Americans who still hold jobs will participate in an annual Tax Day rite today, submitting tax returns in the tens of millions. In an economy where revenues have lagged behind expenditures to the tune of more than one trillion dollars for each of Obama’s years as President, averaging about 1.3 trillion, Democrats have been adamant that expenditures aren’t debatable or on the table for how the gap should be closed. That led to the sequester cuts President Obama offered to strategically limit growth to mammoth, runaway federal spending, which was agreed upon to get the Republican House to accept another debt ceiling increase. Remarkably, once the President’s plan took effect March 1, 2013, the left’s mantra, which remained so consistent through Obama’s first term, finally shifted from the blame Bush strategy introduced in 2008 to blame sequester. We were promised fundamental change, and finally shifting blame from a stale campaign strategy that lasted more than four years was among the most significant from this Administration since the President’s reelection.
But what happened to the numbers that liberals and progressives, with some help from Republicans, allowed to add almost six trillion dollars in debt since January 2009? Debt and annual deficits increase directly as a result of expenditures exceeding revenues by applying straightforward, inarguable math. While creative accounting can cloud the rate of the nation’s woes for a time, the difference between what’s spent and what was available to spend is what this Administration, and Nancy Pelosi’s Democratic Congress from 2007 through the start of the new decade in 2011 ignored for four-plus painfully irresponsible years. At least Pelosi’s Congress was held responsible and swept from power in the November 2010 elections.
Since revenues plummeted 400 billion dollars in 2009 and 2010 under Obama from Bush’s 2007 and 2008 numbers, according to White House Office of Management and Budget records, there should be a recognizable explanation for why the dramatic revenue shortfall hit and hasn’t returned, in spite of repeated
tax increases under the current Administration. Apparently it’s escaped a math-challenged media that the loss of 8.3 million jobs under Obama during 2009 and 2010 reduced overall numbers of taxpayers and contributors to the IRS’ revenue stream while shrinking the economy in painful ways. The 133,886,830 American workers counted by the ETA from employers’ payroll records nationwide in January 2009 fell to 125,560,066 during the first calendar quarter of 2011 before increasing for the first time under Obama with 12,000 new income earners on DOL counts in the second quarter, then almost 235,000 for the third quarter from July through September 2011, while stubbornly resisting growth at 8.1 million down. In comparison to the Bush years Democrats complained bitterly about for five-plus years, after 19 straight quarters of job growth on ETA employers’ payroll record counts, President Bush saw a modest decrease of 15,557 jobs lost over his final three months in Office heading into January 2009. Of course, that’s not what the BLS estimated from survey results and statistical manipulation, which the media routinely reports without question when numbers give fodder to hammer Republicans during election season by a left-leaning mainstream media intent on boosting the presence and influence of liberal progressives in Office.
Before I offer more support for the reduced workforce and shrunken economy, as a result, maybe a few comments will become recognizable as the data illuminates where this Administration stands in comparison with Obama’s predecessors. The following observations come from critical figures and analysis the media has sought to shield the American public from being shown.
Among the most fundamental differences between conservatives and liberals at this point is who they believe and how they arrive at the conclusions they draw. Conservatives, and typically Republicans willing to withstand the ever-present criticism and attack of the media, tend to expect and require facts, evidence, and, generally, hard science in support of how the world and events around them are interpreted. Liberals and progressives, including most proud Democrats, instead, look to the collective to determine what they believe and elect to support. Who made that statement? Was it a journalist, scientist, publisher or producer who’s taken liberal stands and contributed to the echo chamber? No facts, substantial evidence or support are needed, because the left heard the message from recognizable elites or trusted liberals whose words lent cohesive thought and direction for the collective, according to them.
