the ECOMPETENT way this data is reported, these are not "hard" numbers. They are ADJUSTED numbers. That includes the supposed "gain" in jobs in April. Yes, this conflict between the numbers is not rally even unusual, and indicates how unreliable these numbers really are. What you have to do is look at ALL of the data.
Economists agree that the 1.8% "growth" in GDP in the first quarter (the first three months of the year) is INSUFFICIENT to produce growth in employoment. The unemployment RATE has been STUCK all year. The number of new unemployment claims spiked UP in April. Therefore, you have THREE major items of data INCONSISTENT with a "growth" of 244,0000 jobs--the report today. You see why I do not believe that number? The other three items are reasonably consistent with one another. The supposed "growth" in jobs is NOT consistent. Logic dictates that you view the report on the economy "adding" jobs with suspicion. Meanwhile, you have a mainstream media that not only "can't handle the truth" (quoting Jack Nicholson), but has no interest at all in reporting the actual facts. They are political hacks, one and all. Yep. I just called the people of YAHOO "News" POLITICAL HACKS (boycott Yahoo).
P.S. Nope. No proofreading or spell checking (eyesight). I did happen to notice that my "j" key was sticking on my keyboard, inserting rrandom "j" at every opportunity. Who knows how long that has been going on, or how many other keyboard glitches are augmenting my natural bad typikng. I wouuld feel sorry for those of you who might still be trying to struggle through these articles. However, luckily, I used up all sympathy I was worn with by age 10 (or earlier). I am now almost 64. So you can expect no sympathy from me. You just have to look at my articles as a PUZZLE--the kind for which people get paid money to create.
Yes, the unemployment rate "ticked down" in March to 8.8%, to great mainstream media fanfare about how much progress Obama is making. That was after the rate "ticked down" in Feruary to 8.9%, from the 9% in January, although that was not how the DISHONEST people of the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" put it (or how Yahoo put it, quoting only the AP on its U-Verse "welcome" page). Nope. No word of "ticked down" in March or February. That is because these people are DISHONEST political hacks (boyccott Yahoo--as I figure you already pay no attention to the terrible AP). It was ME who told you that the supposed "progress" represented by the "ticks down" in February and March was meaningless, as the "improvement" was well within the margin of error--no improvement at all.. As you can now plainly see, there has been NO IMPROVEMENT in the job market--really the entire economy--this entire year (four months).
Yes, there has been little improvment in TWO YEARS, since the unemployment rate first "ticked down" (July of 2009) from 9.5% to 9.4%. And yes, the mainstream media is getting WORSE--blatantly distorting every "news" item. Yesterday, for example, the despicable AP (as featured on the equally despicable Yahoo) was blatantly HYPING Obama's trip to New York City as "bringing New York a moment of justice" (all about Obama, you know, who PERSONALLY shot bin Laden(, while also featuring as "major news" the minor drop in the mortgage rate. Meanwhile, the AP--at least as featured on Yahoo, despicable as Yahoo is--virtually ignored the TERRIBLE economic news yesterday--the rise in the new unemployment claims all of the way to the level of last summer. Meanwhile, the mainstream media has been HYPING a MINOR drop in commodity and gas prices as great "news" for Obama (all about Obama again, who has, in fact, CREATED the jump in FOOD and GAS prices). NO improvement in the economy in four months--this entire year? Doesn't matter, according to the mainstream media. Gas prices have finallly stooped rising, after 44 straight days. Talk about a "tick down"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (the fraction of a cent drop in the average price of gasoline.)
No, I am not ignoring the "fact" that 244,000 jobs were supposedly "created" by the economy in April (net jobs here, in contrast to the 1,725,000 gross jobs lost in the past 4 weeks). What is wrong with that number? It is obviously FALSE--at the very least, inconsistnet with the other numbers. See my articles over the past two days. Remember, despite the ECOMPETENT way this data is reported, these are not "hard" numbers. They are ADJUSTED numbers. That includes the supposed "gain" in jobs in April. Yes, this conflict between the numbers is not rally even unusual, and indicates how unreliable these numbers really are. What you have to do is look at ALL of the data.
