Jobs Are His Number One Priority

[meazza]

That's the funniest part of all this, Carney blames the R's because of the looming sequestration cuts, but it was their idea to put it in there.

 

Why wasn't he pressed on this point at the briefing?

 

The empire strikes back:

 

http://realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/01/31/senator_harry_reid_we_are_in_a_recovery.html

[Doc]

And Michelle is dreamy.

What a sad world that would be. Oh, wait a minute!

[IDBillzFan]

Why wasn't he pressed on this point at the briefing?

 

:lol: That's some funny stuff right there.

[Oxrock]

The empire strikes back:

 

http://realclearpoli...a_recovery.html

This is what I got when I clicked your link:

 

Danger: Malware Ahead!

Google Chrome has blocked access to this page on realclearpolitics.com.

Content from www.realclearpolitics.com, a known malware distributor, has been inserted into this web page. Visiting this page now is very likely to infect your computer with malware.

Malware is malicious software that causes things like identity theft, financial loss, and permanent file deletion. Learn more

Edited February 1, 2013 by Oxrock

[Juror#8]

Since "Subpar" is a subjective term, I think it's important to note that not all similar GDP growth rates aren't created equal. What do I mean by that? Well, it normally takes a GDP growth rate north of 2- 2.5% to lower the unemployment rate. Anything above that normally shows net job creation relative to population increase, anything below, shows stagnant to net job losses.

 

If you have an economy that is moving at 2-2.5% job growth with an economy that is fully employed with below 5% unemployment, then you have an economy that is relatively healthy, generally with enough slack to absorb a typical shock to the economy. An economy at this GDP growth rate fully employed is not only a mildly positive development domestically, but for abroad as well, meaning there are enough employed Americans to continue the cycle of American's buying foreign products.

 

If you have a 2-2.5% GDP Economy that has a very high unemployment rate of 8%, and you get that growth, well again, you aren't adding jobs relative to population increase, which means the economy isn't really improving all that much. When you are in a hole as deep as we are, it's important to have meaningful growth to get that unemployment rate down. And when I say down, not down in the sense where people leave the labor market which therefore artificially lowers the unemployment rate.

 

Having said that, here is a list of some previous presidents growth rates:

 

http://www.davemanue...dent-1948-2009/

 

1981-1988 (Ronald Reagan, Republican), 3.4%

1989-1992 (George H. W. Bush, Republican), 2.17%

1993-2000 (Bill Clinton, Democrat), 3.88%

2001-2008 (George W. Bush, Republican), +2.09%

 

Obama's first term was at 1.2%

 

Reagan and Clinton both inherited weak economies, which gave them an inherent advantage in being able to produce higher GDP growth rates. Typically the larger the hole, the more opportunity for subsequent growth. Both Bush's inherited fully employed economies. It's a little more difficult to produce higher growth rates when the economy is fully employed.

 

 

You were responding to this :

 

 

 

So, I think it's important to understand what it is that I mean when I say "structural labor market woes". Structural from my perspective are fundamental solutions that have long-term impacts. When the president offered bailouts for State and Local governments so that they could stem the job losses from these states. That wasn't structural. The problem with the states is that they had budgets based off baselines that were from the housing bubble booms. It was unsustainable, unfortunately the only sane way to solve this dilemma is to allow the steep cuts to occur. Now that those funds have exhausted, what happened to those state budgets and jobs? They were eventually cut and let go, hence the job losses from these state and local governments. Now reasonable people can argue that it was needed in 2009 so that the economy wouldn't continue to fall at the precipitous rate it was when the President entered into the job. But it still wasn't a fundamental structural solution.

 

What about all the temporary tax credits and pay roll tax deductions he had? Again, they were all short-term, all it did was give a temporary boost to the economy, now that they have expired, guess what has been happening to Consumer confidence? Dropping.

 

So what are the solutions that would be considered "structural". I've spoken about this at great length, but I''ll go over it again.

