This Just In: Obama May Have Lost 824,000 More Jobs Than Previously Reported

Whenever numbers look bad for Democrats, the media invariably reports them as “unexpected.” Well, report THIS, mainstream media:

Barry Hussein just broke his own record for failure.

Previously, it had been reported that Obama had lost 4.1 million jobs – presiding over the greatest number of job losses under any president in any year since the Bureau of Labor Statistics started reporting jobless numbers in 1940.

But now we’re finding out that Obama pointed to the center field wall, took a radical swing, and sent unemployment soaring to nearly FIVE MILLION jobs lost with his disastrous failed policies.

There’s not much being reported about this yet, but what there is is BAD for Barry:

Feb. 3 (Bloomberg Multimedia) — The U.S. may lose 824,000 jobs when the government releases its annual revision to employment data on Feb. 5, showing the labor market was in worse shape during the recession than known at the time.

The Drudge Report filed this story under the headline, “MANIPULATE: FEDS MAY LOSE 824,000 JOBS IN ‘REVISION’.”  Which creates the sense that something very suspicious was going on to “manipulate” job numbers to make them look less awful than they actually were.

We have this found via Zero Hedge:

From the BLS:In accordance with usual practice, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics is announcing its preliminary estimates of the upcoming annual benchmark revision to the establishment survey employment series. The final benchmark revision will be issued on February 5, 2010, with the publication of the January 2010 Employment Situation news release.

Each year, the Current Employment Statistics (CES) survey employment estimates are benchmarked to comprehensive counts of employment for the month of March. These counts are derived from state unemployment insurance tax records that nearly all employers are required to file. For national CES employment series, the annual benchmark revisions over the last 10 years have averaged plus or minus two-tenths of one percent of total nonfarm employment. The preliminary estimate of the benchmark revision indicates a downward adjustment to March 2009 total nonfarm employment of 824,000 (0.6 percent).

If you read the conclusion of the Zero Hedge article, you will see an example as to how extreme the disconnect between the actual state of the economy and the stock market has become.

In any event, we find that normally the error that requires correction/revision is .02; but for some reason under Obama the error is .06 — which is 300% larger than the previous ten year average.

Rush Limbaugh said that he had previously stated that he thought unemployment was higher, and that the Obama White House was monkeying with the numbers to make it appear that unemployment was at or under 10%.

Having watched Obama create a category of “created or saved jobs” out of thin air that no economist had ever seen before, and watching the mainstream media report that made-up statistic as if it were gospel; having watched Obama’s “created or saved” job numbers being based on such asinine data that a single $1000 lawnmower was recorded to have saved 50 jobs; having watched the White House engage in rampantly dishonest reporting on its job numbers; having discovered that those bogus job numbers were reported as having been “created or saved” in phony congressional districts and in phony zip code regions, well, let’s just say that I have every reason to believe that this incredibly dishonest White House is capable of anything.

I’m not one iota surprised that the BLS is dumping this news on the typical government bad-news dumping day of Friday.

In any event, you can bet that our 10% unemployment rate is about to take a monster hit.

From a quick calculation, the unemployment rate could all of a sudden be as high as 12%.

It was only yesterday that I wrote this without knowing how right I was:

I continue to believe that unemployment will continue to get worse in agreement with famed analyst Meredith Whitney:

Unemployment is likely to rise to 13 percent or higher and will weigh on the economy for several years, countering government efforts to stabilize the banking industry, analyst Meredith Whitney told CNBC.

I just didn’t know that I would literally have my instincts proven right within a matter of three days.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

10 Responses to “This Just In: Obama May Have Lost 824,000 More Jobs Than Previously Reported”

  1. jim Says:

    B. Hussein will say and do anything to validate his deception upon this
    nation. Your documentation proves this daily and I’m constantly amazed
    at how the “State Obamamedia” has succeeded in fooling so many people!