Economists agree that the 1.8% "growth" in GDP in the first quarter (the first three months of the year) is INSUFFICIENT to produce growth in employoment. The unemployment RATE has been STUCK all year. The number of new unemployment claims spiked UP in April. Therefore, you have THREE major items of data INCONSISTENT with a "growth" of 244,0000 jobs--the report today. You see why I do not believe that number? The other three items are reasonably consistent with one another. The supposed "growth" in jobs is NOT consistent. Logic dictates that you view the report on the economy "adding" jobs with suspicion. Meanwhile, you have a mainstream media that not only "can't handle the truth" (quoting Jack Nicholson), but has no interest at all in reporting the actual facts. They are political hacks, one and all. Yep. I just called the people of YAHOO "News" POLITICAL HACKS (boycott Yahoo).
P.S. Nope. No proofreading or spell checking (eyesight). I did happen to notice that my "j" key was sticking on my keyboard, inserting rrandom "j" at every opportunity. Who knows how long that has been going on, or how many other keyboard glitches are augmenting my natural bad typikng. I wouuld feel sorry for those of you who might still be trying to struggle through these articles. However, luckily, I used up all sympathy I was worn with by age 10 (or earlier). I am now almost 64. So you can expect no sympathy from me. You just have to look at my articles as a PUZZLE--the kind for which people get paid money to create.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Obama Loses 1,725,000 Jobs in Four Weeks: Job Catastrophe (Bernanke, Failure)
Thursday's report of new unemployment claims for last week came out this morning, and it was a catastrophe (see last night's article). The number of layoffs (by this measure) rose 43,000 to 474,000--the worst one week number since August of last year. More importantly, here are the numbers for the past 4 weeks: 416,000 (revised from initial report of 412,000), 404,0000 (revised from 403,000), 431,000 (revised from 429,000), and 474,000 (just reported, to be revised next week). This is a gross four week total of 1,725,000, or a 4 week average above 431,000. Further, unless the number next week drops a LOT (possible, but not to likely), next week's four week average will return us back to the range we were in for ALL of 2010. This would mean NO IMPROVEMENT in well over a year, despite ups and downs over that period.
Meanwhile, Marketwatch.com is reporting "mutterings" over a "plot" between Washington and Wall Street to MANIPULATE the market (as Ben Bernanke has virtually admitted doing--citing a rise in the stock market as evidence of his "success", as he FAILS everywhere else). Now I don't believe in "plots", but I have consistently told you that Wall Street believes that it is now in a PARTNERSHIP with the Obama Administration: economic fascists all. Remember, economic fascism predates Hitler, and has really nothing to do with Hitler, referring to a partnership between Wall Stret/Big Business and Big Government to run the economy. It has been described as: "socialism with a capitalist veneer". You could also describe it as "state capitalism", or "crony state capitalism". GE, for example, is openly "partners" with Obama, and that is really true of almost all of Wall Street and Big Business at the present time, even while Obama trashes Wall Street with WORDS.
Now the Labor Department "attributes" much of the rise in unemployment claims to "temporary" layoffs in the auto industry, and (not-so-temporary) layoffs in the state of New York because of budget cuts in education and elsewhere.
Think how INCOMPETENT the mainstram media has been to be talking about how the economy and the job market have finally "turned the corner", because of this "improvement" in job numbers (weak as it has been, even on the reported numbers). What is the Labor Department telling you? Right. They are telling you what I have been telling you--just not as consistently and accurately. They are telling you that the weekly number of new unemployuoment claims is NOT a reliable number on a short term basis. They are further telling you that there may be a NEW "seasonal pattern" in the way the economy is working, where numbers appear to improve in the fall, but then seem to RELAPSE in the late spring and early summer. Meanwhile, the economy remains pretty much STUCK in a "recovery" that is not really recovering.
