You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘spin’ tag.
The big news of the day is that the rate of the spill is somewhat slowed as BP manages to use some of it now. It’s like dipping a straw in an ocean to drink some of the water.
.The others are sounding chipper
Or at least cautiously optimistic
.Pbama Times, next to unrealistic headline on spill sports a spectacular photo of the unrest in Thailand (shared with several other papers)
A cocktail of news from the Moonie Times
.Stars and Stripes informs us on a very surprising cut in the military: army chaplains
And in NYC local news: the war on bicyclists
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.
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”..
I went in B0botland today to see what the news of offshore drilling has done to them. I think it’s best summed up in a joke:
Two guys walk into a bar in the Wild West. One says to the other: “See that guy?”
“The one in a hat”
“They all wear hats”
“The one in jeans”
“They all wear jeans”
Losing his patience, first guy takes his gun out of its holster, shoots everyone in sight, leaving only one standing:
“That guy. That’s my mortal enemy”
Looks like b0bots are just being explained this and they are very excited about it.
3. He stole their top issue and will impliment it responsibly.
It’s pure hell for Republicans.
Boner is already on record as opposing Obama’s plan, apparently because it’s too environmentally responsible.
And you don’t see a problem with that???
If Obama is implementing THEIR agenda instead of OUR agenda, it isn’t a clever ploy to where Dems win.
We WIN by enacting OUR agenda and defeating THEIR agenda.
If having their agenda enacted is “pure hell” then I’d sure like a double dose.
14. No I don’t see a problem with that.
Mind you, this comes on the heels of celebrating getting Romneycare – because that “neutralized Romney”
Someone sees the absurdity
18. Don’t you see? It’s brilliant
Capitulate totally to what the other side wants and then beg them to help us lower green house emissions.
Just like HCR. Promise to keep all our best ideas out of the bill and then beg them to let us pass a bill based on plan masterminded by the Heritage foundation plan.
In fact to be fair, there are entire discussions going this way
I have failed to appreciate Obama’s brilliance.
don’t know why the Dems didn’t figure this out decades ago. All we need to do is enact the legislation the Republican agenda has sought for 30 years and in one fell swoop we make ourselves immune to Republican criticisms AND we achieve historic legislative accomplishments that give the President lots of political capital to push through even more of the Republican Agenda.
What’s next? War on Venezuela to preserve democracy? That will show those Republican’s who is boss…
but of course there are those missing the sarcasm
25. Most dems are accustomed to their presidents speaking to them..
where as Obama actually speaks to the middle. This seems like a wise move to me as he becomes immune to the “too liberal” argument that most conservative politics is founded on.Do
Some are still naive enough to ask this question
Is there still room in the Democratic Party for those who advocate for these Liberal Issues?
*Medicare for anyone who wants it.
*Immediate withdrawal of ALL military forces and “contractors” from the Middle East.
*Immediate reduction of Military Spending by at least 50%
*The immediate break-up (Trust Busting) of everything “Too Big to Fail”.
*Fair Competition Legislation that lets Mom&Pop (small locally owned businesses and farms) compete with Big Box and Factory Farms on a level playing field.
*An end to “Free Trade” (Race to the Bottom)
*Organized LABOR and local co-ops.
*Women’s Right to Choose
If I posted there, I would bring the joke I started with as the illustration:
See? You are the other guys in the bar. Obama just shot you all to point out who the enemy is. The Republicans are the enemy. Aren’t ya glad they were finally singled out?
Or to quote one of the operatives:
“it’s pure hell for Republicans”
Today in karma has the much cheered and unprecedented Romneycare serving its backhand to those who worked so hard to make it possible!
Some of them found out and now wonder if indeed they were the ones they’ve been waiting for
Young people who supported Barack Obama in 2008 may come to resent how health care reform will affect them, Gibbs and others say. Recent polls show support among young voters eroding since they helped elect Obama president.
In B0botland they are trying to make sense of all this
Operatives try Newspeak
Here’s how the article could have read….
Youth may NOT pay more for health premiums
Costs expected to maybe or maybe NOT rise by 17 percent once insurance is required,
updated right now!
…but get called on it
95. Winston Smith, is that you?
Meanwhile the much touted immediate benefit – children get not refused on preexisting condition is also not applying for all children
Coverage Now for Sick Children? Check Fine Print
.Insurers agree that if they provide insurance for a child, they must cover pre-existing conditions. But, they say, the law does not require them to write insurance for the child and it does not guarantee the “availability of coverage” for all until 2014.
Oops! But not to worry! Nancy issued a clarification
The intent of Congress to end discrimination against children was crystal clear, and as the House chairs said last week, the fact that insurance companies would even try to deny children coverage exemplifies why the health reform legislation was so vital. Secretary Sebelius isn’t going to let insurance companies discriminate against children, and no one in the industry should think otherwise.
Ah, all righty then. This reminds me of Obama telling after the fact that he intended to vote yes instead of no as what he just did.
In fact, B0bots are OK with this too
Nancy Pelosi: The intent of Congress to end discrimination against children was crystal clear
but some do note15. If Pelosi is talking about intent, then it means that there is a loophole in the law
otherwise she wouldn’t be using “intent of Congress” as a defence.
.If Pelosi is talking about intent, then it means that there is a loophole in the law
otherwise she wouldn’t be using “intent of Congress” as a defence
Since the writing of this, AP shilling for Obama tells us the insurers lobbyist fixed it all up – Obama is THAT good
After nearly a year battling President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats over the health care overhaul, the insurance industry says it won’t block the administration’s efforts to fix a potentially embarrassing glitch in the new law.
In a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the industry’s top lobbyist said Monday insurers will accept new regulations to dispel uncertainty over a much-publicized guarantee that children with medical problems can get coverage starting this year
And if the lobbyist says it, it must be so.
Still. All the awesomeness of Obama can’t riddle this one
The law does nothing to stop insurers from charging higher rates for children with pre-existing illnesses until 2014 when insurers can no longer use health status in setting premiums.
PR this, AP!