Occasionally, that leads to curiously counterintuitive, conflicting conclusions from the liberal progressives’ camp, but recognizing their hypocrisy and poorly drawn conclusions is something they seem blissfully immune to. Take for example, the disparity when say, a man from a group they regard as powerless, impoverished
victims becomes the leader of the free world -- and he's challenged by a group of lower middle class white people who've banded together because individually
they're powerless. If you listened to the strategic liberal rhetoric, you might think Barack Obama was a black Republican surrounded by a KKK lynching party 100 years ago -- as opposed to the most powerful man in America abusing the authority of his office to attack TEA Partiers who have the audacity to speak truth for the good of their country and increasingly disenfranchised American citizens.
This Administration has danced skillfully from crisis to crisis, some manufactured like the war on women, cries about income disparity for redistribution purposes, and some very real like disregard for budgets necessary to limit skyrocketing debt, and inarguable attacks on the Constitution, including the Second Amendment. Remarkably, during the last election cycle, the issue most important to the American electorate was shown again and again to be the economy and the shrunken workforce under Obama. Somehow, the media all but ignored real data and evidence that the 8.3 million jobs lost after Obama took Office weren’t returning in anywhere near sufficient numbers to put Americans back to work. Down 5.8 million paid positions at election time, according to the Department of Labor’s real ETA counts from payroll records nationwide, voters returned the poorest performing President by virtually every metric in most Americans’ lifetimes for a second term while claiming that jobs and the economy were the top two issues effecting how their votes were cast in exit polls.
The overall count of American workers who’ve suffered job losses since 2009 continues its record pace, having topped 98.5 million displaced workers whose jobs have been slashed under the Obama Administration as of Saturday, April 13. That staggering count is on pace to reach 100 million gainfully employed Americans jettisoned to the ranks of the unemployed by around May 11th. If it hasn’t fully topped the 100 million mark by that Saturday, it’s sure to reach the century mark in millions during the first couple of days the following week. The stunning latest summary count from the Department of Labor’s ETA figures calculates to more than 73.5 percent of the workforce President Bush handed over in January 2009 whose jobs involuntarily ended, strictly by the numbers. Summary data on a week-by-week chart at rockymountainperspective.com shows the accelerated job loss numbers across Obama’s Presidency averaging 107,600 more jobs lost for each of 205 weeks at year’s end compared to Bush counts and 495,000 for each month with 31 days in it across the entirety of Obama’s first term than were separated from employment under his predecessor.
In a Yahoo! Political forum with more than its share of young, indoctrinated would-be progressives, paid shills and adults enamored of Obama, material which summarizes the DOL’s Employment & Training Administration comprehensive workforce counts has drawn anger and claims that Rocky Mountain Perspective is a hate site. Related claims that the data is fabricated and devoid of meaning are leveled semi-regularly, and in an answer to my last question on the site one proud young liberal girl dismissed the data by claiming it’s from a right-wing conspiracy site. Posting numbers from the DOL’s ETA division somehow makes rockymountainperspective.com a hate site, according to liberals playing the three mystic monkeys, or three wise monkeys by some accounts, to keep information from penetrating senses primitively shielded from reality. Another respondent gave Obama credit for dramatically lowering unemployment with creative rates and emphasized how much better the economy is than when we had 11.1 percent unemployment under President Bush.
For the record, the BLS figures released on January 9, 2009, which were in place and in effect when Obama took the Oath of Office showed 7.1% LNU04000000 (unadjusted) and 7.3% rates on LNS14000000 for the only monthly unemployment rate above 7 percent across 96 months of “W’s” Presidency. The rate released 16 days into the Obama Presidency on February 6, 2009 had the bulk of data gathering and all calculations applied by BLS staff while Obama was in Office, to arrive at a 7.6% survey-based estimate. That figure was adjusted several times, once to 7.5% under Commissioner Keith Hall, then upward again under Hall, before, incredibly, being hiked three years after the BLS data posted with supposedly a half million newly discovered unemployed assigned to Bush’s last calendar quarter once Labor Secretary Hilda Solis assumed leadership at the BLS upon Halls departure. That amazing revelation came conveniently in time for the election season and lent fodder for a critical narrative the media bought into last year regarding employment records for our latest two Presidents. The above are among reasons those who follow BLS figures closely review as many as five or six metrics to gain a representative picture, and most regard the Employment-Population Ratio (LNU02300000/LNS12300000) and Labor Force Participation Rates (LNU01300000/LNS11300000) at 58.2 and 63.1%, respectively, as more representative than the skewed, seemingly politically motivated seasonally adjusted number suggesting a U3 unemployment rate on the first Friday of each month.