    It’s inconceivable for any economic growth to have take place, given the preposterous debt we’re facing. The Bama has been toting a 12% gain in GDP- He claims he inherited a minus 6% rate, couple that with a 6% increase, he calls that a 12% gain- any 5th grader can tell you we’re at zero!

    Impeachment is overdue!

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    I’ve looked at the Obama GDP figures and have to agree with you.

    Technically, we had something like a 5.7% increase in GDP during the last quarter. However, almost two-thirds of that came from a slowdown in liquidation of inventories, leaving an anemic 2.2% of actual growth. From CNBC:

    Growth was boosted a sharp slowdown in the pace of inventory liquidation, a factor that could mask the strength of the economic recovery from the longest and deepest downturn since the Great Depression.

    And the article goes on to state that when you strip out the inventory slowdown (which is actually a BAD thing), the actual growth figure is 2.2%.

    Another factor is that this growth came during the period of the Christmas shopping season. You ALWAYS get a bang from that.

    But the biggest factor of all is the massive government spending. There will OBVIOUSLY be an impact from such massive spending. Here’s the thing, though: while we are creating two classes (the government class and the non-government class, with the government class getting all kinds of excessive benefits), we are not stimulating the private sector, which creates the jobs that sustains an economy. The government class doesn’t produce anything; it is parasitical on the private sector.

    Thus, this “growth” is an artificial and unsustainable phenomena. It is simply a giant illusion. And the fact that the private sector is continuing to languish is demonstration that the stimulus completely failed.

    There has never been a recession or depression that has ever lasted forever. It is only a matter of time before we get out of this one. That said, Obama’s policies are NOT helping us get out.

    If ANY spending helped us out of the recession, it was Bush’s TARP program that solidified the financial network. Obama’s stimulus was nothing more than a pork-laden political slush fund.

  3. RA Says:

    Michael-
    You are completely correct that if you take inventories out of the equation then GDP growth was 2.2 or 2.3% for the quarter.But, considering the fourth-quarter increase, average GDP growth in the first two quarters after the recession came in above 4%, topping the average 2.3% seen after the past two recessions and the average George W. Bush gave us during his 8 years in office.

    But inventories should not be ignored. Eventually, inventory-led production gets factories humming and provides income to workers, which supports consumer spending, the biggest component of GDP.

    “That’s how recoveries become self-sustaining,” says Dean Maki, chief U.S. economist at Barclays Capital. And given the unusually deep inventory cuts during this recession, he adds, “the kick as production simply catches up to sales will be larger in this recovery” than in the recent past.

  4. RA Says:

    Sorry didn’t get to finish my last comment….

    Even with the average GDP growth over the 2 quarters after the recession topping 4% there’s still plenty of chance that things can take another turn for the worse. Inventory-led growth will not last forever but its also not a bad thing and better than the alternative.

  5. Michael Eden Says:

    The point that I was making in my last comment (quoting CNBC) that “Growth was boosted a sharp slowdown in the pace of inventory liquidation” comes into play.

    I agree with you that inventories should not be ignored. They are certainly part of a legitimate calculation of gross domestic product.

    But when those inventories are sitting on shelves or in factories because nobody is buying them, how does that legitimately reflect in a positive measurement? It in fact is a negative fact, and when it is factored in, it leads to an artificial and false conclusion – that we have a large and therefore healthy GDP.

    What you are doing in your cherry-picked snapshot of the GDP in the last 2 quarters to try to make Bush look bad is essentially arguing that the fact that nobody is buying anything and massive inventories are sitting idle under Obama proves that the economy is better than it was under Bush. Which is clearly absurd.

    As a final point, let me also say that growth always artificially appears better when it is measured from a very low point. If I have one penny, and grow that to two pennies, I have a 100% growth – which appears spectacular. But I’ve only gained a freaking penny.

    Bush’s growth was actually far greater, because his growth reflected a FAR higher base.

    That’s how statistics lie.

