Another terrible "benefits" report - up a whopping 34,000 in one week - and a choice we must make this coming November.

In the week ending July 14, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 386,000, an increase of 34,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 352,000. 

 As you can see,  a relatively healthy economy (a Bush economy before the recession of 2008) has a "new benefits" rate of around the 300,000 mark (per week).  From a survey of other factors,  we learn that during the Bush years, the workforce functioned at a much higher rate,  that unemployment ran close to 4.8% on average,  that GDP plugged along at 2.5 to 3.5 percent, annually but saw growth for 54 consecutive months,  the greatest record of its kind in American history.  

By contrast,  the Obama economy  (after the recessionary years of '09 and '10) is typified by 380,000 new benefit claims per week, an  8.2% unemployment rate,  a workforce that is much smaller (8 million workers less than during the Bush years),  a real GDP that averages less than 1.8% annually, a financial downgrade for the first time in American history,  and a presidential staff that has no clue as to what to do next.  

Understand that when Obama brags about taking us back from the edge of the cliff,  pulling us away from 750,000 job losses per month to the creation of 80,000 new jobs,  monthly,  he misinforms on two levels.  

First, there was only one month at 750,000 lost jobs and two or three in the high 600,000 range.  Moving from a minus 750,000 to a plus 80,000 is not the mark of a recovering economy,  it is the mark of a stagnant economy.   Look,  a country can only lose hundred of thousands of jobs for so long,  and then,  there are no more jobs to lose.  If "jobs" could be measured as water in a barrel,  we must conclude there is no more water in the barrel.  No jobs, no leakage!!  How is that an improvement?  And those 8 million folks who have left the work force,  they have not come back, either.  

A second scam put out by this Administration is the fantasy that it has had something to do with the 80,000 jobs "created" each month.  Of course that is a laughable bit of revisionist history.  The secular and non-government world of business does not functions with help from this government.  The Stimulus money is long gone, and the EPA, OSHA, and the FTA are all busy ordering the business community around. Obama has shut down new oil production on all government lands,  he is in the process of killing off the coal industry with his new "cap and trade" policies,  and, now, he wants to penalize all American investors by raising dividend taxes from 15% to as high as 45%.  Such will effect more than 120 million adult Americans,  most of which are the middle class of this nation.  

We are learning,  today (July 19),  that he is busy spending our tax money to actually advertise for an expansion of food stamps as he works with the Mexican government to inform its population of his intentions to give illegals even more than in the past including food stamps  and lost job benefits,   

He intends to have a pitched battle over "taxing the rich," who he defines as earning $120,000 per year after taxes  (or a gross of $200,000) and affecting more than 70% of all private jobs creators.  

In the above,  we have the results and plans of a man who is an anti-capitalist,  a man with no business training or experience.  The coming election will decide as to whether we are going to continue down this path of idiocy or not.  

New Jobless Report: ObamaCare survived, today. Too bad the Dems do not know that it is the reason the economy cannot recover.

First time jobless claims for last week were 385,000,  but this total will be revised upward to a nominal 390,000,  just like the June 16th report(s).  This election is still about the economy, first and foremost  --  not ObamaCare.  Understand that healthcare reform is a huge reason why the economy is not improving.  

Just yesterday,  we were told that the economy has slowed to 1% growth for the first half of the year  -  a recessionary number.  Understand that the Democrats were hanging Bush with "recession" based on the same numbers back in January of 2008.   Now it is Obama's turn. 

While this bunch of Ignorants celebrate the survival of ObamaCare,  they have no idea that their crowning glory is a critical reason for their failure to bring this economy out of its illness.  Never forget that Obama does not know how to write a budget proposal - so why would we suppose he understands what he has gotten us all into or how to get us out of this mess?   

June 23 - 385,000 initial claims report to be revised next week.  
June 16 - 387,000 initial claims revised up by a disturbing 5,000 to 392,000
June 9 - 386,000 new claims/ Revised up to 389,000  

June 2 -  377,000 - adjusted up to 380,000

May 26 - 383, 000 revised up by 6,000 to 389,000  revised up 65 out of last 66 weeks.