 

1) A tremendous investment in jobs training. We have plenty of jobs here in the U.S that can't be filled because there aren't enough qualified prospects to fill the jobs. We can do this by reforming some of the "safety nets". I believe there should be strings attached for people who are unemployed that are receiving food stamps and for people who request extended unemployment benefits. What I mean is that there should be a huge investment in getting these people trained so that they can enter the work force. The government from my view should help identify where demand is for these jobs, offer job training programs and have people retrain. When people remain unemployed for too long they develop atrophy in their former job skills. Not to mention some of those skills aren't needed nearly as much as they use to, such as construction jobs.

 

2) We are blessed with Energy here in the U.S Look at the Dakotas, experiencing near sub 3% unemployment. There is so much energy here in the U.S, we should open up territories for drilling. This alone would add many jobs throughout the U.S. This is a twofold structural development, because one it adds jobs, and two it would reduce or help mitigate the rise of energy prices. This is not only a great development for the U.S consumer who will have more money to spend, but also on manufacturers who will have lower input costs.

 

3) We should look to build vehicles that run off of Natural gas. We have the natural resources here in the U.S to make it happen. Obviously there are many logistical hurdles, but we could begin to incrementally increase production of these vehicles by giving incentives for State/local and Federal vehicles to run off of Natural gas. Once the logistics take care of itself, in time, we can look to produce more of these vehicles for the open market. Again, this would lead to job creation and lower energy prices, specially for gasoline.

 

4) Tax reform. Reasonable people can argue what tax reform should look like, but reforms are structural by nature. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, and yes I know there are many loopholes that Giant companies evade, but they aren't keeping that money home. We are losing out, many of these companies have gone on record saying that if we lowered the rates and allowed some sort of forgiveness that they would repatriate those funds back home. Obviously I'm a little skeptical of some of their claims, but let's put it this way, it would end being a net plus.

 

5) An aggressive push create trade deals with our trading partners, primarily the faster developing nations. We should tirelessly be looking to see how we can enter these markets, you know, make deals. I hardly hear anything from this administration on that front, and I keep up.

 

6) Regulatory Reform, one can argue that is precisely what this administration is doing, but the reforms by in large from the business community both at the corporate and small business level do not approve. I for one lost my job because of the Dodd Frank Regulations. I can go on and on with examples in how this has, is and will continue to be the case.

 

I've got many more ideas in what would constitute as structural reforms. But these are a few examples.

 

Thanks for taking the time to go through this so comprehensively.

 

I read your post three times and I appreciated it more with each read. I can't say that I disagree with anything that you said, however I must admit that I'm at a disadvantage because I'm not an economist and I only understand economic theory and the componentry at a very pedestrian level.

 

With that said, the thrust of my questions was in an effort to highlight a seemingly recurring and abiding motif:

 

"If it is that easy, why can't anyone accomplish it consistently?"

 

The rest of my post is going to seem really very unscientific and as if I'm arguing along the margins. That's because I am. As I said earlier, I can't disagree with what you're saying technically because it seems to make sense conceptually.

 

But I wonder why in practice, there is a disconnect?

 

You said earlier, that Reagan and Clinton were assisted by some good atmospherics to drive their growth numbers. It almost seems like there are too many variables to have a coherent strategy that is guaranteed to work in any extant economic environment. Sort of like a continuum...where if you make a decision based on the current climate, then the situation has changed too substantally by the time of implementation. Conversely, if you try to forecast ahead, there are too many unknown future variables that could impact your guesswork.

 

And maybe that explains the ebb and flow to the unemployment numbers over the last 60 years:

 

http://data.bls.gov/...ods=Annual Data

 

I can't discern a single explainable pattern from those numbers. Democrats and Republicans. Reagan and Obama. Eisenhower and Clinton. War and Peace. Harmony and Strife.

 

It just seems like its' guess work. Almost like phrenology.....an effort to make science out of happenstance.

 

In that prism, your criticism of the administration's economic policy seems like throwing darts blindly. Because you're advocating for an approach that either hasn't been sustainable before, hasn't been tried, hasn't worked, and that is based on the current economic climate that is so vicissitudinous as to potentially render the model ineffective by point of implementation.