Yes, if today's number is (partially) fictioin, then so were the supposedly "good" numbers at the end of last year, which continued (but did not improve) in the first months of this year. You can't cast doubt on the "bad" numbers, and still act like the "good" (only relativelly) numbers are concrete examples of how the economy is "improving"--includnig the job market. That is, you can't do that unless you are DISHONEST HP(OCRITES. That description applies to the Obama Administration AND the mainstream media (especailly to them, since you EXPECT it of politicians, which is alll the mainstream media is now composed of: political operatives).
Again, you would expect next week's number of new unemployment claims to drop. If it does not, and substantially, then we have truly reached (short-term, anyway) Armageddon. But there is NO "good" number for next week. See yesterday's article, which applies even more strongly to next week's number. There are only bad numbers, and catastrophic numbers.
Further, what about tomorrow's MONTHLY employment numbers for April? Right. It is IMPOSSIBLE for those numbers to be "good", since any "good" numbers (appearing to show an "improving" job market) would only cast doubt on the validity of all the numbers.
P.S. Nope. No proofreading or spell checking of the above, which still makes the article MORE reliable than that of any economist (much less mainstream media "journalist") out there.
Meanwhile, Marketwatch.com is reporting "mutterings" over a "plot" between Washington and Wall Street to MANIPULATE the market (as Ben Bernanke has virtually admitted doing--citing a rise in the stock market as evidence of his "success", as he FAILS everywhere else). Now I don't believe in "plots", but I have consistently told you that Wall Street believes that it is now in a PARTNERSHIP with the Obama Administration: economic fascists all. Remember, economic fascism predates Hitler, and has really nothing to do with Hitler, referring to a partnership between Wall Stret/Big Business and Big Government to run the economy. It has been described as: "socialism with a capitalist veneer". You could also describe it as "state capitalism", or "crony state capitalism". GE, for example, is openly "partners" with Obama, and that is really true of almost all of Wall Street and Big Business at the present time, even while Obama trashes Wall Street with WORDS.
Now the Labor Department "attributes" much of the rise in unemployment claims to "temporary" layoffs in the auto industry, and (not-so-temporary) layoffs in the state of New York because of budget cuts in education and elsewhere.
Think how INCOMPETENT the mainstram media has been to be talking about how the economy and the job market have finally "turned the corner", because of this "improvement" in job numbers (weak as it has been, even on the reported numbers). What is the Labor Department telling you? Right. They are telling you what I have been telling you--just not as consistently and accurately. They are telling you that the weekly number of new unemployuoment claims is NOT a reliable number on a short term basis. They are further telling you that there may be a NEW "seasonal pattern" in the way the economy is working, where numbers appear to improve in the fall, but then seem to RELAPSE in the late spring and early summer. Meanwhile, the economy remains pretty much STUCK in a "recovery" that is not really recovering.
Yes, if today's number is (partially) fictioin, then so were the supposedly "good" numbers at the end of last year, which continued (but did not improve) in the first months of this year. You can't cast doubt on the "bad" numbers, and still act like the "good" (only relativelly) numbers are concrete examples of how the economy is "improving"--includnig the job market. That is, you can't do that unless you are DISHONEST HP(OCRITES. That description applies to the Obama Administration AND the mainstream media (especailly to them, since you EXPECT it of politicians, which is alll the mainstream media is now composed of: political operatives).
Again, you would expect next week's number of new unemployment claims to drop. If it does not, and substantially, then we have truly reached (short-term, anyway) Armageddon. But there is NO "good" number for next week. See yesterday's article, which applies even more strongly to next week's number. There are only bad numbers, and catastrophic numbers.
Further, what about tomorrow's MONTHLY employment numbers for April? Right. It is IMPOSSIBLE for those numbers to be "good", since any "good" numbers (appearing to show an "improving" job market) would only cast doubt on the validity of all the numbers.
