Posted on 02/03/2010 11:32:44 AM PST by Michael Eden
Whenever numbers look bad for Democrats, the media invariably reports them as "unexpected." Well, report THIS, mainstream media:
Barry Hussein just broke his own record for failure.
Previously, it had been reported that Obama had lost 4.1 million jobs - presiding over the greatest number of job losses under any president in any year since the Bureau of Labor Statistics started reporting jobless numbers in 1940.
But now we're finding out that Obama pointed to the center field wall, took a radical swing, and sent unemployment soaring to nearly FIVE MILLION jobs lost with his disastrous failed policies.
There's not much being reported about this yet, but what there is is BAD for Barry:
Feb. 3 (Bloomberg Multimedia) -- The U.S. may lose 824,000 jobs when the government releases its annual revision to employment data on Feb. 5, showing the labor market was in worse shape during the recession than known at the time.The Drudge Report filed this story under the headline, "MANIPULATE: FEDS MAY LOSE 824,000 JOBS IN 'REVISION'." Which creates the sense that something very suspicious was going on to "manipulate" job numbers to make them look less awful than they actually were.
We have this found via Zero Hedge:
From the BLS:In accordance with usual practice, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics is announcing its preliminary estimates of the upcoming annual benchmark revision to the establishment survey employment series. The final benchmark revision will be issued on February 5, 2010, with the publication of the January 2010 Employment Situation news release.If you read the conclusion of the Zero Hedge article, you will see an example as to how extreme the disconnect between the actual state of the economy and the stock market has become.Each year, the Current Employment Statistics (CES) survey employment estimates are benchmarked to comprehensive counts of employment for the month of March. These counts are derived from state unemployment insurance tax records that nearly all employers are required to file. For national CES employment series, the annual benchmark revisions over the last 10 years have averaged plus or minus two-tenths of one percent of total nonfarm employment. The preliminary estimate of the benchmark revision indicates a downward adjustment to March 2009 total nonfarm employment of 824,000 (0.6 percent).
In any event, we find that normally the error that requires correction/revision is .02; but for some reason under Obama the error is .06 -- which is 300% larger than the previous ten year average.
Rush Limbaugh said that he had previously stated that he thought unemployment was higher, and that the Obama White House was monkeying with the numbers to make it appear that unemployment was at or under 10%.
Having watched Obama create a category of "created or saved jobs" out of thin air that no economist had ever seen before, and watching the mainstream media report that made-up statistic as if it were gospel; having watched Obama's "created or saved" job numbers being based on such asinine data that a single $1000 lawnmower was recorded to have saved 50 jobs; having watched the White House engage in rampantly dishonest reporting on its job numbers; having discovered that those bogus job numbers were reported as having been "created or saved" in phony congressional districts and in phony zip code regions, well, let's just say that I have every reason to believe that this incredibly dishonest White House is capable of anything.
I'm not one iota surprised that the BLS is dumping this news on the typical government bad-news dumping day of Friday.
In any event, you can bet that our 10% unemployment rate is about to take a monster hit.
From a quick calculation, the unemployment rate could all of a sudden be as high as 12%.
It was only yesterday that I wrote this without knowing how right I was:
I continue to believe that unemployment will continue to get worse in agreement with famed analyst Meredith Whitney:I just didn't know that I would literally have my instincts proven right within a matter of three days.Unemployment is likely to rise to 13 percent or higher and will weigh on the economy for several years, countering government efforts to stabilize the banking industry, analyst Meredith Whitney told CNBC.
Anybody that believes anything out of this bunch is a complete idiot.
These jobs losses would mostly have taken place during the last year Bush was in office.
How “unexpected” /s
It just tickles me how they are not reporting stuff like this from the perspective that the recession is over.
oops, that they are reporting this stuff from the perspective that the recession is over.
Must be Bushes fault. Or maybe it was Rush. Or Hannity. Nahh just evil Capitalism.
Headline should read “LOST OR DESTROYED” :)
High volume ping list
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list.
Complete record at the site: nachumlist.com
NO they would not. There was a crisis of confidence and if Bush was in office, it would have started turning around by now. Not saying Bush was perfect, far from it, but he was business friendly and understood how the private sector creates jobs.
Wait till the shuttle stops flying. There will be thousands more people to add to that list because of this a—hole usurper in chief.
The day after Obama was elected, I laid off 4 workers. but I guess that would still count as ‘during the last year Bush was in office’.
This news leaves me feeling rather... unstimulated.
At least during the Bush Administration, the ‘Fundamentals’ of the economy were sound.
Now, I have no confidence in the ‘Progressive’ agenda. Already the rule of law ($30B in TARP as Presidential slush fund), Private Property, (private dealerships closed without process) and contracts (
Dude...
what are you posting this for? I heard the _resident talk about our Growing National Productivity.
/sarcasm
This has been known about since the September payrolls report was released in early October. Don’t expect much market response when this comes out on Friday. Just look to the month to month change for how the market will react.
From economy.com “With the September results, the government released its preliminary estimate of the benchmark revision to payroll growth for the year ending in March 2009. The estimate points to a large downward revision to payrolls of 824,000.”
Let´s see how the “impartial” CNN reports or rather does NOT report this...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.