Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
Simply pay attention to headlines and first lines of news stories
about the economy (or the war, or anything!). It’s educational! Teach
your children how to compare and contrast by studying how first lines
can make economic news seem either positive or negative, for fun
economics, polling and presidential impact!



Poor Tommy...

Simply pay attention to headlines and first lines of news stories
about the economy (or the war, or anything!). It’s educational! Teach
your children how to compare and contrast by studying how first lines
can make economic news seem either positive or negative, for fun
economics, polling and presidential impact!

Here’s one!

Headline: New jobless claims plunge, retail sales improve.
Sub-header: New jobless claims plunge unexpectedly to 610,000, while
retail sales improve in April

New applications for jobless benefits plunged to the lowest level in
14 weeks, a possible sign that the massive wave of layoffs has peaked.
Still, the number of unemployed workers getting benefits climbed to a
new record.

First line: positive.

Now, let’s look at another news story, this time from 2005:

Headline:
There go 800,000 jobs out the door
Subheader:
UCLA: Housing slump to hit building and finance employment, slow the
economy, but no recession seen.

The expected downturn in the housing market could end up costing
800,000 construction and finance jobs, putting a big dent in economic
growth over the next two years, a report from UCLA said.

First line: Really, really negative. Incredibly negative. Terrifying.

Yes, that’s right, President Bush would have killed for a “first line
positive” on economic stories while he was president; unemployment was
4.8% and tax-revenues were at all-time highs. Instead, during his
presidency, we got, “Economists worry about possible downturns,
despite 3 percent growth in this quarter.”

Fair and honest reporting.

How refreshing to see Newspeak done so effciently.

On Fri, 08 May 2009 11:57:38 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

Simply pay attention to headlines and first lines of news stories
about the economy (or the war, or anything!). It’s educational! Teach
your children how to compare and contrast by studying how first lines
can make economic news seem either positive or negative, for fun
economics, polling and presidential impact!

Here’s one!

Headline: New jobless claims plunge, retail sales improve.
Sub-header: New jobless claims plunge unexpectedly to 610,000, while
retail sales improve in April

New applications for jobless benefits plunged to the lowest level in
14 weeks, a possible sign that the massive wave of layoffs has peaked.
Still, the number of unemployed workers getting benefits climbed to a
new record.

First line: positive.

Now, let’s look at another news story, this time from 2005:

Headline:
There go 800,000 jobs out the door
Subheader:
UCLA: Housing slump to hit building and finance employment, slow the
economy, but no recession seen.

The expected downturn in the housing market could end up costing
800,000 construction and finance jobs, putting a big dent in economic
growth over the next two years, a report from UCLA said.

First line: Really, really negative. Incredibly negative. Terrifying.

Yes, that’s right, President Bush would have killed for a “first line
positive” on economic stories while he was president; unemployment was
4.8% and tax-revenues were at all-time highs. Instead, during his
presidency, we got, “Economists worry about possible downturns,
despite 3 percent growth in this quarter.”

Fair and honest reporting.

How refreshing to see Newspeak done so effciently.

Once this passes, they will only get worse. They won't have to worry
about the public buying their biased papers, Obama and Pelosi will
save their day.

http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...52N67F20090324
--
John H

For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/d3vxvm

On May 8, 12:31*pm, John H wrote:
On Fri, 08 May 2009 11:57:38 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports





wrote:
Simply pay attention to headlines and first lines of news stories
about the economy (or the war, or anything!). It’s educational! Teach
your children how to compare and contrast by studying how first lines
can make economic news seem either positive or negative, for fun
economics, polling and presidential impact!

Here’s one!

Headline: New jobless claims plunge, retail sales improve.
Sub-header: New jobless claims plunge unexpectedly to 610,000, while
retail sales improve in April

New applications for jobless benefits plunged to the lowest level in
14 weeks, a possible sign that the massive wave of layoffs has peaked.
Still, the number of unemployed workers getting benefits climbed to a
new record.

First line: positive.

Now, let’s look at another news story, this time from 2005:

Headline:
There go 800,000 jobs out the door
Subheader:
UCLA: Housing slump to hit building and finance employment, slow the
economy, but no recession seen.

The expected downturn in the housing market could end up costing
800,000 construction and finance jobs, putting a big dent in economic
growth over the next two years, a report from UCLA said.