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    I mainly agree with you, apart from the “inventory-led growth” thing for the reasons I stated in my last.

    Growth is good. We should all hope for growth.

    The question is are we actually growing, or did we merely spend hundred and hundreds of billions of borrowed dollars to create an artificial illusion of growth? You can see my earlier comment on this same article for a little more about why I think that is the situation.

    I watch the finance programs (such as CNBC). There are financial experts who have optimism, and there are others who have a great deal of pessimism. And then there are those who see a short term gain, followed by a serious downturn in a year or two.

    I would also point out that the global economy is in for a significant downturn later this year, and that will affect the US. On top of that, when our government spending represents a full quarter of our GDP, we will increasingly find ourselves under crushing debt.

    You might very well be optimistic about a recovery – and you certainly have experts to back up your opinion. I happen to be very pessimistic about a long-term recovery, and I assure you I have plenty of experts to back up my opinion as well.

  7. Anonymous Says:

    OBAMA manufactures FALSE JOBS as EASY as HE DOES FALSE VOTES!!

  8. Lew Richards Says:

    Are the AMERICAN PEOPLE so stupid to allow Obama to “CREATE” jobs out of the air?

    To tell us how GOOD things are as we all SUFFER from his lack of KNOWLEDGE as to how to GOVERN , HONESTLY!

  9. Michael Eden Says:

    I wish I could, Lew.

    The CBO – you know, the outfit that BOTH sides appeal to at various times because it is “nonpartisan” – had a report about the pending crisis-level increase they saw coming in unemployment:

    Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf on Wednesday projected that economic growth will slow by next year and unemployment will rise before that — a forecast that Rep. Paul Ryan called ominous, grim and alarming.

    Elmendorf laid out the latest projections on the economy and deficits before the House Budget Committee on Capitol Hill.

    Ryan, R-Wis., who is chairman, raised alarm given projections that 2012 “will mark the fourth straight year of trillion-dollar deficits.”

    “Trillions more dollars will be added to debt in the years ahead, putting a chilling effect on jobs creation today and committing the next generation to a diminished future,” he said.

    Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen took a different approach, saying deficits and growth would have been worse without President Obama’s stimulus plan. “The Recovery Act did serve its purpose. It’s kind of like when you’re walking up an escalator that’s going down very quickly. If you take no action you will go down very fast,” he said.

    Yet future deficits depend in large part on how fast the economy grows, along with spending and revenues. And on that front, the CBO isn’t offering a lot of encouragement.

    “The pace of the recovery has been slow since the recession ended two and a half years ago,” Elmendorf said. “And we project that it will continue to be slow for the next two years.”

    The CBO believes that economic growth will be only 2 percent this year — and an anemic 1.1 percent next year.

    The office says that will leave the unemployment rate at 8.9 percent at the end of this year, well above current the current rate of 8.5 percent, meaning the jobless rate would be increasing at election time.

    That prompted this exchange between Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., and the CBO director.
    “Let me ask you, are there more people working today or fewer people working today than at the — on inauguration day of 2009?” McClintock asked.

    “I believe the answer to that,” said Elmendorf, “is there are fewer people, congressman.”

    And in 2013, CBO estimates unemployment will be even higher — at 9.2 percent.

    But then the very next day the unemployment rate bizarrely went down to 8.3%. And now the media that totally overlooked the CBO report (when they would have been ALL OVER IT had it presented good news) is singing “Happy Times Are Here Again.”

    And I think about this:

    …..Any opposition to Hitler is ruthlessly eradicated. Tens of thousands are imprisoned. Journalist Stephan Laurent dared to criticize The Fuehrer…..

    “I am writing this from cell 24. Outside a new Germany is being created. Many millions are rejoicing. Hitler is promising everyone precisely what they want. I think when they wake to their sobering senses, they will find they have been led by the nose and duped by lies.”

  10. Michael Eden Says:

    Obama and his fellow socialist pal Putin both.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: