by Jack
Page one…the headline reads “Employment growth picked up speed in November; jobless rate fell to 8.6 percent!” That’s wonderful, right? Page 6, lower left corner, small article…Today it was announced that over 300,000 jobless quit searching for a job. Their numbers were removed from the jobless total. That means for every person who found a new job last month, almost three became so discouraged that they quit looking.
See this is why you read PS, you don’t want the spin, you just want the truth.
In a very wide variety of ways, and rapidly growing, Federal, State and Local numbers spoon fed to the elected bodies and to the public are carefully sanitized, filtered and crafted spin.
Expect little else in the coming year. Manipulation of fact, deception, is the only means this administration and Democrats have. They have been a total failure at steering the US economy toward recovery. They have no idea how to start the car much less drive it even when they try hotwiring it.
Jack, Here’s a post from another blog supporting your figures. It also includes an email from the Gingrich Camp.
http://www.redcounty.com/content/brilliant-look-how-obama-gingrich-jobs-gap-widening
Me too!
All my liberal media were quite upfront with the highly qualified uptick in the employment picture.
Those righties are makin’ boogies in the closet again … as there are no actual factual circumstances to rail against.
Cute. And the coming year will bring lots more, make no mistake.
So – we have 400K new unemployment applications. And we have 300K quit looking for jobs. And yet the white house announces a DROP in the unemployment figures? ? ?
Sorry, but it doesn’t pass the smell test. The gnomes in the white house have been tweaking the numbers again.
Math like this when in grade school would earn you an F.
Quentin Colgan Writes: “But, I don’t see how people can blame Obama for this.”
You are fixated on something that does not exist in this discussion.
You were the first person to mention Obama in this discussion.
Look,
Regardless of political partisanship, we could put people back to work almost overnight if we just get government out of the way!
Let the people have access to their own resources. The forests, the water, minerals, even the oil. It belongs to us and we should have a right to extract it and make a profit.
There are elements of both parties guilty of holding back our economy, but right now it is mostly the democrats, and their subservience to environmental fantasy that is destroying jobs in this country. The green jobs are not appearing, and the real jobs are being eradicated.
The state of CA, and our country, needs a tax break, a right to work act, and to take restrictions off of our public lands. Our country would be prosperous within the year, and the president who implemented this would be a hero.
If the occupiers cared about our country’s future, this is what they would advocate.
Well said Steve:
I have a question, hopefully, someone can answer for me. With Obama stopping the Keystone pipeline from Canada to New Orleans and some governors having a problem with the pipe going through their state, why not build refineries in Montana and/or North Dakota? Trucks and trains could carry the refined oil and gas across the country instead of the pipe, as they are now. Temporary jobs would be created to build the plants and permanent ones to run it.
Watched a pro and con debate about the issue last week and valid points were presented by both sides. One of the con issues was the oil would travel through seven states and shipped to China from New Orleans.
If the oil from Canada and the Bakken shale oil coming out of Montana and North Dakota is really for our use why not refine it at a site close to its source? Unless cold weather has something to do with not building refineries there I cant think of another reason not to.
BO would have no good reason to prevent all the desperately needed real jobs and we could become less dependent on oil imported from terrorist countries.
Peggy,
I’m not sure why we couldn’t refine the oil in those states, but I suspect that to some degree the environmental extremists in this country have beat us to the punch.
As we speak, private lands in small, rural areas are being bought up by environmental groups. They get grants from the government and then buy the land using conservation easements. The current owners get to walk away with a bunch of money, but the land is taken out of commission from agriculture or any other job-producing use forever. Enviros often get a public-funded playground for their kayaking and nature hikes.
Look up Independence Lake in Sierra County if you don’t believe me.
Bottom line is, state like Montana and Idaho are small and poor. Rich enviros from the bay area, with help from federal grants, are buying up a lot of property that used to produce wealth and resources. We’re not only losing our ability to make a living, we’re losing our lands, and eventually our freedom in the process.
I don’t know if it still holds but traditionally refineries have been built near waterways and the oceans to fascilitate shipments overseas. It’s cheaper and more practical. Oil can always be shipped by rail or truck to the different states.
I found an website article from 2010 that talks about the Keystone Pipeline portion that has already been completed. Unless I read it wrong the state of Illinois will benefit greatly from what has been already been built…enviro concerns…no problemo! However with enviro delays recently announced for the next phase, the people in the Gulf region can just fagedaboudit!
http://energypipelinenews.blogspot.com/2010/07/keystone-pipeline-starts-deliveries.html
Picking winners and losers is the defining purpose of this presidency.
Tina: “I don’t know if it still holds but traditionally refineries have been built near waterways and the oceans to fascilitate shipments overseas.”
That was the point of my comment. Its the environmentalists objections to the pipeline traveling the length of our country to export the oil to other countries. Is this oil for our use or not? Do we really want to be oil and energy dependent or not? If the answer is yes then build the refineries in Montana and North Dakota. If the answer is no, forget the pipeline. Why should we put such a scar across our country with a potential environmental hazard to benefit other countries and not us? Doesnt make sense to me at all.
In addressing Steves comment, I would think having refineries in very low populated areas would be what environmentalist would prefer over a 2,500 mile long pipe.