P.S. Nope. No proofreading or spell checking of the above, which still makes the article MORE reliable than that of any economist (much less mainstream media "journalist") out there.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Obama Loses 1,249,000 Jobs in Three Weeks: Economy and Job Market STALL
The headline is absolutely accurate--given the slight hyperbole of taking Obama and his defenders at their workd that Obama deserves the "credit" for GROOS jobs "saved/created" (in which case he must take the blame for gross jobs lost), and given the inherit uncertainty and margin of error in the employment data (see last week's article--another prescient one, especailly if you read between the lines and correctly guessed that I was expecting fairly bad employment data last week).
Every Thursday, the Labor Department releases its (seasonally adjusted, although the raw data is also released--just ignored by an incompetent media) number of NEW unemployment claims for the previous week. These are the discouraging numbers for the past three weeks of released data: 416,000 (revised from 412,000 initially reported), 404,000 (revised from 403,000 initially reported) and 429,000 (to be revised tomorrow). As stated in last Wednesday's article, it was impossible for last Thursday's number to be "good " news. The number of new unemployment claims is a measure of gross jobs LOST, and that number has STALLED during this entire year (after improving some in the fall of 2010, which also happened in the fall of 2009, only to have the number STALL in the first 8 months of 2010). Yes, so far the number of new unemployment claims has stalled in 2011 at a slightly loweer level than the range over the firt 8 months of 2010, but at a still HIGH level for a 'recovering" economy (the 400,000 level being HIGH, when we really need a consistent 300,000 level, and the level in a truly GOOD economy may approach 200,000--never really going below that because there are always some job losses).
Now if you paid attention to last week's article, you know that this weekly number of new unemployment claims is NOT a "hard" number, and that one week's number is therefore of little meaning in itself. Last Thursday's reported 429,000 was for EASTER week, and might be even a little more unreliable. Economists , of course, were surprised at the "unexpecdted" number, but econoists are perpetually "surprised" (te significance of which is that these are the same people who claim to be able to PLAN our economy, if only we let them run everything in a centrally planned economy--an absurdity which is PROVEN wrong daily, which does not stop Fed chairman Ben Bernanke and our President from assuing that economists know what they are doing). You would expect tomorrow's reported number to go down, just because last week's number rose to such a high level: threatening to trturn us t the same range as the first 8 months of 2010--a range which is only about 11,000 to 21,000 away from last week's reported number of 42;9,0000, although we would have to average above 440,000 for about a month to say we have really returned basicaly to the old range).
You can see how it is IMPOSSIBLE for tomorrow's reported number of new unemployment claims to be "good" news. Again, like last week, there can only be bad news that is better or worse than it could have been Say, for exxample, that tomorrow's reported number of new unemployment claims for the previous week fell by 60,000--all of the way down to 370,000. The media might tell you that such an "improvement" showed that our economy is "improving". That is because our media is INCOMPETENT. It is almost unheard of for the new unemployment claims to drop 60,000 in one week---especailly after being at a consist3ently high level in the previous three weeks. If it did happen, it would merely make the numbers for the past TWO weeks SUSPECT (on a weekly basis). AVERAGE the 429,000 reported last Thursday and 370,000, and what do you get? Yep. You get 400,000--a BAD number. You would not expectg the number to drop 60,000 (and economists will not be "expecting" it), but you would expectd the number to DROP. What if it either does not drop, or stays above 400,000? That is the WORSE bad news, instead of the merely bad news already cooked into the numbers. Remember, the only numbers that matter here are the numbers OVER TIME. The longer the new unemployment claim number stays above 400,000, the worse this number is OVER TIME--where one week's "good number" means NOTHING.
It gets worse. The unemployment RATE (also not a "hard" number) has STALLED right at 9%. Last three months: 9%, 8.9%, 8.8%--well within any "margin of error" as far as NO IMPROVEMENT. The STALLED new unemployment claims number is sending the same message: the job market has again STALLED (despite desperate media attempts to say otherwise). The other number released last week (Friday) was that the economy "grew" only 1.8% last quarter (January through March). That is NOT enough to "improve" the job market, and is basically NO GROWTH.