First line: Really, really negative. Incredibly negative. Terrifying.

Yes, that’s right, President Bush would have killed for a “first line
positive” on economic stories while he was president; unemployment was
4.8% and tax-revenues were at all-time highs. Instead, during his
presidency, we got, “Economists worry about possible downturns,
despite 3 percent growth in this quarter.”

Fair and honest reporting.

How refreshing to see Newspeak done so effciently.

Once this passes, they will only get worse. They won't have to worry
about the public buying their biased papers, Obama and Pelosi will
save their day.

http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...52N67F20090324
--
John H

For a great time, go here first...http://tinyurl.com/d3vxvm- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You guys don't want what's best for the country, you want failure
because of who is in office. That's sad. It was sad when Harry felt
that way about Bush, and it's sad when you guys feel that way about
Obama.

On Fri, 8 May 2009 09:50:25 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On May 8, 12:31*pm, John H wrote:
On Fri, 08 May 2009 11:57:38 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports





wrote:
Simply pay attention to headlines and first lines of news stories
about the economy (or the war, or anything!). It’s educational! Teach
your children how to compare and contrast by studying how first lines
can make economic news seem either positive or negative, for fun
economics, polling and presidential impact!

Here’s one!

Headline: New jobless claims plunge, retail sales improve.
Sub-header: New jobless claims plunge unexpectedly to 610,000, while
retail sales improve in April

New applications for jobless benefits plunged to the lowest level in
14 weeks, a possible sign that the massive wave of layoffs has peaked.
Still, the number of unemployed workers getting benefits climbed to a
new record.

First line: positive.

Now, let’s look at another news story, this time from 2005:

Headline:
There go 800,000 jobs out the door
Subheader:
UCLA: Housing slump to hit building and finance employment, slow the
economy, but no recession seen.

The expected downturn in the housing market could end up costing
800,000 construction and finance jobs, putting a big dent in economic
growth over the next two years, a report from UCLA said.

First line: Really, really negative. Incredibly negative. Terrifying.

Yes, that’s right, President Bush would have killed for a “first line
positive” on economic stories while he was president; unemployment was
4.8% and tax-revenues were at all-time highs. Instead, during his
presidency, we got, “Economists worry about possible downturns,
despite 3 percent growth in this quarter.”

Fair and honest reporting.

How refreshing to see Newspeak done so effciently.

Once this passes, they will only get worse. They won't have to worry
about the public buying their biased papers, Obama and Pelosi will
save their day.

http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...52N67F20090324
--
John H

For a great time, go here first...http://tinyurl.com/d3vxvm- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You guys don't want what's best for the country, you want failure
because of who is in office. That's sad. It was sad when Harry felt
that way about Bush, and it's sad when you guys feel that way about
Obama.

If you think biased newspapers and major media are what's best for the
country, then your opinion doesn't mean a whole lot. If you think a
socialistic state is what's best for the country, then your opinion
means even less.
--
John H

For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/d3vxvm

On Fri, 8 May 2009 09:50:25 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



You guys don't want what's best for the country, you want failure
because of who is in office. That's sad. It was sad when Harry felt
that way about Bush, and it's sad when you guys feel that way about
Obama.

Good point. Gets dangerous when we don't pull together.
That's why strong leaders are required. Obama might have the right
stuff. We'll see.
I just got off the phone with my brother. He's an IT security guy at
a huge University/Medical complex here in Illinois.
Management leadership asked for volunteers to take unpaid time off
to avoid layoffs.
Not enough volunteers, so management just laid out the unpaid days off
for everybody.
Brother didn't volunteer, because he wants to work every day.
But he has no problem losing the pay, because he knows the
alternative.
Leadership made the difference.
OTOH, he talks with the union guys there, mostly maintenance.
He's been in unions himself, as I have.
They had a vote to reduce hours and avoid layoffs.
The vote failed, and a bunch got laid off.
****es him off, because he's friendly with a couple of them that got
laid off. Of course they got laid off according to seniority.
But you'd figure there wouldn't be enough senior guys to sway the
vote.
Anyway, leadership here would have worked best in keeping everybody
working.
I'm a bit surprised Obama hasn't used his bully pulpit to encourage
business leaders to look at salary and work reduction as a preferred
alternative over lay offs.
But carrying health costs are a big part of the equation.
Things are really going to hell in a handbasket.
Kenny Rogers said it best. You got to know when to hold them, and
know when to fold them

--Vic

Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 8 May 2009 09:50:25 -0700 (PDT), wrote:


You guys don't want what's best for the country, you want failure
because of who is in office. That's sad. It was sad when Harry felt
that way about Bush, and it's sad when you guys feel that way about
Obama.