How important has toeing the line on left’s Politically Correct dogma designed to hide reality from the public become? Ask Bob Woodward, the respected senior journalist who gained fame with investigative work illuminating Watergate misdeeds and cover-up. He identified unmistakable threats from a member of the Obama Administration leveled at him, which drew dismissive laughter from Jay Carney along with a name and reference to emails lending credibility to Woodward’s claim. That recent flap was about the President’s press team and strategists demanding the press go along with Obama’s narrative attempting to blame Republicans for sequester limits on growth that were supposed to be catastrophic, according to the President and Carney’s lackeys. How about when Fox News was told it would no longer be allowed entry and inclusion at the President’s press conferences? To their credit, the rest of the media corps stood up to the Administration and insisted if Fox News was excluded, they would decline to appear, as well. Has there ever been a time the ubiquitous Politically Correct sword scholars attribute to Mao originally, has been wielded more freely and openly on our Continent by a self-proclaimed “transparent Administration” while demanding any and all references to the Administration, politics and public interest be approved by elite representatives for dissemination?
My interest, like that of Andrew Breitbart and some brave contributors on PAN, has been to offer a measure of truth to illuminate issues this Administration is intentionally hiding from the electorate so that fellow citizens, voters, and activists, in particular, might be enlightened by research others haven't reproduced in comparable form. As mentioned about Yahoo! Politics and most of the nation’s media, such separation and refusal to adhere to the message determined by Obama and the left is heresy and wholly unacceptable. Nevertheless, my apparently right-wing conspiratorial, hateful presentation of ETA figures showing an economy far from on the mend, as the media claims for Americans who aren’t supposed to question the narrative, has real, substantive government support those of you interested in statistics are likely to appreciate.
Back to the claims that the economy has improved dramatically and is in better shape than what the nation endured under George Bush. Along with the 98.5 million Americans counted from new, first-time claimants for unemployment at a rate of nearly a half million more jobs lost for each of Obama’s 47-plus months in Office at year’s end compared to Bush’s second term numbers, President Obama’s ETA employers’ payroll count remains down 5.27 million workers, while George Bush grew the same figure by more than 7 million jobs added to the economy. There are few comparisons that present well for Obama, but we can look a bit further into the left’s claims that the employment picture and economy favor Obama at this point early in his second term.
Four weeks ago, on Saturday, March 16th, the ETA indicated on its advance Unemployment Insurance Weekly Claims Report that 299,143 American workers submitted new unemployment claims after losing jobs. That offered reason for measured optimism, because it marked just the second time in 216 weeks with Obama at the helm which managed fewer than 300,000 jobs lost during a seven day period. Of course, understanding the ETA advance methodology, I predicted on the spot that that figure wouldn’t remain under that rarified mark for Obama, because somewhere between mid-80 percent and 90 percent of the time, that
initial figure has been revised upward the following week across the six-plus calendar quarters I’ve followed the data. At no time during that period were there more than two weeks in a quarter or 3 to 4 weeks in any six month period that the figures weren’t adjusted upward for the following release. Whether that’s strategic by design or not, it’s a neat trick to offer statistical counts that are 2,000 to 10,000 under actual figures compared against the prior week’s adjusted upward count and spend the first two or three sentences describing how the current week is a few thousand better than the prior week’s fully counted, adjusted figure. This pattern is repeated week-in, week- out, and few seem to recognize that comparing underreported figures against real counts that are nearly always increased assures the written commentary most readers will ever see suggests an improving employment report. During election season, the corrections ranged from 4,000 weekly to more than 20,000, which was a nice window to assure each week would find a report suggesting better job loss statistics than the week before. The March 16, 2013 count increased only 1,808 on Not Seasonally Adjusted figures and 1,000 on Seasonally Adjusted figures to 337,000, but that meant Obama’s second week counting under 300,000 jobs lost midway into the 17th quarter of his Presidency rose to 300,951, which was still his third best count in Office.
