Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (54658)	1/25/2007 9:07:24 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

2006 'Mass Layoffs' Were the Lowest in 10 Years; Media Ignores Posted by Tom Blumer NewsBusters.org January 25, 2007 The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its monthly report on "mass layoffs" yesterday. It also included annual totals and an eleven-year chart of mass layoff history. A "mass layoff action" involves "at least 50 persons from a single establishment." Since 1988, employers have been required to give 60 days notice of "covered plant closings and covered mass layoffs." The BLS Mass Layoffs report compiles those notices. Now that 2006 is in the record books, here is that eleven-year chart: As you can see, the total number of "layoff events" in 2006 came in at the lowest on record (BLS began compiling these statistics during the second quarter of 1995), while the number of people who filed unemployment claims as a result of those layoffs was the lowest in 10 years. On a percentage-of-workforce basis, the number of unemployment claims filers in 2006 was also, along with the layoff events, the lowest in the 11 full years BLS has reported on this information. Some of those years would include the formerly Mainstream Media's favorite period for reporting good news about the economy, namely 1997 through 2000. Well, it so happens that the number of employees filing claims as a result of mass layoffs during that media-perceived Golden Age (6.72 million) is barely less than the comparative number (6.78 million) for the "Greatest Story Never Told" economy of 2003 through 2006. As with the single-year comparison in the previous paragraph, the 2003-2006 percentage of the workforce affected by mass layoffs was lower than the percentage so affected during 1997-2000. A Google News search on "mass layoffs" (in quotes) at about 11PM last night only had about 15 stories on the latest mass layoffs report, all relating to coverage of individual states by business weekly newspapers. A search on the "My Way" business-news pages (Associated Press, Fox, MSNBC, NY Times, USA Today, and MarketWatch) a few minutes later also had no coverage. The failure to report good economic news by the formerly Mainstream Media's business press would explain why American Research Group's monthly poll about the economy continues to show people believing that it is not in good shape, or being handled well: When news of favorable developments like the record low in mass layoffs is totally ignored, why would anyone expect a different result? newsbusters.org bls.gov dol.state.ga.us nationalreview.com news.google.com news.myway.com news.myway.com news.myway.com news.myway.com news.myway.com news.myway.com americanresearchgroup.com

To: Sully- who wrote (54658)	1/25/2007 12:07:49 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Petraeus: Baghdad Can Be Secured General David Petraeus testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday in his confirmation hearing to replace General Casey as the top commander in Iraq, telling the Senators that the situation in Baghdad could be resolved with the extra troops and the new Iraqi commitment to security. He faced skepticism from both sides of the aisle, but insisted that a concerted "clear and hold" strategy with Americans in place to hold neighborhoods could give the Iraqi government the room it needs to turn the corner in the capital: Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, President Bush’s new choice as the top commander in Iraq, told senators on Tuesday that the new military strategy to secure Baghdad can work, and that he had asked that the additional troops the administration promised be deployed as quickly as possible. In his first public comments about Mr. Bush’s plan to send some 21,500 troops, the general described the situation in Iraq as “dire” but not hopeless. He asserted that the “persistent presence” of American and Iraqi forces in strife-ridden Baghdad neighborhoods was a necessary step, but also cautioned that the mission would not succeed if the Iraqi government did not carry out its program of political reconciliation. “The way ahead will be neither quick nor easy, and undoubtedly there will be tough days,” he told the Senate Armed Services Committee. “We face a determined, adaptable, barbaric enemy. He will try to wait us out. In fact any such endeavor is a test of wills, and there are no guarantees.” Petraeus understands insurgencies better than anyone else in the Pentagon. He literally wrote the book on the subject, and even the opponents of the surge acknowledge his exceptional talents as a commander. Senator Norm Coleman called him the most impressive military man he'd ever met, and the nomination of Petraeus to replace Casey brought positive reaction from most of Congress. However, his appearance had less to do with military strategy and more to do with political posturing. John McCain and Joe Lieberman, supporting the surge, tried to draw Petraeus into the debate on the competing resolutions to express Senatorial disfavor on the new strategy. When Petraeus responded by saying that such a vote in the Senate would not send a "beneficial" message to the troops and might embolden our enemies in the field, Hillary Clinton responded that it would be beneficial in putting the Iraqi government on notice, and John Warner scolded him for interfering with a political debate -- even though he'd been expressly asked to comment on it. The Senate routinely uses confirmation hearings for posturing on White House policy; that tradition goes back at least several generations, at least. In this case, though, it seemed as though Petraeus got caught in a game of "monkey in the middle", to borrow a phrase from James Boyce, for the upcoming presidential campaign. Instead of listening to an expert explain how the new strategy would work to help win the war against our enemies, the committee used him as a crutch to issue tired campaign slogans on both sides, and made it clear that they really had little interest in what he had to say outside of getting sound bites to support their own bumper-sticker thoughts. It was not a dignified moment for the Senate, and one that they should regret. Their posturing overshadowed a detailed and expert presentation on the need and use of the troops in Baghdad and how their presence, combined with the Iraqis, could quell the sectarian violence in the capital and go after the al-Qaeda terrorists in Anbar, our overall enemy in the war on terror. They should leave the campaigning for the hustings. captainsquartersblog.com