 

Now that is not to say "Why try?"

 

Really what I'm asking is that in consideration of the above points, why would your model be more effective that anyone elses? And how do you feel comfortable criticizing the current administration for their approach? And how do you know if what didn't work today, won't work tomorrow - and vice versa?

 

It just seems like a bunch of guesswork to me.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Juror#8

[meazza]

This is what I got when I clicked your link:

 

Danger: Malware Ahead!

Google Chrome has blocked access to this page on realclearpolitics.com.

Content from www.realclearpolitics.com, a known malware distributor, has been inserted into this web page. Visiting this page now is very likely to infect your computer with malware.

Malware is malicious software that causes things like identity theft, financial loss, and permanent file deletion. Learn more

 

I'm getting that message too this morning. Video site seems to be down. Never had that issue before.

[Magox]

 

 

Really what I'm asking is that in consideration of the above points, why would your model be more effective that anyone elses? And how do you feel comfortable criticizing the current administration for their approach? And how do you know if what didn't work today, won't work tomorrow - and vice versa?

 

It just seems like a bunch of guesswork to me.

 

I don't know. I'm positively sure that there are a lot of kinks to some of the generalized solutions that I mentioned. Some of the solutions I brought up are nothing new such as the drilling and tax reform. Drilling has one major road block and that is the environmental lobby and donors. Tax and regulatory reform that would produce pro growth outcomes only roadblock would be the liberals.

 

In regards to the natural gas powered vehicles, I just see it as a no brainer. We do it in South America, so I don't see why we can't do it here. I understand that there are many logistical hurdles, but they can be overcome in time.

 

The jobs retraining program is something that they say are doing, but obviously we don't see it. It should be tied to safety nets. That's my opinion, I don't see why you wouldn't want to attach benefits to retraining. It provides a safety net while helping produce a productive citizen who would have the job skills to enter the workforce. And if they don't decide to participate you reduce their safety net benefits. That sounds not only logical but fair to me. And you know what? It would be tremendously popular with the majority of the U.S. The only politicians who would be opposed to something like that would be those who represent the constituents that wouldn't be inclined to participate in the training for benefits program.

 

Trade deals are being negotiated, I'm sure of it, but if I was in charge I'd make it a top priority. Aggressively seek to make deals with these fast growing trade partners.

 

In regards to how comfortable I feel criticizing this administration. I'm extremely comfortable because I know in my heart of hearts they are a bunch economic nincompoops who care more about "fairness" than they do economic growth. Before you even got here, when they were rolling out their Stimulus bill, Dodd Frank, ACA, Cash for Clunkers, EPA hammer style regulations I spoke at great length and detail to why and where they would fail, and pretty much the negative consequences that I spoke about happened. It's one thing if I would of made a blanket statement such as "The ACA sucks and will destroy the economY" and it's another to go into great detail in where the flaws of the legislation are and the consequences we will most likely see.

 

You don't have to be a partisan or a genius to figure out that 4 years later, 6 trillion dollars more in debt, we have a near record low participation rate with slow growth. Proof is in the pudding, we should be doing better than what we are, and we're not.

[B-Man]

I'm getting that message too this morning. Video site seems to be down. Never had that issue before.

 

Here's the same Hilarious Harry Reid story, from different sites,

 

Sen. Harry Reid: We are 'in recovery'

 

Las Vegas Review-Journal (blog) ‎

Seriously. The senator of a state with 20 percent unemployment says we're "in recovery".

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reid: The GOP really needs to stop bad-mouthing this recovery we’re in

 

As Ed pointed out this morning, the White House’s more recent attitude on the pathetic state of the American economy has run somewhere along the lines of, “Maybe if we just don’t talk about it, people will forget that it actually exists” — but the report of the 4th quarter economic contraction at least roused them from their apathy just long enough to blame Republicans’ political tactics for the downturn.

 

In heralding what he expects will be a “strong, bipartisan vote” to extend the debt ceiling later this afternoon, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pretty much seconded that thoughtful sentiment on the Senate floor

 

And, I’m sorry — “bad-mouthing”? Does mentioning the irrefutable fact that our employment situation has grown so much worse during Obama’s tenure offend you somehow?