While the left continues to insist anything George Bush attempted in Office was self-serving and un-American, I’m confident those without hands covering eyes, ears and mouth are willing to learn what the real ETA counts show in direct comparison to Obama numbers. Not only did George Bush grow an economy slowed by the costliest man-made disaster just over seven months into Office on 9-11-01, then Hurricane Katrina which became the costliest natural disaster on our Continent, second only to Japan’s Tsunami several years ago for financial loss worldwide, the numbers show how his 5.26% average U3 rate and 9.16% U6 real unemployment rate dwarfed Obama’s 9% U3 and nearly 16% U6 four-year average rates at the end of 2012. The hope, then angst that almost was for a second week with fewer than 300,000 new registrants for unemployment under Obama was hardly an issue during Bush’s economy, disasters notwithstanding. During a stretch from May 2004 until November 2007, the nation’s economy under the Bush Administration turned in 95 weeks out of 183 where fewer than 300,000 Americans registered claims for job losses. What for Obama happened at a rate approaching lottery scratch ticket success, was simply routine and expected in a Bush economy used to mid-4% to just over 5% unemployment rates. Still, liberals insist the current economy is better than anything under Bush!
Perhaps a look at the other end of the scale is worth presenting, as well. You knew Obama would get high marks somewhere, didn’t you? When counting weeks with more than a half million registrants for the new, first-time unemployment claims counted by the ETA, Obama scored 55 of his current total of 220 weeks as President above a half-million jobs lost. Bush lagged behind with just 16 in his second term, 8 of which came after the election determined Obama was President elect, about to become the nation’s 44th President in January. That also set off shock waves in financial markets, with the DOW Exchange tanking more than 500 points from 9711.46 the day after the election, before settling back to a 486 point loss. The next day took another 443 points, and six days later the DOW shed another 411 points. Liberals insist they find no relationship in the losses, but one would think the immediate plunge of 312 points on November 7th, 2012, the day after the election, then 435 points by weeks end, before falling to a 703 point loss on the seventh trading day after the 2012 Presidential election might be recognizable for the repeat of 2008 after Obama’s election. I suspect the eight weeks of jobs losses that totaled half of the number of weeks at more than a half-million jobs lost during Bush’s second term was about as unrelated as the spanking financial markets took following Obama’s election. The 32.5% loss in the stock market’s value between the election and the DOW’s close at 6547.05 on March 9, 2009, seven weeks into Obama’s first term is the kind of thing one would think a President would never live down. Of course, the ideologues, shills and indoctrinated children are always at the ready to cover such failure, since they routinely assign the ugly 6547.05 figure to Bush.
The President obviously has another high mark left in him, and it’s coming up soon. With the current total of 98.5 million Americans separated from jobs, according
to detailed counts reported through state administered unemployment offices nationwide, the impressive 100 million mark is in sight and closing fast. Expect
it to be reached on or around May 11th, or the first part of the following week. Perhaps the century mark could be celebrated on Cinco de Mayo, just ahead of its formal realization, since Mexican Nationals, otherwise known as illegal aliens to those who object to the latest AP Politically Correct announcement regarding uninvited border crossers, bear significant responsibility for the losses across the Southwest. Nationwide, numbers of jobs lost to illegal aliens are multiple times higher than losses of jobs outsourced overseas since the turn of the millennium, but I recognize regionally the impact is felt very differently. May 11th is a date all who read this should remind everyone in their sphere of influence just how foolish and costly electing far-left liberal progressives is for a country many of us still cherish and hope to see survive beyond what the current driver is doing to test the nation’s Evil Knievel skills launching off the cliff.
