Skip to comments.Unemployment Rises; AP Spins for Regime
Posted on 03/08/2012 12:43:46 PM PST by Kaslin
RUSH: According to Gallup, the unemployment rate in February: 9.1%. We're gonna get the federal unemployment number here pretty soon, and we will hear what the Obama regime is claiming the new unemployment number is. Now, unemployment compensation requests or applications went up by about 8,000. Jobless claims jumped 8,000 to a seasonally adjusted 362,000 in the week ending March the 3rd. This is according to the Labor Department. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had forecast that claims would rise by 2,000. So this was unexpected. Claims rose by 8,000. That's the government. Gallup says that their unemployment rate is 9.1%.
Now, bear in mind, Gallup does exactly what the Bureau of Labor Statistics does to get their monthly employment rate. That is, they take a survey. They do a poll. For their survey, Gallup interviewed 27,275 people. The government claims that they survey 110,000 adults. The only real difference between the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Gallup is that Gallup does not make any so-called seasonal adjustments like the government does. The seasonal adjustment seems to be the government's secret sauce. Maybe that's the government's pink slime.
But isn't it magical how, without using any seasonal adjustments, Gallup's monthly unemployment rate's always a good bit higher than the regime's? Now, the AP, their version of this story... I rarely have seen, other than this Washington Post story by Alexandra Petri, which is an out-and-out lie, this AP story on unemployment applications is perhaps one of the most intentionally misleading headlines and lead paragraphs that I have ever seen.
After reading this, I'm wondering: Why doesn't the Associated Press have to register with the Federal Election Commission as an Obama super PAC? Because that's what they are. The AP, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, they're all part of the Obama super PAC. They give advertising away to Obama. They give it away. It's free media. He doesn't have to buy anything from these networks or these publications. Headline: "US Unemployment Applications Hover Near Low Levels -- Slightly more Americans applied for unemployment benefits last week but the overall level stayed low enough to suggest the job market is strengthening." Eight thousand new unemployment applications and AP says: That's okay! That's such a low number that that means that the expansion is continuing. The job market is strengthening.
This is an out-and-out lie again. It's intentionally misleading, the headline and the lead paragraph. Tell me, in what significant way are they any different from the rest of the advertisers on the Obama reelection campaign? You have 8,000 new, according to government, jobless applications. And this is gonna be seasonally adjusted again and revised, probably up. You have 8,000 new applicants over last week, "slightly more Americans applied for unemployment benefits but the overall level stayed low enough to suggest the job market's strengthening." Headline: "US Unemployment Applications Hover Near Low Levels." This is shameless. Absolutely shameless.
Andrew Breitbart was laid to rest this week. Andrew Breitbart, as I mentioned, grew up in West Los Angeles. He was surrounded by West LA liberalism. He grew up as one. He goes to Tulane University, graduates, and comes out of there a liberal. It wasn't until later (the Clarence Thomas hearings is what he said) that this entire symbiotic relationship, this incestuous relationship between the media and the Democrat Party jarred him awake. It's what alerted Andrew Breitbart to how the scales are weighted vastly in favor of the Democrat Party and the American left, because of the media. And Andrew Breitbart's objective was to bust up "the Democrat-media complex," as he called it, a takeoff on the military-industrial complex.
And that's what his heirs at Big Journalism and Breitbart.com are going to continue to do, and it's flat-out necessary.
Every day on this program for 23-plus years, there's example after example after example of not just media bias, but journalistic malpractice: an entire industry lying and misleading and misrepresenting things to the American people. They hide behind the First Amendment and the freedom of the press, they hide behind the cloak of objectivity, but they're not objective. They are advocates. They are surrogates. They are part of the agenda. They advance it, and it is the primary reason that so many things in this country are out of whack, because one political party gets a pass. One segment of the American population gets a total pass.
And this AP unemployment story is just the latest in countless daily, multiple-times-a-day examples of the irresponsibility that exists in what is called the mainstream media in this country.
Death , taxes and leftist media spin ..
Good luck on avoiding ‘em.
Drudge has a headline up claiming that the Bureau of Labor Statistics has asked for help from the nuke regulators on how to keep their data secret. Hmmmm.....I wonder why?
Judging by the tenor of their media propaganda the powers-that-be apparently want a second term for Obama.
Sandia Labs has been asked to look at access to stuff and how good a job the gubamint is doing safeguarding our personal data. Sandia has done the security for our nuke secrets so they are considered to be well qualified to protect our data and are reviewing how gubamint data is handled... lol..
Two words.. Henry Lee..
oops. Wen Ho Lee , not Henry
Chalk up one more statistic to the numbers quoted on his program today. My daughter, with a BS in Marketing, was fired from her job this morning and replaced by young male with a HS diploma, whom she had been training for a week. When she asked for the reason, she was told there was none. Ironically, today just happens to be National Woman’s Day (not that either of us us really cares). We both laughed at the absurdity of the timing.
There's pain in this country now. There's fear. There are real-world consequences to witness now, so people are beginning to consider the source of their information now like never before.
We on the right have known of the bias for sometime now. Those on the left need the lies to hold up their demonstrably failed world view. But there's a middle. A once-apathetic middle that is becoming more tuned-in, I believe. I think they're the ones who are beginning to change their assessment of where they should get their information, and it's articles like the one Rush references that cause them to begin to question.
There's what they read in the AP, and there's what they see with their own eyes. Seldom in our history has the difference been so stark.
The bad news is the media will shill for Obama. The good news is that more and more will consider the possibility that they're being lied to.