May 19 - initial report is 370,000 - revised up 3,000 to 373,000.

May 12 - initial report 370,000 , adjusted up to 372,000 (63 out 64 weeks this adjustment has been higher than its initial report)
May 5 - first report is 367,000 - revised with the May 17 report to 370,000


April 28 - first report is 365,000 ---  adjusted up to 368,000 with the May 3 report
April 21 _  first report for week ending on the 21st,  is 388,00 - the same initial report as last week's.  An adjustment [upward ?] will occur with next Thursdays report.  This was adjust up to 392,000.  
April 14 - first report is 388,000 to be adjusted next Thursday.  Adjust  number is 389,000
April 7 :  first report is 380,000 off an estimate of 359,000. This number was adjusted up to 388,000 !!!
March 31:  first report was 357,000 but was adjusted upwards by 10,000 to 367,000
March 24 (week ending)  --  359,000,  adjusted up 11,000 from the first report of the week before. 


March 17 - 348,000 as a first report.  This will be adjusted up to 350,000 to 352,000 by next Thursday (3/29).  With the March 24 First Report,  we find out that the week ending 3/17 missed the the truth completely/  Instead of 348,000,  the final report was 364,000 or 16,000 off the mark.  


March 10 - 351,000 as a first report.  We expect this number to be revised to 354,000. It was adjusted to 353,000, 000
March 3 (week ending)  First report 362,000 - adjusted upward to 365,000


Feb 25  -  351,000 before weekly adjustment  - 3,000 higher than the initial report of Feb 11.  --  This week was adjusted up to 354,000

Feb 18 - 355,000 before weekly adjustment (supposedly, the weekly adjustment was 353,000)





Feb 11 355, 000 after adjustment (originally reported at 348,000 (?)


Feb 4 361,000 without weekly adjustment







Jan 28   367,000 adjusted to 373,000





Jan 21  Adjusted up to 379,00:  initial report was 377,000, an increase of 21,000 or 25,000 higher than the original report of the 14th.  







Jan 14 352,000 first Labor report:  (week ending) first report numbers are 355,000 on Fox, 352,000 from Labor. A 2nd   revision brought this week's number to 356,000





Jan  7  399,000 unadjusted. I expect this to be 403,000 after revision. The actual adjusted number was 402,000

Obama brags about 160,000 jobs created per month but ignores the 1.46 million folks who lose their jobs each and every month.

This week's Thursday "first time claimant" report is up 11,000 over the initial report for the week ending June 2.  For the 66th week (out of 67),  the Federal Government has adjusted these numbers in an effort to avoid the "current" news cycle.  As it turns out,  all adjustments - all 66 of them - somehow miss the headlines for the weeks they are adjusted except, here,  at Midknight Review.  As an example,  the 3,000 upward adjustment for the previous report (June 2) will go unreported.  In fact,  the headline will read:  "Current first time claims are up 6,000 over last week," when the true headline is this:  "Initial reports for first time claims are up 11,000 over the initial reports for June 2."  

June 9 - 386,000 new claims/ This initial report will be moved up to near 390,000,  this time next week . . . . .  that is the pattern.  

June 2 -  377,000 - adjusted up to 380,000 with the June 9 report.  

May 2012

May 26 - 383, 000 revised up by 6,000 to 389,000  revised up 65 out of last 66 weeks.

May 19 - initial report is 370,000 - revised up 3,000 to 373,000.

May 12 - initial report 370,000 , adjusted up to 372,000 (63 out 64 weeks this adjustment has been higher than its initial report)

May 5 - first report is 367,000 - revised with the May 17 report to 370,000

April 2012

April 28 - first report is 365,000 ---  adjusted up to 368,000 with the May 3 report

April 21 _  first report for week ending on the 21st,  is 388,00 - the same initial report as last week's.  An adjustment [upward ?] will occur with next Thursdays report.  This was adjust up to 392,000.  