Why do I saly that reported "growth" of 1.8% is basically no growth? That is because it INCLUDES higher food and commodity (including GAS and energy) prices, which RAISE the reported GDP. Remember that the RECESSION in 2008 began with a first half of reported GROWTH (two quarters in a row), partly the result of government "stimulus" (the Bush/Democrat "stimulus") that FAILED, before the Obama "stimulus"--Obama being part of that earlier "stimulus" as well--that FAILED. Here we have Ben Bernanke and the FED providing the massive government "stimulus" that is FAILING, except to create a lower dollar and an inflatiionary effectg that ARTIFICIALLY simulates GDP "growth". With all of this "stimulus", 1.8% "growth" is PATHETIC, and a FAILURE of policy. Bernanke has, of course, succeeded in helping Wall Street and the stock market, which seems to be the main goal of the Obama Administration and the economic fascists on Wall Street who regard thiesmelves as PARTNERS with Obama and Bernanke: that "partnership" between Big Business and Big Government jointly runnning a planned economy being the very definitioin of economic fasicsm.
Once again, I have prepared you for the numbers to be realeased tomorrow, and on Friday. The number of new unemployment claims reported tomorrow cannot be "good news". That is because the four week average will be BAD--as to any conceivable number which does not make the whole system suspect. Any number above 400,000 (even if it represents a drop of 10 or 20 thousand) is represents "worse" bad news, showing that the economy is perhaps getting WORSE (as the 1.8% "growth" would appear to indicate). A number above 420,000 would be TERRIBLE, and an indication we may be in trouble. A number above 440,000 would be a CATASTROPHE--giving a strong indication we already are in more trouble than we thought. Again, that is NOT because the weekly number means much, but because the average over the past 4 weeks would be so BAD, and because this would confirm the message from other data (especailly the GDP data).
Friday, of course, you get the MONTHLY "jobs created" (net--not gorss) data, and the unemployment RATE data. Again, it is IMPOSSIBLE for this data to really be "good". What does it mean, for example, if we supposedly "crated" 300,000 net jobs in Apriul. It means that at least one set of data is FALSE. The new unemployment claim data over the past month shows we have STALLED. If the data reported on Friday purports to show something else, that data is SUPSECT and INCONSISTENT with the new unemployment claims data. It would also be inconsistent with the GDOP data. No, you would not expect Friday's data to show massive deteroriation, but there is no way for Friday's datat to show IMPROVEMENT in the economy and be consistent with the data we already have. Whaty such inconsistency would do is cast doubt on ALL of the data (again, none of which really represent "hard" numbers that cannot be wrong/manipulated). The more the data is all consistent, the more you may feel (perhaps a little naively) that it represents something real.
P.S. You, too, want to be an "economist" and "predict" the economic data in advance, and have the thrill of being constantly "surprised"? Easy. I will tell you how. Take the new unemployment claims number. AVERAGE the previous 4 weeks. That is your starting number. But you can FUDGE that number. IF the previous 4 to 8 weeks have shown a CONSISTENT "trend" (meaning essentially EVERY week up or down), make sure your "predicted" number follows the trend (in other words, is higher or lowever than the previous number, whichever the previous direction is). Suince we have no CONSISTNET trend right now, you can disregard this "fudge" factor. IF the previous week's number was either up or down and unusally large number (as last week's was UP 25,000), then you probably need to "predict" that this week's reported number will go the other way (assuming lthere is no massive trend). Often, of course, the AVERAGE of the previous 4 weeks will take care of this. Then be RELUCTANT to "predictd" a move of 20,000 or more--generally keeping your "predicted" move from the previous week no more than 10-15 thousand. This means you will NEVER get a BIG move right, and will always be "surprised" by the "unexpected" move, but it also means you will not look like such an IDIOT by missing the number dramatically. Yes, I know that these "economists" "surveyed" as to their "predictions" probably have "sophisticated" computer programs, but I guarantee you that you can do just as well, or bettter, applying the simple rules I have just given you. If you are really brave, of course, you can try to do BETTER, and make a real prediction (instead of just a projection based on past performance and fear of being thought an idiot). If you try that, however, you are not a true economist--not a true, representative member of the practitioners of the "dismal science'.
