Bush's Actions Fuel Recovery II

Jobs jump in April (again)
For the second month in row the economy added many more jobs than economists and Wall Street expected, indicating the economy is on a tear.
Nonfarm payrolls rose 288,000 in April, while March's rise in payrolls was revised up to 337,000 from 308,000. The April unemployment rate edged down to 5.6% from 5.7% the month before. Economists, on average, were expecting the economy to add 150,000 jobs, with the unemployment rate remaining steady at 5.7%, according to a survey by CNBC and Dow Jones. February's payroll rise was also bumped up.
The service sector continued to pick up the most steam, adding 246,000 jobs last month. But the beleaguered manufacturing sector also impressed, adding 21,000 jobs, with March revised up to a 9,000 gain from unchanged. Before that, manufacturing lost jobs for 43 consecutive months.
'This economy is in full swing, the job market is right there with it,' Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com, told CNBC's 'Squawk Box.''It's almost like a light switch went on in boardrooms across the country in the last two or three months. Businesses are confident, they're out hiring and factories are hiring. It's just proof positive that the job market is back.'

That is good news. War creates jobs. But jobs are jobs. That is good news. Thanks - I can use all the good news you've got.

The jobs creation is only half the story. It is how they get the numbers that is important. These figures are based on payrolls from companies. After the shedding of the fat by corporate America (2.3 million lost jobs), they started coming back. Not by hiring people back, but by contracting out the jobs. Small business are booming and these job gains are not counted because it is contractual and not payroll. That is why you see 139 million Americans employed today (the most ever in history) as compared to the 137.5 when Bush took office. There has been a jpb growth, not decline in the Bush years. The media does not want you to know this.

"The media does not want you to know this."
Oh, right, the evil satanist media owned by the rich and wealthy wants us to vote democrat?
Why would media tycoons want us to vote for the guys who tax the rich?

I guess you are saying that the news media is conservative. They have a funny way of showing it. I never called them evil, satanistic. Those are your words. I guess we can both have our different opinions. It's just that the vast majority agree with me.

" I never called them evil, satanistic."
Its an exageration. You're obviously implying that media tycoons would somehow be dishonestly biased towards being leftist which is completely absurd.
They would have to be completely stupid to do that.

" It's just that the vast majority agree with me."
Mr Bush agrees with you, not the vast majority.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp#Are. Please read the above link. It shows that vast majority of Americans think there is media bias. I'll admit talk radio is conservative leaning. When all of the polls show that the majority says there is a leftist bias, how can you say there is not? Look at the affiliations of the journalist themselves. Vast majority are liberals. Are you implying they are the only group in the world that can say something and it is gospel with no personal bias introduced. Give me a break.

Of course there's going to be bias. But for god's sake, why would media tycoons shoot themselves in the foot by being biased towards the party of taxing the rich?

Let's remember what concerns these tycoons.....circulation. They know that liberals will not read conservative papers and that liberal and conservatives will read liberal papers. Bottom line to them is more money. This is padding the wallet, not shooting themselves in the foot.

According to the stats you sent me, more Americans think themselves as conservatives rather then liberals or moderates. How strange that the media would thus bias itself towards liberalism, don't you think?

Rather, I think, Americans believe there is liberal bias in the media because they think of themselves as conservatives (and obviously if a network attempts to be unbiased it will appear liberal to a conservative and vice versa).