Ace of Spades HQ

« Hoist the Black Flag, Tuesday at 4 ET | Main | Whore College »

May 06, 2005

274,000 Jobs Created in April; Previous Months' Growth Upped by 93,000

I used to cover this religiously, but lately I just seem to be on a Pat O'Brien/Rosie O'Donnell Jag.

Charles chides me for my loose shit and sends this article about the Bush jobs boom, currently the best-kept secret in the media (now that the previous best-kept secrets --Corey Clark dorking Paula Abdul; something... bad going on with Katie Holmes' lips -- have been exposed).

The latest employment report marks 24 straight months of positive job creation in the U.S. economy – more than 3 million jobs’ worth of good news. Yet, during that period network news has found plenty of negatives and has downplayed net employment gains on President Bush’s watch, even comparing job growth to the Great Depression.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics May 6, 2005, report, about 3.3 million jobs have been created in the past two years. The latest numbers showed 274,000 new jobs were created in April and the report also added 93,000 jobs to previous totals. Unemployment also held steady at the low figure of 5.2 percent. But the media have dismissed and ignored job growth and even found ways to portray it as a sign of a “bad” economy.

Coming up on the presidential election, Dan Rather jumped the gun with a highly inaccurate prediction. On Oct. 8, 2004, the September jobs numbers showed positive growth, and Bush’s first term had more than three months left. Despite those facts, Rather declared on the “CBS Evening News,” “It’s the first net job loss on a president’s watch since Herbert Hoover during the Great Depression of the 1930s.” He neglected to mention the devastating economic effects of the 9/11 attacks, which reporters seldom acknowledge. Of course, Rather’s prediction also was wrong, as Bush ended his term with a net job gain – which Rather mentioned in a 77-word report on the Feb. 4, 2005, broadcast.

And of course Dan Rather isn't alone. Sadly enough, even Maria "The Money Honey" Bartiromo grieves over merely producing 3.3 million jobs in 2 years.

Haven't seen this guy in a while...

posted by Ace at 03:31 PM

Comments

Babies.. before we're done here.. y'all be wearing gold-plated diapers.

Posted by: Alex_fs on May 6, 2005 03:39 PM

something... bad going on with Katie Holmes' lips

I think that has been identified as Tom Cruise kissing her.

Posted by: vonKreedon on May 6, 2005 04:04 PM

but lately I just seem to be on a Pat O'Brien/Rosie O'Donn*ll Jag.

It's just the kick you're on, the mood you're in.

Posted by: on May 6, 2005 04:25 PM

You know, I missed that Cowbell Guy.

Posted by: Monty on May 6, 2005 04:44 PM

Do you like your jobs report? Do you want to keep your jobs report?

Posted by: Dave in Texas on May 6, 2005 04:44 PM

Wait, there's an economy?

Who knew?

Posted by: HP Lovecraftnstuf on May 6, 2005 06:04 PM

There's an Instapundit link in it if you can prove that the revisions of the jobs reports have been different for Bush in statistically different ways than those of Clinton.

i.e. Bush's job reports are revised up a whole lot more than were those of Clinton

Dude, you gotta check on that one. Especially if you want another Judy Woodruff mention.

Posted by: Birkel on May 6, 2005 06:31 PM

Guys, sure the economy is nice and all, but there is a war on!

Posted by: Greg on May 6, 2005 08:34 PM

Man, do it miss those cowbells!! More please.

Posted by: Dex on May 6, 2005 09:20 PM

I still say that Champ beats Cowbell any day.

Posted by: -S- on May 7, 2005 05:03 AM

Not to downplay the widespread social importance of more cowbell, but it's perfectly understandable if you've stopped reporting on economic growth. Before the election it was important to report every single time, both as a predictor of Bush's likely success at the polls and as a refutation to those who complained that Bush was mis-managing the country into the ground.

Now that the election is over, neither of these are real concerns, and so only people who care about economics would be interested in frequent updates on that sweet, sweet cowbell.

On the other hand, it might be argued that you're doing us all a disservice by not playing the hell out of that thing. After all, you're in the studio with Bruce Dickinson.

Posted by: Sobek on May 7, 2005 01:46 PM

While the resonance of a repeatedly impacted bovine signalling device, can, in some specific instances determine certain economic indicators, overall, one has to view with some confusion and, dare I say, suspicion, the discordant and idiosyncratic presence of the aforementioned animated "cowbell" gif in what is, at its core, a totally unrelated dissertation on potential statistical malfeasance.

I. Am. Shocked. Really.

Posted by: PP on May 7, 2005 09:12 PM