P.P..S. Nope. No proofreading or spell checking of the above (eyesight). Also, you may have noticed a "slip of the mind" in my prvious article last week. I gave you two different figures as to the length of time the new unemployment claims STALLED from the end of 2009 to the fall of 2010. The actual number was 10 months (from the end of November of 2009 to September of 2010). At one point last week, I think I referred to 18 months. That was really the unemployment RATE. Sometimes it is hard to keep these numbers straight in your mind. The unemployment RATE first "stabilized" in about July of 2009, when it DROPPED from 9.5% to 9.4%. It then rose to 10% briefly, but was listed at 9.7% in January of 1010. Essentailly, that rate did not improve for ALL of 2010, and is STILL little improved (still down less than 1% from January of 2010, and down only .6% from that 9.4% rate in the summer of 2009 (BEFORE Obama's "stimulus" even had a chance to take effectd). Gallup, of course, has been consistentlly reporting a rate of 10%, even in recent months, and this reported rate is a POLL--hardly exact. You can see how there has been little improvement over an extended period of time, and the other data rerenced in this article indicates that will continue with the datata to be reported on Friday--if that data is to be consistent with the other data. This does not even take into account discouraged workers or the "underemployed"--or other reasons the reported unemployment rate may be deceiving. Merely looking at the REPORTED numbers indicates just jow little improvement there has been--how little we have gottne for the TRILLIONS of dollars of government "stimulus" we have poured into the economy, including TRILLIONS of dollars of "stimulus" and subsidies by the FED. Ben Bernanke considers himself a succes. Objectively, he is one of the WORST FAIILURES in the history of world finance. Remember, he was appointed in early 2006, meaning he presided over the COLLAPSE of the economy, and has FAILED to help a REAL RECOVERY. Printing money has NEVER been the answer, but you can at least say that Bernanke is CONSISTENTLY wrong and idiotic. No Pujols hot streaks and cold streaks for him. Just one, conisitent COLD STREAK.
Every Thursday, the Labor Department releases its (seasonally adjusted, although the raw data is also released--just ignored by an incompetent media) number of NEW unemployment claims for the previous week. These are the discouraging numbers for the past three weeks of released data: 416,000 (revised from 412,000 initially reported), 404,000 (revised from 403,000 initially reported) and 429,000 (to be revised tomorrow). As stated in last Wednesday's article, it was impossible for last Thursday's number to be "good " news. The number of new unemployment claims is a measure of gross jobs LOST, and that number has STALLED during this entire year (after improving some in the fall of 2010, which also happened in the fall of 2009, only to have the number STALL in the first 8 months of 2010). Yes, so far the number of new unemployment claims has stalled in 2011 at a slightly loweer level than the range over the firt 8 months of 2010, but at a still HIGH level for a 'recovering" economy (the 400,000 level being HIGH, when we really need a consistent 300,000 level, and the level in a truly GOOD economy may approach 200,000--never really going below that because there are always some job losses).
Now if you paid attention to last week's article, you know that this weekly number of new unemployment claims is NOT a "hard" number, and that one week's number is therefore of little meaning in itself. Last Thursday's reported 429,000 was for EASTER week, and might be even a little more unreliable. Economists , of course, were surprised at the "unexpecdted" number, but econoists are perpetually "surprised" (te significance of which is that these are the same people who claim to be able to PLAN our economy, if only we let them run everything in a centrally planned economy--an absurdity which is PROVEN wrong daily, which does not stop Fed chairman Ben Bernanke and our President from assuing that economists know what they are doing). You would expect tomorrow's reported number to go down, just because last week's number rose to such a high level: threatening to trturn us t the same range as the first 8 months of 2010--a range which is only about 11,000 to 21,000 away from last week's reported number of 42;9,0000, although we would have to average above 440,000 for about a month to say we have really returned basicaly to the old range).