But what happened to the numbers that liberals and progressives, with some help from Republicans, allowed to add almost six trillion dollars in debt since January 2009? Debt and annual deficits increase directly as a result of expenditures exceeding revenues by applying straightforward, inarguable math. While creative accounting can cloud the rate of the nation’s woes for a time, the difference between what’s spent and what was available to spend is what this Administration, and Nancy Pelosi’s Democratic Congress from 2007 through the start of the new decade in 2011 ignored for four-plus painfully irresponsible years. At least Pelosi’s Congress was held responsible and swept from power in the November 2010 elections.
Since revenues plummeted 400 billion dollars in 2009 and 2010 under Obama from Bush’s 2007 and 2008 numbers, according to White House Office of Management and Budget records, there should be a recognizable explanation for why the dramatic revenue shortfall hit and hasn’t returned, in spite of repeated
tax increases under the current Administration. Apparently it’s escaped a math-challenged media that the loss of 8.3 million jobs under Obama during 2009 and 2010 reduced overall numbers of taxpayers and contributors to the IRS’ revenue stream while shrinking the economy in painful ways. The 133,886,830 American workers counted by the ETA from employers’ payroll records nationwide in January 2009 fell to 125,560,066 during the first calendar quarter of 2011 before increasing for the first time under Obama with 12,000 new income earners on DOL counts in the second quarter, then almost 235,000 for the third quarter from July through September 2011, while stubbornly resisting growth at 8.1 million down. In comparison to the Bush years Democrats complained bitterly about for five-plus years, after 19 straight quarters of job growth on ETA employers’ payroll record counts, President Bush saw a modest decrease of 15,557 jobs lost over his final three months in Office heading into January 2009. Of course, that’s not what the BLS estimated from survey results and statistical manipulation, which the media routinely reports without question when numbers give fodder to hammer Republicans during election season by a left-leaning mainstream media intent on boosting the presence and influence of liberal progressives in Office.
Before I offer more support for the reduced workforce and shrunken economy, as a result, maybe a few comments will become recognizable as the data illuminates where this Administration stands in comparison with Obama’s predecessors. The following observations come from critical figures and analysis the media has sought to shield the American public from being shown.
Among the most fundamental differences between conservatives and liberals at this point is who they believe and how they arrive at the conclusions they draw. Conservatives, and typically Republicans willing to withstand the ever-present criticism and attack of the media, tend to expect and require facts, evidence, and, generally, hard science in support of how the world and events around them are interpreted. Liberals and progressives, including most proud Democrats, instead, look to the collective to determine what they believe and elect to support. Who made that statement? Was it a journalist, scientist, publisher or producer who’s taken liberal stands and contributed to the echo chamber? No facts, substantial evidence or support are needed, because the left heard the message from recognizable elites or trusted liberals whose words lent cohesive thought and direction for the collective, according to them.
Occasionally, that leads to curiously counterintuitive, conflicting conclusions from the liberal progressives’ camp, but recognizing their hypocrisy and poorly drawn conclusions is something they seem blissfully immune to. Take for example, the disparity when say, a man from a group they regard as powerless, impoverished
victims becomes the leader of the free world -- and he's challenged by a group of lower middle class white people who've banded together because individually
they're powerless. If you listened to the strategic liberal rhetoric, you might think Barack Obama was a black Republican surrounded by a KKK lynching party 100 years ago -- as opposed to the most powerful man in America abusing the authority of his office to attack TEA Partiers who have the audacity to speak truth for the good of their country and increasingly disenfranchised American citizens.