April 14 - first report is 388,000 to be adjusted next Thursday.  Adjust  number is 389,000

April 7 :  first report is 380,000 off an estimate of 359,000. This number was adjusted up to 388,000 !!!

March 2012

March 31:  first report was 357,000 but was adjusted upwards by 10,000 to 367,000

March 24 (week ending)  --  359,000,  adjusted up 11,000 from the first report of the week before. 

March 17 - 348,000 as a first report.  This will be adjusted up to 350,000 to 352,000 by next Thursday (3/29).  With the March 24 First Report,  we find out that the week ending 3/17 missed the the truth completely/  Instead of 348,000,  the final report was 364,000 or 16,000 off the mark.  

March 10 - 351,000 as a first report.  We expect this number to be revised to 354,000. It was adjusted to 353,000, 000

March 3 (week ending)  First report 362,000 - adjusted upward to 365,000

February 2012

Feb 25  -  351,000 before weekly adjustment  - 3,000 higher than the initial report of Feb 11.  --  This week was adjusted up to 354,000

Feb 18 - 355,000 before weekly adjustment (supposedly, the weekly adjustment was 353,000)

Feb 11 355, 000 after adjustment (originally reported at 348,000 (?)

Feb 4 361,000 without weekly adjustment

January 2012

Jan 28   367,000 adjusted to 373,000

Jan 21  Adjusted up to 379,00:  initial report was 377,000, an increase of 21,000 or 25,000 higher than the original report of the 14th.  

Jan 14 352,000 first Labor report:  (week ending) first report numbers are 355,000 on Fox, 352,000 from Labor. A 2nd   revision brought this week's number to 356,000

Jan  7  399,000 unadjusted. I expect this to be 403,000 after revision. The actual adjusted number was 402,000

December 2012

Dec. 31  372,000 unadjusted (this report) . This was revised to 375,000.

Dec. 24  387,000 adjusted from initial report of 381,000

Dec. 17  366,000 / first adjust to 364,000 but later reported back to 366,000

Dec. 10 368,000  (I actually do not remember this report.)

Dec.  3  385,000 adjusted. 

First time unemployment claims for the week ending June 2 will be close to 380,000. Tthey are initially reported at 377,000, today.

With regard to these numbers,   I have complained about the fact that corrections have been made week after week for well over a year,   now.  The major media (including Fox) is just now getting around to taking note of this fact.  Hey,  I was a year ahead of the curve against Rush's program.  Last week's initial report of 383,000 first time benefit claims was off by 6,000 !!  That's right. 389,000 folks submitted for unemployment benefits,  last week (ending May 26).  This week,  the current lie is that 377,000 made application.  No doubt,  next week we will be told that this total was actually 380,000 or higher.  

June 2 -  377,000 - 

May 26 - 383, 000 revised up by 6,000 to 389,000  revised up 65 out of last 66 weeks.

May 19 - initial report is 370,000 - revised up 3,000 to 373,000.

May 12 - initial report 370,000 , adjusted up to 372,000 (63 out 64 weeks this adjustment has been higher than its initial report)
May 5 - first report is 367,000 - revised with the May 17 report to 370,000
April 28 - first report is 365,000 ---  adjusted up to 368,000 with the May 3 report
April 21 _  first report for week ending on the 21st,  is 388,00 - the same initial report as last week's.  An adjustment [upward ?] will occur with next Thursdays report.  This was adjust up to 392,000.  
April 14 - first report is 388,000 to be adjusted next Thursday.  Adjust  number is 389,000
April 7 :  first report is 380,000 off an estimate of 359,000. This number was adjusted up to 388,000 !!!
March 31:  first report was 357,000 but was adjusted upwards by 10,000 to 367,000
March 24 (week ending)  --  359,000,  adjusted up 11,000 from the first report of the week before. 

"Stuck on Zero" is a phrase that catches the spirit of the latest report: this week's initial report is up 3,000 from last week's initial report but remains just under 400,000 for the 21st week in a row.

