Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;krispy, post: 1048051, member: 19065&quot;]It&#039;s amazing the media channels are still making such gross generalized comments like this on air and haven&#039;t in the past 2-3 years, having observed the markets going into this and bearing the reality of the jobs numbers, figured out how to express headlines taking into consideration: the numbers of long term unemployed not covered in these reports (those who have/are currently falling off benefits), the various waves of sectors already hit, recovered and now responsible for hiring who are effecting these monthly numbers (those sectors now coming out of <i>their </i>recession) and the new sectors still being hit by the wave of effects slow to touch other sectors adding new jobless claims.&nbsp; It seems there is still strong support by the White House administration for further jobless aid pressuring statements made by the opposition following the November elections to recognize this and include further protection, effectively calling them to stand up to their claims or to shrink away if it proved to be opposition rhetoric. There is an interesting front page story that showed up late yesterday on the NY Times website about this, which was followed by these jobless numbers reported today, if interested in reading (requires free account sign-in at the Times): <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/us/03cong.html?hp" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/us/03cong.html?hp" rel="nofollow">Obama Seeking Aid for Jobless in Any Deal on Tax Cuts</a>[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in