Good point. Gets dangerous when we don't pull together.
That's why strong leaders are required. Obama might have the right
stuff. We'll see.
I just got off the phone with my brother. He's an IT security guy at
a huge University/Medical complex here in Illinois.
Management leadership asked for volunteers to take unpaid time off
to avoid layoffs.
Not enough volunteers, so management just laid out the unpaid days off
for everybody.
Brother didn't volunteer, because he wants to work every day.
But he has no problem losing the pay, because he knows the
alternative.
Leadership made the difference.
OTOH, he talks with the union guys there, mostly maintenance.
He's been in unions himself, as I have.
They had a vote to reduce hours and avoid layoffs.
The vote failed, and a bunch got laid off.
****es him off, because he's friendly with a couple of them that got
laid off. Of course they got laid off according to seniority.
But you'd figure there wouldn't be enough senior guys to sway the
vote.
Anyway, leadership here would have worked best in keeping everybody
working.
I'm a bit surprised Obama hasn't used his bully pulpit to encourage
business leaders to look at salary and work reduction as a preferred
alternative over lay offs.
But carrying health costs are a big part of the equation.
Things are really going to hell in a handbasket.
Kenny Rogers said it best. You got to know when to hold them, and
know when to fold them

--Vic


I was on the actual staff of several unions in my "illustrious" career.
Once during a recession, one of the unions was fairly hard hit, so at
the behest of the union president, management decided to vote itself a
20% pay cut so that non-management staff would only have to endure a 5%
pay cut. No one had to be laid off.

When the economic turnaround came, salaries were restored and everyone
who had taken a pay cut got that money paid back over six pay periods.

On May 8, 1:37*pm, HK wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 8 May 2009 09:50:25 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

You guys don't want what's best for the country, you want failure
because of who is in office. That's sad. It was sad when Harry felt
that way about Bush, and it's sad when you guys feel that way about
Obama.

Good point. *Gets dangerous when we don't pull together.
That's why strong leaders are required. *Obama might have the right
stuff. *We'll see.
I just got off the phone with my brother. *He's an IT security guy at
a huge University/Medical complex here in Illinois.
Management leadership asked for volunteers to take unpaid time off
to avoid layoffs.
Not enough volunteers, so management just laid out the unpaid days off
for everybody.
Brother didn't volunteer, because he wants to work every day.
But he has no problem losing the pay, because he knows the
alternative.
Leadership made the difference.
OTOH, he talks with the union guys there, mostly maintenance.
He's been in unions himself, as I have.
They had a vote to reduce hours and avoid layoffs.
The vote failed, and a bunch got laid off.
****es him off, because he's friendly with a couple of them that got
laid off. *Of course they got laid off according to seniority.
But you'd figure there wouldn't be enough senior guys to sway the
vote.
Anyway, leadership here would have worked best in keeping everybody
working.
I'm a bit surprised Obama hasn't used his bully pulpit to encourage
business leaders to look at salary and work reduction as a preferred
alternative over lay offs.
But carrying health costs are a big part of the equation.
Things are really going to hell in a handbasket.
Kenny Rogers said it best. *You got to know when to hold them, and
know when to fold them

--Vic

I was on the actual staff of several unions in my "illustrious" career.
Once during a recession, one of the unions was fairly hard hit, so at
the behest of the union president, management decided to vote itself a
20% pay cut so that non-management staff would only have to endure a 5%
pay cut. No one had to be laid off.

When the economic turnaround came, salaries were restored and everyone
who had taken a pay cut got that money paid back over six pay periods.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, sure. Everyone here believes you, I'm sure. You're such an
honest person!

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


He's a political accident looking for a place to happen and it's only
going to get worse from here on out.


Poor Tommy...he's gonna go nut-sier.

On Fri, 08 May 2009 11:57:38 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

How convenient that you've eliminated any historical context.

Knowing the background, timing and previous events would pour cold
water on your wafer thin theory.