This Administration has danced skillfully from crisis to crisis, some manufactured like the war on women, cries about income disparity for redistribution purposes, and some very real like disregard for budgets necessary to limit skyrocketing debt, and inarguable attacks on the Constitution, including the Second Amendment. Remarkably, during the last election cycle, the issue most important to the American electorate was shown again and again to be the economy and the shrunken workforce under Obama. Somehow, the media all but ignored real data and evidence that the 8.3 million jobs lost after Obama took Office weren’t returning in anywhere near sufficient numbers to put Americans back to work. Down 5.8 million paid positions at election time, according to the Department of Labor’s real ETA counts from payroll records nationwide, voters returned the poorest performing President by virtually every metric in most Americans’ lifetimes for a second term while claiming that jobs and the economy were the top two issues effecting how their votes were cast in exit polls.
The overall count of American workers who’ve suffered job losses since 2009 continues its record pace, having topped 98.5 million displaced workers whose jobs have been slashed under the Obama Administration as of Saturday, April 13. That staggering count is on pace to reach 100 million gainfully employed Americans jettisoned to the ranks of the unemployed by around May 11th. If it hasn’t fully topped the 100 million mark by that Saturday, it’s sure to reach the century mark in millions during the first couple of days the following week. The stunning latest summary count from the Department of Labor’s ETA figures calculates to more than 73.5 percent of the workforce President Bush handed over in January 2009 whose jobs involuntarily ended, strictly by the numbers. Summary data on a week-by-week chart at rockymountainperspective.com shows the accelerated job loss numbers across Obama’s Presidency averaging 107,600 more jobs lost for each of 205 weeks at year’s end compared to Bush counts and 495,000 for each month with 31 days in it across the entirety of Obama’s first term than were separated from employment under his predecessor.
In a Yahoo! Political forum with more than its share of young, indoctrinated would-be progressives, paid shills and adults enamored of Obama, material which summarizes the DOL’s Employment & Training Administration comprehensive workforce counts has drawn anger and claims that Rocky Mountain Perspective is a hate site. Related claims that the data is fabricated and devoid of meaning are leveled semi-regularly, and in an answer to my last question on the site one proud young liberal girl dismissed the data by claiming it’s from a right-wing conspiracy site. Posting numbers from the DOL’s ETA division somehow makes rockymountainperspective.com a hate site, according to liberals playing the three mystic monkeys, or three wise monkeys by some accounts, to keep information from penetrating senses primitively shielded from reality. Another respondent gave Obama credit for dramatically lowering unemployment with creative rates and emphasized how much better the economy is than when we had 11.1 percent unemployment under President Bush.
For the record, the BLS figures released on January 9, 2009, which were in place and in effect when Obama took the Oath of Office showed 7.1% LNU04000000 (unadjusted) and 7.3% rates on LNS14000000 for the only monthly unemployment rate above 7 percent across 96 months of “W’s” Presidency. The rate released 16 days into the Obama Presidency on February 6, 2009 had the bulk of data gathering and all calculations applied by BLS staff while Obama was in Office, to arrive at a 7.6% survey-based estimate. That figure was adjusted several times, once to 7.5% under Commissioner Keith Hall, then upward again under Hall, before, incredibly, being hiked three years after the BLS data posted with supposedly a half million newly discovered unemployed assigned to Bush’s last calendar quarter once Labor Secretary Hilda Solis assumed leadership at the BLS upon Halls departure. That amazing revelation came conveniently in time for the election season and lent fodder for a critical narrative the media bought into last year regarding employment records for our latest two Presidents. The above are among reasons those who follow BLS figures closely review as many as five or six metrics to gain a representative picture, and most regard the Employment-Population Ratio (LNU02300000/LNS12300000) and Labor Force Participation Rates (LNU01300000/LNS11300000) at 58.2 and 63.1%, respectively, as more representative than the skewed, seemingly politically motivated seasonally adjusted number suggesting a U3 unemployment rate on the first Friday of each month.
How important has toeing the line on left’s Politically Correct dogma designed to hide reality from the public become? Ask Bob Woodward, the respected senior journalist who gained fame with investigative work illuminating Watergate misdeeds and cover-up. He identified unmistakable threats from a member of the Obama Administration leveled at him, which drew dismissive laughter from Jay Carney along with a name and reference to emails lending credibility to Woodward’s claim. That recent flap was about the President’s press team and strategists demanding the press go along with Obama’s narrative attempting to blame Republicans for sequester limits on growth that were supposed to be catastrophic, according to the President and Carney’s lackeys. How about when Fox News was told it would no longer be allowed entry and inclusion at the President’s press conferences? To their credit, the rest of the media corps stood up to the Administration and insisted if Fox News was excluded, they would decline to appear, as well. Has there ever been a time the ubiquitous Politically Correct sword scholars attribute to Mao originally, has been wielded more freely and openly on our Continent by a self-proclaimed “transparent Administration” while demanding any and all references to the Administration, politics and public interest be approved by elite representatives for dissemination?
My interest, like that of Andrew Breitbart and some brave contributors on PAN, has been to offer a measure of truth to illuminate issues this Administration is intentionally hiding from the electorate so that fellow citizens, voters, and activists, in particular, might be enlightened by research others haven't reproduced in comparable form. As mentioned about Yahoo! Politics and most of the nation’s media, such separation and refusal to adhere to the message determined by Obama and the left is heresy and wholly unacceptable. Nevertheless, my apparently right-wing conspiratorial, hateful presentation of ETA figures showing an economy far from on the mend, as the media claims for Americans who aren’t supposed to question the narrative, has real, substantive government support those of you interested in statistics are likely to appreciate.
Back to the claims that the economy has improved dramatically and is in better shape than what the nation endured under George Bush. Along with the 98.5 million Americans counted from new, first-time claimants for unemployment at a rate of nearly a half million more jobs lost for each of Obama’s 47-plus months in Office at year’s end compared to Bush’s second term numbers, President Obama’s ETA employers’ payroll count remains down 5.27 million workers, while George Bush grew the same figure by more than 7 million jobs added to the economy. There are few comparisons that present well for Obama, but we can look a bit further into the left’s claims that the employment picture and economy favor Obama at this point early in his second term.
Four weeks ago, on Saturday, March 16th, the ETA indicated on its advance Unemployment Insurance Weekly Claims Report that 299,143 American workers submitted new unemployment claims after losing jobs. That offered reason for measured optimism, because it marked just the second time in 216 weeks with Obama at the helm which managed fewer than 300,000 jobs lost during a seven day period. Of course, understanding the ETA advance methodology, I predicted on the spot that that figure wouldn’t remain under that rarified mark for Obama, because somewhere between mid-80 percent and 90 percent of the time, that
initial figure has been revised upward the following week across the six-plus calendar quarters I’ve followed the data. At no time during that period were there more than two weeks in a quarter or 3 to 4 weeks in any six month period that the figures weren’t adjusted upward for the following release. Whether that’s strategic by design or not, it’s a neat trick to offer statistical counts that are 2,000 to 10,000 under actual figures compared against the prior week’s adjusted upward count and spend the first two or three sentences describing how the current week is a few thousand better than the prior week’s fully counted, adjusted figure. This pattern is repeated week-in, week- out, and few seem to recognize that comparing underreported figures against real counts that are nearly always increased assures the written commentary most readers will ever see suggests an improving employment report. During election season, the corrections ranged from 4,000 weekly to more than 20,000, which was a nice window to assure each week would find a report suggesting better job loss statistics than the week before. The March 16, 2013 count increased only 1,808 on Not Seasonally Adjusted figures and 1,000 on Seasonally Adjusted figures to 337,000, but that meant Obama’s second week counting under 300,000 jobs lost midway into the 17th quarter of his Presidency rose to 300,951, which was still his third best count in Office.
While the left continues to insist anything George Bush attempted in Office was self-serving and un-American, I’m confident those without hands covering eyes, ears and mouth are willing to learn what the real ETA counts show in direct comparison to Obama numbers. Not only did George Bush grow an economy slowed by the costliest man-made disaster just over seven months into Office on 9-11-01, then Hurricane Katrina which became the costliest natural disaster on our Continent, second only to Japan’s Tsunami several years ago for financial loss worldwide, the numbers show how his 5.26% average U3 rate and 9.16% U6 real unemployment rate dwarfed Obama’s 9% U3 and nearly 16% U6 four-year average rates at the end of 2012. The hope, then angst that almost was for a second week with fewer than 300,000 new registrants for unemployment under Obama was hardly an issue during Bush’s economy, disasters notwithstanding. During a stretch from May 2004 until November 2007, the nation’s economy under the Bush Administration turned in 95 weeks out of 183 where fewer than 300,000 Americans registered claims for job losses. What for Obama happened at a rate approaching lottery scratch ticket success, was simply routine and expected in a Bush economy used to mid-4% to just over 5% unemployment rates. Still, liberals insist the current economy is better than anything under Bush!
Perhaps a look at the other end of the scale is worth presenting, as well. You knew Obama would get high marks somewhere, didn’t you? When counting weeks with more than a half million registrants for the new, first-time unemployment claims counted by the ETA, Obama scored 55 of his current total of 220 weeks as President above a half-million jobs lost. Bush lagged behind with just 16 in his second term, 8 of which came after the election determined Obama was President elect, about to become the nation’s 44th President in January. That also set off shock waves in financial markets, with the DOW Exchange tanking more than 500 points from 9711.46 the day after the election, before settling back to a 486 point loss. The next day took another 443 points, and six days later the DOW shed another 411 points. Liberals insist they find no relationship in the losses, but one would think the immediate plunge of 312 points on November 7th, 2012, the day after the election, then 435 points by weeks end, before falling to a 703 point loss on the seventh trading day after the 2012 Presidential election might be recognizable for the repeat of 2008 after Obama’s election. I suspect the eight weeks of jobs losses that totaled half of the number of weeks at more than a half-million jobs lost during Bush’s second term was about as unrelated as the spanking financial markets took following Obama’s election. The 32.5% loss in the stock market’s value between the election and the DOW’s close at 6547.05 on March 9, 2009, seven weeks into Obama’s first term is the kind of thing one would think a President would never live down. Of course, the ideologues, shills and indoctrinated children are always at the ready to cover such failure, since they routinely assign the ugly 6547.05 figure to Bush.
The President obviously has another high mark left in him, and it’s coming up soon. With the current total of 98.5 million Americans separated from jobs, according
to detailed counts reported through state administered unemployment offices nationwide, the impressive 100 million mark is in sight and closing fast. Expect
it to be reached on or around May 11th, or the first part of the following week. Perhaps the century mark could be celebrated on Cinco de Mayo, just ahead of its formal realization, since Mexican Nationals, otherwise known as illegal aliens to those who object to the latest AP Politically Correct announcement regarding uninvited border crossers, bear significant responsibility for the losses across the Southwest. Nationwide, numbers of jobs lost to illegal aliens are multiple times higher than losses of jobs outsourced overseas since the turn of the millennium, but I recognize regionally the impact is felt very differently. May 11th is a date all who read this should remind everyone in their sphere of influence just how foolish and costly electing far-left liberal progressives is for a country many of us still cherish and hope to see survive beyond what the current driver is doing to test the nation’s Evil Knievel skills launching off the cliff.
| excel_summary_ui_claimants_since_2009_obama_eta_t1_rmp_1-2-14.pdf |