 

 

http://hotair.com/ar...covery-were-in/

Edited February 1, 2013 by B-Man

[B-Large]

I don't know. I'm positively sure that there are a lot of kinks to some of the generalized solutions that I mentioned. Some of the solutions I brought up are nothing new such as the drilling and tax reform. Drilling has one major road block and that is the environmental lobby and donors. Tax and regulatory reform that would produce pro growth outcomes only roadblock would be the liberals.

 

In regards to the natural gas powered vehicles, I just see it as a no brainer. We do it in South America, so I don't see why we can't do it here. I understand that there are many logistical hurdles, but they can be overcome in time.

 

The jobs retraining program is something that they say are doing, but obviously we don't see it. It should be tied to safety nets. That's my opinion, I don't see why you wouldn't want to attach benefits to retraining. It provides a safety net while helping produce a productive citizen who would have the job skills to enter the workforce. And if they don't decide to participate you reduce their safety net benefits. That sounds not only logical but fair to me. And you know what? It would be tremendously popular with the majority of the U.S. The only politicians who would be opposed to something like that would be those who represent the constituents that wouldn't be inclined to participate in the training for benefits program.

 

Trade deals are being negotiated, I'm sure of it, but if I was in charge I'd make it a top priority. Aggressively seek to make deals with these fast growing trade partners.

 

In regards to how comfortable I feel criticizing this administration. I'm extremely comfortable because I know in my heart of hearts they are a bunch economic nincompoops who care more about "fairness" than they do economic growth. Before you even got here, when they were rolling out their Stimulus bill, Dodd Frank, ACA, Cash for Clunkers, EPA hammer style regulations I spoke at great length and detail to why and where they would fail, and pretty much the negative consequences that I spoke about happened. It's one thing if I would of made a blanket statement such as "The ACA sucks and will destroy the economY" and it's another to go into great detail in where the flaws of the legislation are and the consequences we will most likely see.

 

You don't have to be a partisan or a genius to figure out that 4 years later, 6 trillion dollars more in debt, we have a near record low participation rate with slow growth. Proof is in the pudding, we should be doing better than what we are, and we're not.

 

I agree 100% on that underlined portion, but I am interested in youor thoughts on it from another angle. Instead of governemnt sponsored training programs, why not give companies direct subsidies/ steep tax incentive to hire people who have rough skills, and let them train the person to the specific skills they need. I have come to be fond of on the job training- its like in College where they really preparr you for nothing in most instances, where you actually learn the job is on the job.

[Juror#8]

I don't know. I'm positively sure that there are a lot of kinks to some of the generalized solutions that I mentioned. Some of the solutions I brought up are nothing new such as the drilling and tax reform. Drilling has one major road block and that is the environmental lobby and donors. Tax and regulatory reform that would produce pro growth outcomes only roadblock would be the liberals.

 

In regards to the natural gas powered vehicles, I just see it as a no brainer. We do it in South America, so I don't see why we can't do it here. I understand that there are many logistical hurdles, but they can be overcome in time.

 

The jobs retraining program is something that they say are doing, but obviously we don't see it. It should be tied to safety nets. That's my opinion, I don't see why you wouldn't want to attach benefits to retraining. It provides a safety net while helping produce a productive citizen who would have the job skills to enter the workforce. And if they don't decide to participate you reduce their safety net benefits. That sounds not only logical but fair to me. And you know what? It would be tremendously popular with the majority of the U.S. The only politicians who would be opposed to something like that would be those who represent the constituents that wouldn't be inclined to participate in the training for benefits program.

 

Trade deals are being negotiated, I'm sure of it, but if I was in charge I'd make it a top priority. Aggressively seek to make deals with these fast growing trade partners.