For the third consecutive week,  the number of first time benefit applicants has increased.  This week,  the increase is 3,000 up from the initial reporting of last week. 

Understand that a game is played with this particular report.  Each Thursday,  the Department of Labor . . . . Obama's Department of Labor . . . . . . gives us an initial report for the number of first time applicants for the previous week. For the past 62 of 63 weeks,  this initial report has been revised upward.  the revisions,  all 62 of them,  never seem to make the headlines;  we only hear about the more encouraging "first report" which is "always" lower than the final and actual number.  

What this report demonstrates, revisions and all, is the fact that we seem to be locked into a "bottom" of sorts.  We broke through the "400,000" barrier some 21 weeks ago,  but have remained mired in the 360,000 to 388,000  since this time.  As a final note,  the only reason for a decline in the unemployment rate,  should that be the case, is the fact that folks have simply quit trying to find a job.  That was the case last month.  The unemployment rate fell 1/10th of a point on the "strength" 550,000 workers leaving the workforce in the single month of April.  If they leave the workforce,  they are no longer counted and reduced number of jobless folks is treated as if the unemployed situation has improved.  

Obviously,  the so-called "unemployed" rate is not a dependable number.  

End Notes - first reports and their revisions:  

May 17 - initial report 370,000

May 3 - first report is 367,000 - revised with the May 17 report to 370,000

April 28 - first report is 365,000 ---  adjusted up to 368,000 with the May 3 report

April 21 _  first report for week ending on the 21st,  is 388,00 - the same initial report as last week's.  An adjustment [upward ?] will occur with next Thursdays report.  This was adjust up to 392,000.  

April 14 - first report is 388,000 to be adjusted next Thursday.  Adjust  number is 389,000

April 7 :  first report is 380,000 off an estimate of 359,000. This number was adjusted up to 388,000 !!!

March 31:  first report was 357,000 but was adjusted upwards by 10,000 to 367,000

March 24 (week ending)  --  359,000,  adjusted up 11,000 from the first report of the week before. 

March 17 - 348,000 as a first report.  This will be adjusted up to 350,000 to 352,000 by next Thursday (3/29).  With the March 24 First Report,  we find out that the week ending 3/17 missed the the truth completely/  Instead of 348,000,  the final report was 364,000 or 16,000 off the mark. 

First time claims for unemployment benefits up for the fifth consecutive week.

Post script:  You know something is seriously wrong when one writes five consecutive weeks of "This week is lower than last week" and, still,  the  actual unemployment numbers continue to increase. 

Unemployment is definitely trending upwards 

First time claims for unemployment benefits have risen for five consecutive weeks,  taking us from a 348,000 initial report for the week ending March 17 to 388,000 for the week ending April 7 and a potential final report of of 390,000-something for the week ending April 14.   This is the highest report for first time unemployed folks in 12 weeks (since Jan 14, 2012),  when that number came in at 399,000.  The week before (Jan 7) the hit 402,000,  the time we were at 400,000 or higher after 35 straight weeks at or above 400,000.

Obama's strategy: ignore the truth, grab the headline

Obama is playing a game with the first time claims reports.  The "initial" report for a particular week is always adjusted seven days later, always.  The headline will read,  "Unemployment benefit claims came in lower than the week before."  That is the headline each week.  When you look into the truth of the matter,  however, the headline is a grossly manipulated "fact" and is wholly meaningless. 

You know something is seriously wrong when you five weeks of "This week is lower than last week" and, still,  the numbers continue to increase.  

Here is how this happens:  

Five weeks ago,  the report (for the week ending March 17) showed a startling 348,000 first claim reports, touted by the Administration as the best report in several years.  Indeed,  "the back of the recession" had been broken (again).

Five weeks later,  that childish claim is in shambles.  Turns out that the 348,000 number announced for the week ending March 17,  was nowhere close to being accurate.  Oooops, the Administration had to add another shameful 16,000 to the first time claims report,  bring the honest report for March 17 to 364,000.  What is not reported is the fact that this "adjustment" was/is the most radical adjustment in the three and a half years the Obama Administration has been reporting these numbers.