You can see how it is IMPOSSIBLE for tomorrow's reported number of new unemployment claims to be "good" news. Again, like last week, there can only be bad news that is better or worse than it could have been Say, for exxample, that tomorrow's reported number of new unemployment claims for the previous week fell by 60,000--all of the way down to 370,000. The media might tell you that such an "improvement" showed that our economy is "improving". That is because our media is INCOMPETENT. It is almost unheard of for the new unemployment claims to drop 60,000 in one week---especailly after being at a consist3ently high level in the previous three weeks. If it did happen, it would merely make the numbers for the past TWO weeks SUSPECT (on a weekly basis). AVERAGE the 429,000 reported last Thursday and 370,000, and what do you get? Yep. You get 400,000--a BAD number. You would not expectg the number to drop 60,000 (and economists will not be "expecting" it), but you would expectd the number to DROP. What if it either does not drop, or stays above 400,000? That is the WORSE bad news, instead of the merely bad news already cooked into the numbers. Remember, the only numbers that matter here are the numbers OVER TIME. The longer the new unemployment claim number stays above 400,000, the worse this number is OVER TIME--where one week's "good number" means NOTHING.
It gets worse. The unemployment RATE (also not a "hard" number) has STALLED right at 9%. Last three months: 9%, 8.9%, 8.8%--well within any "margin of error" as far as NO IMPROVEMENT. The STALLED new unemployment claims number is sending the same message: the job market has again STALLED (despite desperate media attempts to say otherwise). The other number released last week (Friday) was that the economy "grew" only 1.8% last quarter (January through March). That is NOT enough to "improve" the job market, and is basically NO GROWTH.
Why do I saly that reported "growth" of 1.8% is basically no growth? That is because it INCLUDES higher food and commodity (including GAS and energy) prices, which RAISE the reported GDP. Remember that the RECESSION in 2008 began with a first half of reported GROWTH (two quarters in a row), partly the result of government "stimulus" (the Bush/Democrat "stimulus") that FAILED, before the Obama "stimulus"--Obama being part of that earlier "stimulus" as well--that FAILED. Here we have Ben Bernanke and the FED providing the massive government "stimulus" that is FAILING, except to create a lower dollar and an inflatiionary effectg that ARTIFICIALLY simulates GDP "growth". With all of this "stimulus", 1.8% "growth" is PATHETIC, and a FAILURE of policy. Bernanke has, of course, succeeded in helping Wall Street and the stock market, which seems to be the main goal of the Obama Administration and the economic fascists on Wall Street who regard thiesmelves as PARTNERS with Obama and Bernanke: that "partnership" between Big Business and Big Government jointly runnning a planned economy being the very definitioin of economic fasicsm.
Once again, I have prepared you for the numbers to be realeased tomorrow, and on Friday. The number of new unemployment claims reported tomorrow cannot be "good news". That is because the four week average will be BAD--as to any conceivable number which does not make the whole system suspect. Any number above 400,000 (even if it represents a drop of 10 or 20 thousand) is represents "worse" bad news, showing that the economy is perhaps getting WORSE (as the 1.8% "growth" would appear to indicate). A number above 420,000 would be TERRIBLE, and an indication we may be in trouble. A number above 440,000 would be a CATASTROPHE--giving a strong indication we already are in more trouble than we thought. Again, that is NOT because the weekly number means much, but because the average over the past 4 weeks would be so BAD, and because this would confirm the message from other data (especailly the GDP data).