You can scratch taxes from your list for 47% of Americans
Sandia Labs is in very tight with the NSA.
It is (allegedly) pure and simple revolving-door big government payola.
And IIRC Wen Ho Lee was LANL, not Sandia.
It’s more dangerous than that.
The mainstream media ARE the Democratic Party.
They provide the intellect, the energy, the political creativity, and the awesome communication skills that drive the Democratic Party.
They are NOT a mouthpiece for Democrat talking points.
They WRITE the talking points.
They employ the smartest, best educated, most highly paid communicators in the world.
They are consumed by political passion.
They earn every penny they are paid.
They are people who understand instinctively that political power begins each day with the morning news shows and ends each day with the late night comedy shows.
Since Obama has been president, we’re not supposed to talk about the unemployment rate.
Instead, we’re supposed to focus on “jobs created”, “jobs saved”, and “jobs related to the stimulus”.
How these terms are defined is never explained, but we’re supposed to take it on faith from good Democrats that numerous jobs have been saved and created due to the economic policies of this president. And, that Porkulus created untold number of shovel ready jobs.
I find more and more people with less education even below my 2yr tech college and some other things getting hired more and more. Cheaper to pay them and easier to control them I guess plus easier to replace when they fail.
Yes, I understand your argument; however, in my daughter’s situation. that was not the case. The day after she graduated from college, her former employer fired her because she was “over qualified”. Unable to secure a position in her field, she did bar tending. A group of men, regulars, were impressed with her efficiency and suggested she apply for a position in the automobile dealership where they worked. She did and was brought on board to ‘market’ used cars via the internet. Since this was a new concept at the dealership, without a specific position and pay grade, they ‘hired’ her to fill an empty position in their body shop. That led to much confusion insofar as reporting responsibility. Normally, such positions in other dealerships come with a pay grade + commission. She was paid close to minimum wage but, as a result of her work, generated more than a million $s in sales for the dealership in only 4 months. To a certain extent, her dismissal was a blessing. The young man she was training did not comprehend the methodology of internet sales, despite my daughter’s training. Essentially, you get what you pay for. My gut feeling is that, despite her Marketing Degree, they still viewed her as a bartender and patted themselves on the back for giving her the job.
“My daughter, with a BS in Marketing, was fired from her job this morning and replaced by young male with a HS diploma, whom she had been training for a week.”
Did she have any idea why she was training him? He must cost a lot less.
I’ve gone over this scenario in my head many times in the last few years, and at this point I’d rather just quit with my knowledge (several years’ worth) rather than train my replacement; if asked to train anyone besides my current staff (who have their own workloads), I wouldn’t do it without a contract. I’m not a courageous person, but at that point I’d know what’s coming; companies have to “re-set” their wages down to the new “normal”.
Instead, were supposed to focus on jobs created, jobs saved, and jobs related to the stimulus. How these terms are defined is never explained
And then there are those “seasonal adjustments” that magically produce the desired flavor, as in “season to taste.” Yet another thing that is never explained.
“Cheaper to pay them and easier to control them I guess plus easier to replace when they fail.”
Not only that, but the people hiring them are often safeguarding their own jobs by doing so. Good workers can pose a threat to their bosses.
“Essentially, you get what you pay for.”
I find it disturbing that many companies are now willing to pay much less for crappy workers than pay serious workers better to do a job right; you see the difference in almost any store you shop in. They are the least motivated workers, and you leave hoping to never set foot in their again - businesses are flinging feces at their customers and apparently couldn’t care less if you never come in again.
She suspected she was training her replacement. Being an honest individual, she approached this with much professionalism. As to the cost, see my post #15.
commie countries always report full employment and massive growth rates.
commie countries always report full employment and massive growth rates.
And record wheat harvests.
“She suspected she was training her replacement. Being an honest individual, she approached this with much professionalism.”
That’s a shame; I hope she finds something quickly, and never looks back. Company loyalty is dead...
Commie countries and Commie administrations
I know about being a threat and in at least one major case I was an imaginary threat. After many years of being held down, not being allowed to move around or apparently leave (screwed on reference) plus getting the one off fairy tale that I would be getting something some day actually turned me into a real one.
After I had gotten my typical very good review (not good enough apparently for a raise/promotion that others had gotten), I sent a long letter to phb upstairs detailing everything I did that the others didn’t do or as well plus my other skill sets no one else had.
That didn’t get anything. The next morning I tracked him down for a face to face. He commented that he read it and after point blank asking one last time, he said he’d consider it.
I said I was going to sue a certain SC state agency and him with it when I said the magic words “veteran status”. Mr macho phb almost had a seizure and in near panic asked me not to and didn’t mean to make me angry. I said a lot of other relevant things.
I did get what I wanted and I guess as part of some damage control, others in my grade in two departments were upgraded as well.
I later left for another job paying a little more. I guess I got that good reference after all...
Bottom of the barrel candidates apparently have become a preferred class in the name of short term gain.
Company loyalty only exists in 60’s sitcoms and black and white movies.
Keep your reviews, and inform potential employers that while they may contact your company, they were not happy that you left. Your reviews are what they thought of you before your departure.
I just use other people as references at the same place in similar positions that I made arrangements with. Those people also were typically lower caste as me and I do the same for them.
That makes a lot of sense; in my job I have a lot of dealings with officers in other companies, and I have their info for references as well.
Well we knew when the Chicago mob seized the WH they probably wouldn’t turn into choir boys.
And of course the MSM is doing their best to help us think access to “free” contraception is way more vital than having a job.
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.