March 24:  this report had to be adjusted upward by 11,000, the second most radical adjustment in years.

March 31: this report was adjusted upward by 10,000 (to 367,000) ,  the third highest adjustment since Obama took office.

April 7:  this report jumped to a first report of 380,000 and the adjustment was by 8,000,  the fourth highest adjustment of the Obama regime.

April 14:  the most recent report,  stands at 386,000 on its first report.

First time unemployment benefit claims came in at 403,000 for last week. Previous week? 404,000. Week before that? 400k . . . . . . . Get the drift?

First time apps for unemployment benefits rose to 404,000. Is this by design???

Understand that "404,000" new claims is for a single week. On a four week month, this translate to 1.6 million lost jobs for the month. In fact, if you include the past four weeks, the average weekly loss of jobs is 408,000. It has been this way 159 weeks out of 165. I think it is not out of line to consider the possibility that there may more of a plan in this than one might first think.

In an interview with Hannity on August 14 of this year, Sarah Palin had this to say: ". . . . . all President Obama needs is for more people to not be working and not paying into the system . . . . . . and he can get reelected."

With that, an interesting scenario comes into the conversation. On one hand, joblessness figures into Obama's re-election strategy. On the other hand, we are looking at "crisis" as something (in a generic sense) needed by Obama to advance his socialist, one world, agenda. Included in "crisis" is an unforgiving sense of "immediacy" as to suggested solutions. With Obama, the terms "crisis" and "immediacy" are tied together at the hip.

When we speak of the financial collapse as being a "crisis," we include the notion of an immediate socialist solution.

Palin is suggesting two things, I think. Obama sees the growing unemployment problem as a campaign advantage for . . . . . . . . . . him!! Sounds a little nuts?! Oh, you betcha, but that is the way this clown thinks. He actually believes that he will be able to blame the continuing jobs crisis on the GOP. Secondly and related, is the notion that a "crisis" opens the door for an immediate and socialist solutions. "Time for talk is over, time for action is here" is one of Obama's continuing themes. This translate into "we have to act now, right now. We do not have time to compromise with the other side. We do not have time to read the bill. We do not have time to fully write the bill."

Disagree? Need I remind you that this is exactly what happened in the case of the 2009 Stimulus bill? Exactly. This was a trillion dollar political payback program written and passed into law less than 30 days after Obama took office !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Think about that ridiculous fact. He took office on January 20th and signed the Stimulus into law on February 17th. It obligated the Federal government to a trillion dollar expenditure (including interest and two additional mark-ups) and became "law" in 29 days. It was a monumental failure and all thinking people admit to this fact.

What about ObamaCare? Well, that took more than a year . . . . disproving my theory? Not at all. "But," you argue, "the bill took a year to pass through congress !!!!!"

Look, have you all forgotten Pelosi's idiotic statement, "We have to pass the bill to find out what is in the bill?" Is that not an admission that the bill had not be written as of the day of her statement? And when was that . . . . her ridiculous claim? March 9, 2010.

When was the bill "scored," approved, and signed into law? March 23, 2010, 14 days after the Pelosi statement, with a 60% dissaprovel, by the way.

Dodd/Frank - the regulatory Wall Street bill? Introduced on December 9, 2009; signed into law on July 21, 2010 - another rebuttal to my theory? Again, nope !! Do you know that the regulatory portion of the bill was not part of the legislation signed into law? That task will not be finalized for two years. A hurried legislative effort? Well, if there was not time to write the stinking bill, I would argue that the bill was rushed through the halls of congress.

Do not forget that ObamaCare, another bill rushed through congress, will not be fully written until 2014 ! Again, a bill that should have taken two or three years to write, took less than a year - with the hard work of finishing the bill left off to future efforts. Heck, ObamaCare will not be fully functioning until 2014 BY DESIGN. So why the rush? Why not take the time to fully write the bill? Because the passage of time is not a friend of the Obama Administration.