 

In regards to how comfortable I feel criticizing this administration. I'm extremely comfortable because I know in my heart of hearts they are a bunch economic nincompoops who care more about "fairness" than they do economic growth. Before you even got here, when they were rolling out their Stimulus bill, Dodd Frank, ACA, Cash for Clunkers, EPA hammer style regulations I spoke at great length and detail to why and where they would fail, and pretty much the negative consequences that I spoke about happened. It's one thing if I would of made a blanket statement such as "The ACA sucks and will destroy the economY" and it's another to go into great detail in where the flaws of the legislation are and the consequences we will most likely see.

 

You don't have to be a partisan or a genius to figure out that 4 years later, 6 trillion dollars more in debt, we have a near record low participation rate with slow growth. Proof is in the pudding, we should be doing better than what we are, and we're not.

 

Again, good points.

 

I'm just trying to make sense of it all. All these proposals are not original. They're recycled initiatives and have been discussed, proposed, or tried before. You just begin to wonder, why haven't they worked or why haven't they been tried yet? Drilling, tax reform, job programs, etc. have all been tried and for one reason or another lack staying power as a economic driver.

 

Why?

 

And is it the chicken or the egg? Is the unemployment rate in the Dakotas (South Dakota - 4.4%; North Dakota - 3.2%) low because of oil drilling, or because the state is sparsely populated, has attracted financial centers because of favorable business tax rates (Citi, Capital One), and, because no one wants to live there, they lack competition for jobs?

 

1. If it's the former, how do you explain Nebraska's 3.7% unemployment rate, or Montana's 5.3% unemployment rate, or Wyoming's 4.7% unemployment rate?

 

2. If it's the latter, wouldn't that then give you a convenient answer for question 1 too (given the population, climate, regional closeness, and topographical similarities)?

 

We're only 4 years removed from a republican presidency that, ostensibly (to hear '3rdnlng' tell it), should have been the antithesis of the "fairness" inherent in a democratic administration. Yet we still had the same **** economy, the same proposals, the same "what ifs," and coulda-shoulda-wouldas.

 

The only difference is that under the R we were on the road to ****, and under the D the **** has materialized.

 

This economy has been ****, but it was tanking under Bush. Who is to blame? Reagan's job economy was **** for a while, but Carter was his predecessor and was a dolt. Clinton's job economy was magnificient - but he benefitted from the internet boom. Who was responsible for putting those pieces into place to incubate that pro-business environment? D or R?

 

It just seems that folks (not you btw) are quick to ascribe laudatory or disparaging descriptions (or just turn a blind eye) based on D or R associations. But it seems to be the same thing over and over again. I wish I could look back to see how many 3rdnlng "the more you know" posts there were in early 2008 when the Dow was at 3 and people were losing jobs faster than an Aventador LP700 on the Autobahn.

 

I like your idea about natural gas cars. From what I can tell that hasn't gotten much play here in the states and the rationale and potential impact makes sense. I think that we should drill because we have untapped petroleum resources and I think that there would be a job boost. I'm just not sure that the Dakotas are the best example to advance the concomitant job growth angle, because I think that their state's *unique* distinction as states that you only live in if you have to, likely embellishes the impact of those numbers.

 

I was once at an airport in Minneapolis. They were selling shirts that said "North Dakota is not the end of the world but you can see it from there."

 

That probabaly tells you what you need to know about North and South Dakota.

 

Not being contrarian; just trying to make sense of what appears to be 30 year old unresolved arguments that overlap different congresses, leadership, and both D & R presidents.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Juror#8

[Nanker]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h52u4SGbw30

[Magox]

I agree 100% on that underlined portion, but I am interested in youor thoughts on it from another angle. Instead of governemnt sponsored training programs, why not give companies direct subsidies/ steep tax incentive to hire people who have rough skills, and let them train the person to the specific skills they need. I have come to be fond of on the job training- its like in College where they really preparr you for nothing in most instances, where you actually learn the job is on the job.

 

I wouldn't be opposed to something like this. However this plan wouldn't directly tie the continuation of safety net benefits with job retraining.

[Magox]

Again, good points.

 

I'm just trying to make sense of it all. All these proposals are not original. They're recycled initiatives and have been discussed, proposed, or tried before. You just begin to wonder, why haven't they worked or why haven't they been tried yet? Drilling, tax reform, job programs, etc. have all been tried and for one reason or another lack staying power as a economic driver.