Friday, of course, you get the MONTHLY "jobs created" (net--not gorss) data, and the unemployment RATE data. Again, it is IMPOSSIBLE for this data to really be "good". What does it mean, for example, if we supposedly "crated" 300,000 net jobs in Apriul. It means that at least one set of data is FALSE. The new unemployment claim data over the past month shows we have STALLED. If the data reported on Friday purports to show something else, that data is SUPSECT and INCONSISTENT with the new unemployment claims data. It would also be inconsistent with the GDOP data. No, you would not expect Friday's data to show massive deteroriation, but there is no way for Friday's datat to show IMPROVEMENT in the economy and be consistent with the data we already have. Whaty such inconsistency would do is cast doubt on ALL of the data (again, none of which really represent "hard" numbers that cannot be wrong/manipulated). The more the data is all consistent, the more you may feel (perhaps a little naively) that it represents something real.
P.S. You, too, want to be an "economist" and "predict" the economic data in advance, and have the thrill of being constantly "surprised"? Easy. I will tell you how. Take the new unemployment claims number. AVERAGE the previous 4 weeks. That is your starting number. But you can FUDGE that number. IF the previous 4 to 8 weeks have shown a CONSISTENT "trend" (meaning essentially EVERY week up or down), make sure your "predicted" number follows the trend (in other words, is higher or lowever than the previous number, whichever the previous direction is). Suince we have no CONSISTNET trend right now, you can disregard this "fudge" factor. IF the previous week's number was either up or down and unusally large number (as last week's was UP 25,000), then you probably need to "predict" that this week's reported number will go the other way (assuming lthere is no massive trend). Often, of course, the AVERAGE of the previous 4 weeks will take care of this. Then be RELUCTANT to "predictd" a move of 20,000 or more--generally keeping your "predicted" move from the previous week no more than 10-15 thousand. This means you will NEVER get a BIG move right, and will always be "surprised" by the "unexpected" move, but it also means you will not look like such an IDIOT by missing the number dramatically. Yes, I know that these "economists" "surveyed" as to their "predictions" probably have "sophisticated" computer programs, but I guarantee you that you can do just as well, or bettter, applying the simple rules I have just given you. If you are really brave, of course, you can try to do BETTER, and make a real prediction (instead of just a projection based on past performance and fear of being thought an idiot). If you try that, however, you are not a true economist--not a true, representative member of the practitioners of the "dismal science'.
P.P..S. Nope. No proofreading or spell checking of the above (eyesight). Also, you may have noticed a "slip of the mind" in my prvious article last week. I gave you two different figures as to the length of time the new unemployment claims STALLED from the end of 2009 to the fall of 2010. The actual number was 10 months (from the end of November of 2009 to September of 2010). At one point last week, I think I referred to 18 months. That was really the unemployment RATE. Sometimes it is hard to keep these numbers straight in your mind. The unemployment RATE first "stabilized" in about July of 2009, when it DROPPED from 9.5% to 9.4%. It then rose to 10% briefly, but was listed at 9.7% in January of 1010. Essentailly, that rate did not improve for ALL of 2010, and is STILL little improved (still down less than 1% from January of 2010, and down only .6% from that 9.4% rate in the summer of 2009 (BEFORE Obama's "stimulus" even had a chance to take effectd). Gallup, of course, has been consistentlly reporting a rate of 10%, even in recent months, and this reported rate is a POLL--hardly exact. You can see how there has been little improvement over an extended period of time, and the other data rerenced in this article indicates that will continue with the datata to be reported on Friday--if that data is to be consistent with the other data. This does not even take into account discouraged workers or the "underemployed"--or other reasons the reported unemployment rate may be deceiving. Merely looking at the REPORTED numbers indicates just jow little improvement there has been--how little we have gottne for the TRILLIONS of dollars of government "stimulus" we have poured into the economy, including TRILLIONS of dollars of "stimulus" and subsidies by the FED. Ben Bernanke considers himself a succes. Objectively, he is one of the WORST FAIILURES in the history of world finance. Remember, he was appointed in early 2006, meaning he presided over the COLLAPSE of the economy, and has FAILED to help a REAL RECOVERY. Printing money has NEVER been the answer, but you can at least say that Bernanke is CONSISTENTLY wrong and idiotic. No Pujols hot streaks and cold streaks for him. Just one, conisitent COLD STREAK.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)