Moving on, Obama has added nearly a year to unemployment benefits, in three increments, all out of frightening statements including the word "crisis." In every case, in each unemployment bill, money was funneled to Democrat lobbies and union entities. "Crisis" and "immediacy" are the enemy of the people.

Sarah has keyed on the Obama strategy and she could not be more accurate. Increased dependency supposedly gives rise to an increased voter base; "crisis" gives rise to the passage of law without proper vetting.

First time unemployed benefit applications rose to 401,000, up from last week's 391,000.

We are looking at 159 weeks out of the past 164 with new applications for benefits; 22 weeks out of the past 25. Last week, the number was a surprising low of 391,000 before the adjustment, whatever that was (I cannot find it anywhere, but it usually goes up after the initial announcement).

Update: that 391,000 number from last week was adjusted upward to 395,000.

Understand that the "break even" point in this reporting is "375,000." It appears that the economy adds 375,000 jobs each week, assuming a positive number for GDP growth. That being said, the net job loss, in this case, is the difference between 401 and 375. In other words, last week alone, we added 26,000 to the monthly unemployment percentage, a number that comes out each month. Last month, that percentage was 9.1. Tomorrow, a new report will be issued.

You should know that Obama does not have 13 months to get this unemployment thing back on track. Rather, he has until late summer, 9 or 10 months from now. And, if he continues with this race/class warfare business, he has already run out of time.

Update: the four week average is 414,000, down 4,000 from the previous four week average.

First time claims for unemployment benefits came in at 423,000 for last week, down from the previous week of 432,000.

The four week average is up, coming in at 421,000 before this week's total is adjusted -- probably upwards. Midknight Review uses a baseline number of 375,000 for the line of demarcation between net job loss and net job gains. There are any number of links that take you to articles supporting this theory.

Here is our link for the explanation that gives us (Midknight Review) this 375,000 baseline figure .. permalink.

We have had 158 weeks out of 163 with first time claims at 400,000 or more.

Talk at Squawk Box, CNBC and FoxBusiness tell us the global market is in a bear circumstance, losing more than 10 billion since May of this year. More and more market analysts believe we are in a second recession.

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.

New unemployment benefit claims "unexpectedly" rose to 414,000, up 4,000 from last week. (no article)

New jobless claims still above 400,000 for the week or more than 1.6 million for the month.

The headline in most Marxist Media outlets, tell us that the new jobless report has new claims down from the week before. The new figure is "down" from the week before.

Here is the truth:

Three weeks ago, the Department of Labor reported an encouraging 395,000 new claims
No one reported that this number was revised upward to 399,000

Two weeks ago, new jobless claims rose to 405,000.

Last week new jobless claims, again, rose to 418,000. Before the week was out, that number was revised upwards to 421,000 - again, with no media attention.

Today, the new numbers have come in at 409,000.

We all know what this means: if anything, our jobless "recovery" is getting worse.

Add to these numbers the adjusted GDP quarterly numbers. The first quarter of this year, GDP has been adjusted down to .4% and, today, I have learned that the second quarter numbers have been revised (for the second time) from 1.3% to 1% and, today, .7%.

Understand that the official definition of a "recession" is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP. You cannot get closer to that reality than the numbers being reported. Understand that the first two quarters of 2008 were not as bad and these numbers, and, the Dems used those two quarters to argue for a "recession, in practical terms." What is good for the goose must be good for the gander. If we were officially in "recession" because of the first two quarters of 2008, we are back in recession - officially - because of the first two quarters of 2011.

Understand that housing sales are down two months in a row as is consumer confidence and manufacturing. Also, total unemployment/underemployment is up from 18 % to 18.5 %.

Tomorrow, the monthly unemployment rate will be reported. Last month, that number was 9.1%.

Geeeeesh.

408,000 new unemployed for THE WEEK. That is 1.6 million new jobless each month for the past several years !! (no article)