 

Why?

 

And is it the chicken or the egg? Is the unemployment rate in the Dakotas (South Dakota - 4.4%; North Dakota - 3.2%) low because of oil drilling, or because the state is sparsely populated, has attracted financial centers because of favorable business tax rates (Citi, Capital One), and, because no one wants to live there, they lack competition for jobs?

 

1. If it's the former, how do you explain Nebraska's 3.7% unemployment rate, or Montana's 5.3% unemployment rate, or Wyoming's 4.7% unemployment rate?

 

2. If it's the latter, wouldn't that then give you a convenient answer for question 1 too (given the population, climate, regional closeness, and topographical similarities)?

 

 

 

Certainly population factors into unemployment. The Dakota's would have had a relatively low unemployment rate no matter if oil was there or not, but the difference between no oil and oil producing jobs in N.D account from anywhere to a .5%-1% drop.

 

Doesn't sound like much, but it's pretty substantial if you stop to think about it. You probably could see a similar drop in other states as well if the restrictions were pulled and the commitment was there. It's not the end all be all solution, but it would certainly be a part of the equation, at least from my perspective.

 

Job creation wasn't really a big issue for a sustained period here in the U.S since Bush Senior's term at office. So we haven't really had to think about all that much until now. I would say that is why there is the added focus on this subject now.

[3rdnlng]

 

 

Again, good points.

 

I'm just trying to make sense of it all. All these proposals are not original. They're recycled initiatives and have been discussed, proposed, or tried before. You just begin to wonder, why haven't they worked or why haven't they been tried yet? Drilling, tax reform, job programs, etc. have all been tried and for one reason or another lack staying power as a economic driver.

 

Why?

 

And is it the chicken or the egg? Is the unemployment rate in the Dakotas (South Dakota - 4.4%; North Dakota - 3.2%) low because of oil drilling, or because the state is sparsely populated, has attracted financial centers because of favorable business tax rates (Citi, Capital One), and, because no one wants to live there, they lack competition for jobs?

 

1. If it's the former, how do you explain Nebraska's 3.7% unemployment rate, or Montana's 5.3% unemployment rate, or Wyoming's 4.7% unemployment rate?

 

2. If it's the latter, wouldn't that then give you a convenient answer for question 1 too (given the population, climate, regional closeness, and topographical similarities)?

 

We're only 4 years removed from a republican presidency that, ostensibly (to hear '3rdnlng' tell it), should have been the antithesis of the "fairness" inherent in a democratic administration. Yet we still had the same **** economy, the same proposals, the same "what ifs," and coulda-shoulda-wouldas.

 

The only difference is that under the R we were on the road to ****, and under the D the **** has materialized.

 

This economy has been ****, but it was tanking under Bush. Who is to blame? Reagan's job economy was **** for a while, but Carter was his predecessor and was a dolt. Clinton's job economy was magnificient - but he benefitted from the internet boom. Who was responsible for putting those pieces into place to incubate that pro-business environment? D or R?

 

It just seems that folks (not you btw) are quick to ascribe laudatory or disparaging descriptions (or just turn a blind eye) based on D or R associations. But it seems to be the same thing over and over again. I wish I could look back to see how many 3rdnlng "the more you know" posts there were in early 2008 when the Dow was at 3 and people were losing jobs faster than an Aventador LP700 on the Autobahn.

 

I like your idea about natural gas cars. From what I can tell that hasn't gotten much play here in the states and the rationale and potential impact makes sense. I think that we should drill because we have untapped petroleum resources and I think that there would be a job boost. I'm just not sure that the Dakotas are the best example to advance the concomitant job growth angle, because I think that their state's *unique* distinction as states that you only live in if you have to, likely embellishes the impact of those numbers.

 

I was once at an airport in Minneapolis. They were selling shirts that said "North Dakota is not the end of the world but you can see it from there."

 

That probabaly tells you what you need to know about North and South Dakota.

