First time unemployment benefits rose by 428,000 last week. That is close to 2 million newly unemployed each month. But, there is more.

Update: the 428,000 total has been updated to 432,000, updated but not reported in the media.

Original text:

You should know that the economy, not the Administration, adds more than 300,000 jobs per week in contrast to the headline job-loss total. The economy does this, on its owns. Of course, that gives us a negative weekly net total (in this particular case) of 128,000 jobless each week, or a net jobless total for the month of 512,000. (Stay with me, it gets less complicated.) At that rate, 6 million jobs will have been lost in the coming year versus 3.6 million newly created jobs. Few are talking about the "net " job total. I will try to do that in this posting, putting the current circumstance into a real-time context.

I have concluded, after three years of paying attention to such things, that the Federal Government has little effect over the "300,000" number mentioned above. I am saying that "we" create 300,000 new jobs, each and every month, as a matter of systemic course.

The differential between 300,000 and 428,000 is, of course, 128,000. A swing of 64,000 (half of the 128,000 number) is the critical concern, here, as I see it. If one takes 64,000 from 428,000 and adds it to the 300,000 number - by definition this is a "swing" of 64,000 - we wind up with as many jobs created as are lost, and, the slide into a more profound unemployment circumstance comes to a screeching halt.

If you pay attention to this day's commentary, you might hear the commentator tell his audience, "We need this number (428,000) to be somewhere around 375,000 per week." As things stand, now, that is our break-even point. As I write this post, (11 am on Thursday), Megyn Kelly just made this very claim.

All these numbers are dynamic and are influenced by present-time realities. If "recession" or, even worse, "depression" occurs, the "natural" influx of jobs moves downward and matters becoming "officially" worse.

While the government cannot create private sector jobs, it can create an environment that limits their creation. And, that is the concern of the conservative/TEA Party constituency - all 70 million of us.**

If you do not read this blog, you might not know that, in the final analysis, we are talking about 64,000 (plus or minus) jobs each week. In rounded numbers, that is 256,000 net jobs lost each month or, 3.07 million net jobs lost per year.

If we figure the average weekly total as closer to 410,000 new applicants each week, all of the above moves downward, in a good way. Without going through another explanation, the annual total for jobs lost comes down from 3.07 million to 2.64 million lost each year.

This last circumstance is closer, on average, to the present situation. Of the past 162 weeks, going back into 2008 (before Obama), we have seen 157 weeks posting 400,000 or more new claims for unemployed benefits.

What does this mean? In short, our "jobless recession" is all about a swing of between 64,000 and 55,000 weekly jobs. If the business community had confidence in the Federal Government (read: "Obama"), they would take the 3 to 5 trillion dollars they have stored up but are afraid to spend, and, begin spending it on on risk ventures such as research, increased inventories, marketing, new construction, and new job hires. Confidence is all they need and 64,000 new weekly jobs is all "we" need to turn this whole mess around.

I am saying that we do not need the "American Jobs Act" for any serious reason at all.

Its as easy as 1,2,3.

All Obama has to do is

1), change policy as to pending and future regulations. Regulations cost the business community 161,000 dollars per year per major business concern. That needs to stop.

2) ObamaCare might cost the business community as much as $2,300 per employee in a single year . . . . . no one knows for certain and, therein, is the problem with regards to health care - "no one knows for certain." Confidence is always destroyed in the face of growing uncertainty.

And, 3), I do not know enough about the Financial Regulation bill (Dodd/F

I do know that the current recession was not the sole responsibility of the banking community. Not even close. I do know that the primary causative factor for the financial mess we are in goes back to "progressive" policy and to a well intentioned thing called "Affordable Housing." You can Google this, but, if you remember the talk of three years ago, you will remember the phrase "sub-prime loans." Remember that? Punch that phase into Google and you will find dozens of articles dealing with "Affordable Housing" and the sub-prime circumstance. At one point, before the Obama/Marxist media decided to use the recession as an opportunity to bash Big Business, we were being told the truth. No longer.

I could go on, but the point of this post is singular:

we do not need another law; we just need Congress to take a three year vacation.

If the business community knew there would be no further burden levied against it in the foreseeable future, the "jobless recovery" would be over.

Mark my words, if the GOP is successful in choosing a winning candidate, things will turn around in the first six months immediately following the 2012 elections. The business community is standing in lockstep, against this Administration. That is not going to change until 2012, at least. For the first time in my 66 years, the business community has decided to do what it can, in a collective and orchestrated way, to end an American presidency. Although a scary thought . . . . . . .

I say "Good for them!!"

** 70 million conservatives ?? That is my implied claim. Understand that 60 million folks, all conservatives, voted against Obama, in 2008. Also, know that in Gallup polls taken over the past 40 years, when asked as to Liberal/Conservative bias apart from political party affiliation, the results are surprising consistent: 38% on average claim to be "conservative" and 20% claim to be "liberal." When it is all said and done, this country has 70 million votes that are potential "conservative" at some level.

I will not trouble any of you with another complicated explanation, but it is Midknight Review's predictive position, that, as things stand today, Obama will garner no more than 59 million votes and could face as many as 72 million in opposition. We are looking at Jimmy Carter times two. !!!!! There are 13 months before The Election, but Obama does not have all that time; not at all. Rather, if things are not turning around by July of next year, 10 months from now, the script will have been written for his political demise.