You are currently browsing the daily archive for May 7, 2010.
Obama Times and the rest of the media reports victoriously
The problem with that headline is that is a lie. Who worked on this? Anderson?
At the very best, employers added 192,000 jobs, the other 188,000 were added by some accountant on a guess
The birth/death adjustment (guess) added 188,000 jobs,
Yes, the word “guess” is from the report, which is nothing more than a survey – a more extensive poll. It leads to ridiculously self-contradicting headlines such as this one
Second, there is a number of jobs the economy has to add monthly just to keep up with population growth. Looking at Robert Reich’s analysis for the March report
Second, since the start of the Great Recession, the economy has lost 8.4 million jobs and failed to create another 2.7 million needed just to keep up with population growth. That means we’re more than 11 million in the hole right now. And that hole keeps deepening every month we fail to add at least 150,000 new jobs, again reflecting population growth.
A census-taking job is better than no job, but it’s no substitute for the real thing.
In other words, 150,000 is the number needed to just keep stagnating rather than further sinking. And the rest of the 42.000 is less than the number of census jobs.
If Jake Tapper’s facebook entry is based on solid facts
More on job numbers — 65k of those new jobs are govt jobs, such as census, 231k private sector, including 44k in manufacturing
then indeed, the actual number of jobs created (not adjusted by technicality) is under the maintenance level.
Which is why the unemployment is at 9.9 and there’s a more interesting number buried in the actual report
The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) con-
tinued to trend up over the month, reaching 6.7 million. In April, 45.9 percent
of unemployed persons had been jobless for 27 weeks or more.
It was a case of chicken coming home to roost – anyone remembers Goldmam Sachs causing Greece’s crisis?
In 2001, Goldman’s financial alchemists formulated a scheme to allow the Greek government to hide the extent of its rising debt from the public and the European Community’s budget overseers. Under this diabolical deal, Goldman funneled new capital from super-wealthy investors into the government’s coffers.
.while Boston Herald zeroed on the funny part
.and Newsday has a deceiving headline
while The Express takes on Twitter
.the rest of NYC tabloids are on police blotter stuff.
As the spill blackens the Atlantic coast, the news of Obama’s pay-off from BP made it out
During the 2008 election cycle, individuals and political action committees associated with BP — a Center for Responsive Politics’ “heavy hitter” — contributed half a million dollars to federal candidates. About 40 percent of these donations went to Democrats. The top recipient of BP-related donations during the 2008 cycle was President Barack Obama himself, who collected $71,000.
.It wasn’t BP, silly, it was BP-s employees, B0botland offered. How many times do we have to explain this one – we already did with Goldman Sachs!
By the time the headline hit Politico as well
.the Obama media had to spring in action. (or to use my recent lesson – not the media, silly, the B0bots in the media)
Here’s what New York Magazine had to say yesterday about it – note the quotation marks around “answer for”
they hand Politico a dose of righteous South Park snark
Now he and “members of Congress may have to answer for the millions in campaign contributions they’ve taken from the oil and gas giant over the years,” according to Politico. Why did you take money from a company whose oil rig was going to explode two years later, Obama?!? Bastard!
Be careful what you snark, New York Magazine. How many ways did those money pay off for BP? Let me count the ways:
We know that since his campaign, Obama changed his mind (flip-flopped – if this were a regular candidate) on off shore drilling. But as NY Magazine said he couldn’t know their rig was going to explode two years later, right?
Not quite. It seems that before he was to embark on this disastrous policy, there were inklings
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration officials last fall warned the Department of Interior, which regulates offshore oil drilling, that it was dramatically underestimating the frequency of offshore oil spills and was dangerously understating the risk and impacts a major spill would have on coastal residents.
And what else did BP money buy? WaPo has another headline
.So, after being warned by their own agency of the potential consequences
The Interior Department exempted BP’s calamitous Gulf of Mexico drilling operation from a detailed environmental impact analysis last year, according to government documents, after three reviews of the area concluded that a massive oil spill was unlikely.
So the recent empty promise that future leases will be given under further scrutiny merely meant :no more preferential treatment? (knowing there were no scheduled future leases).
And yet, the only headlines connecting Obama to the spill are
I bet he does. But he still didn’t change the off-shore drilling policy. Because as New York Magazine says
Why did you take money from a company whose oil rig was going to explode two years later, Obama?!? Bastard!
because as Condoleeza Rice famously said, “nobody expected planes to fly into towers”..