 

Not being contrarian; just trying to make sense of what appears to be 30 year old unresolved arguments that overlap different congresses, leadership, and both D & R presidents.

 

I'm not going to get into any long debate with you about the economy but the attempts to legislate "fairness" is a large part of the schitty economy. The continued attempts to create "fairness" are making things even schittier. Furthermore, if you're going to judge a state by what you see on a t-shirt in an airport you're about as deep as hi-way striping.

 

 

 

Certainly population factors into unemployment. The Dakota's would have had a relatively low unemployment rate no matter if oil was there or not, but the difference between no oil and oil producing jobs in N.D account from anywhere to a .5%-1% drop.

 

Doesn't sound like much, but it's pretty substantial if you stop to think about it. You probably could see a similar drop in other states as well if the restrictions were pulled and the commitment was there. It's not the end all be all solution, but it would certainly be a part of the equation, at least from my perspective.

 

Job creation wasn't really a big issue for a sustained period here in the U.S since Bush Senior's term at office. So we haven't really had to think about all that much until now. I would say that is why there is the added focus on this subject now.

 

The Dakotas have eased the unemployment in other states by attracting workers from them.

[Alaska Darin]

How can the reporters sit there with a straight face ??.

They really are that stupid.

[B-Man]

They really are that stupid.

 

Its more than that AD

 

Counting the Ways the Media Lies About the Economy

 

Pop quiz: What was the biggest news story this week? And I don't mean, what was the biggest news story according to Obama's media.

 

Obviously, it was the economy taking a nosedive into negative territory last quarter, along with the fact that hardly enough jobs were created last month to keep up with population growth. Oh, and the unemployment rate increased. Of course the economy is the biggest story; it affects the most people and Obama's doing it wrong.

But not only is the media never-minding the economy, much of the media coverage related to economic bad news is forever being spun into good news. A few examples…

Politico saw the jobs numbers as

something

that "could soothe some of the renewed economic anxiety in Washington[.]"

The AP

saw

the jobs numbers as proof "[t]he U.S. job market is proving sturdier than expected" and "mostly encouraging."

CBS News wants to

assure

all of us that the "[l]atest job numbers signal economic recovery."

Yahoo News

says

, "Don't Be Fooled by the GDP Report: The Economy Is Gaining Strength"

 

You can add all that to what we documented yesterday.

 

Granted, some in the media took the report a little more seriously, but they still joined the coordinated wagon-circling to ensure bad news for Obama in no way became The Narrative -- for that might damage Obama politically, and he's on a left-wing cultural rampage against those God and guns Bitter Clingers, donchaknow.

 

What you’re seeing from the media isn't happy talk, and it's not bias; it's shamelessly dishonest propaganda -- it's the media nakedly saying, "The chocolate ration has been increased from 30 to 25 grams per week."

 

How do you like these chocolate rations:

1. Poverty's increasing.
    
   
2. Gas prices have almost doubled.
    
   
3. The price of health care premiums has exploded and will only explode more (but-but-but Obama said…!)
    
   
4. Poor and middle class incomes are falling.
    
   
5. One-in-five Americans are on food stamps.
    
   
6. The non-partisan GAO says Obama's exploding deficit is unsustainable.
    
   
7. Eight million people are looking for work.
    
   
8. Our labor force has shrunk to thirty-year levels (170k more dropped out last month).
    
   
9. Chronic unemployment hasn't been this bad since World War II.
    
   
10. The long-term unemployment rate is over 14%, and if the labor force was merely the same size today as it was the day Obama took office, today's unemployment rate would be closer to 11%.
    
11. 
    

When's the last time the media talked about any of that? But what Economic Narrative does the media obsess over? Naturally, the only news that can be spun into wonderfulness for Lightbringer: Wall Street, baby!

 

Oh my, it's a whole new world. Suddenly the media loves the idea of the rich getting richer. But why are the rich getting richer? It's not the economy, stupid -- it's The Fed -- pumpity, pumpity, pumpity pump. It's nothing more than an ongoing boob job to take our eyes off the line for government cheese.

 

And after the media's done shouting squirrel at the Dow, it then turns around and lies explains that any hiccups in the economy were caused by the fact that The State didn't spend enough last quarter. If the State were bigger, more powerful, and taking more money out of the private economy The Twenties Will Roar Again!

 

You see, children America *furrows brow* the reason the GDP collapsed *scratches beard* is due to the fact our blessed State is not spending us into bankruptcy fast enough. It was the decrease in government spending last quarter *adjusts prescription-less smart-person glasses* that hurt our economy. But if we listen to Dear Leader *leans, forward, entwines fingers* and increase the power of The State *smiles warmly* chocolate rations will increase from 25 to 20 grams.

 

We're being told that, even though, uhm, federal spending increased last quarter.

 

Obama's abysmal record in all things not involving killing Osama bin Laden, has forced the media to move from bias into outright lying.

 

The media doesn’t care about the poor or the ongoing creation of Two Americas. All the media cares about is protecting The State and making sure nothing saps Obama's political power.

 

You see, should Obama be politically damaged, the media thinks to its wicked self, churches won't be forced to violate their conscience, the NRA might not be damaged, Bitter Clingers might keep their guns, The State might shrink, and the GOP might not be destroyed in time for Obama to control absolutely everything after 2014.

 

Now that the media and The State have aligned, we live in a world where the economy is good -- not because it's good -- but because the media and the White House say it's good.

 

So shut up and eat your chocolate, racists.

 

http://www.breitbart...s-about-economy

Edited February 3, 2013 by B-Man

[Juror#8]

I'm not going to get into any long debate with you about the economy but the attempts to legislate "fairness" is a large part of the schitty economy. The continued attempts to create "fairness" are making things even schittier. Furthermore, if you're going to judge a state by what you see on a t-shirt in an airport you're about as deep as hi-way striping.

 

Yea...cause I mentioned nothing about topography, climate, population, demographics, sparseness, etc.

 

And of course, the t-shirt represented the crux of my point, right? It obviously wasn't the encapsulating point that, at it's foundation, relied on 50,000 other points that I had made in the preceding paragraphs leading up to it.

 

I simply said - "South Dakota sucks because I read it on a t-shirt."

 

Right?

 

Wrong.

 

Let me guess, you were so confused by the "this is all you need to know about the Dakotas" comment (the encapsulating point), that you missed the vindicating arguments.

 

If you're using the same logic here that you use to make ANY other point, at any other time, then this should be instructive to anyone arguing a point against you why they should never take you seriously.

 

If it was just a bad outing for you, then just take the L and move on quietly.

 

Incidentally, I was in Sioux Falls for a conference in 2009.

 

Save for a kinda cool park with a water fall, it sucked. (BTW, if you go, never eat at a restaurant called "the Fryn' Pan" - it'll give you the *****)

[Nanker]

The economy will never be an issue until the President is a Republican.

[3rdnlng]

 

 

Yea...cause I mentioned nothing about topography, climate, population, demographics, sparseness, etc.

 

And of course, the t-shirt represented the crux of my point, right? It obviously wasn't the encapsulating point that, at it's foundation, relied on 50,000 other points that I had made in the preceding paragraphs leading up to it.

 

I simply said - "South Dakota sucks because I read it on a t-shirt."

 

Right?

 

Wrong.

 

Let me guess, you were so confused by the "this is all you need to know about the Dakotas" comment (the encapsulating point), that you missed the vindicating arguments.

 

If you're using the same logic here that you use to make ANY other point, at any other time, then this should be instructive to anyone arguing a point against you why they should never take you seriously.

 

If it was just a bad outing for you, then just take the L and move on quietly.

 

Incidentally, I was in Sioux Falls for a conference in 2009.

 

Save for a kinda cool park with a water fall, it sucked. (BTW, if you go, never eat at a restaurant called "the Fryn' Pan" - it'll give you the *****)

 

Now Juror #8, where in Post #50 that I commented on did you attribute all those characteristcs of the Dakotas that are presumed to be negative? Quit popping testosterone pills.