Reason I brought it up is IP has done this to me something like 8m times in the last week - I have never seen IP criticize someone for pointing out a left wing site when linked, but he does deny MSM is biased (again ).
That is factually untrue.
A) I'm going to need some evidence for the 8million number. Not calling you a lyre, but just saying, I think its off.
B) If someone posts a left-wing site for something I actually want to use, I will typically go find the MSM equivalent (because someone will say, "Well that's not exactly a quality source"). If the best I can do is Huff Post, usually I'll say something like 'The best we've got is Huff Post for right now, so take it for what its worth. I have a hard time thinking we have the whole story though if none of the major players pick it up.'
Here's the Heritage analysis for people who don't want to click a link, because they might feel dirty:
1. Unemployment rate fell to 7.7% in Nov
2. This is due to 146k new jobs and 350k leaving the workforce
3. 146k jobs is good (but tempered by revisions to previous reports of -45k)
4. Population growth means you need 125k new jobs per month to tread water
5. Extrapolating this out - growth is so slow it will take 5 years to get back to full employment
Conclusion: while the economy is in recovery, the recovery is a very anemic one.
I think nobody is contesting that the recovery is slower than everyone would want. 'Very anemic' strikes me as a bit hyperbolic though.
Also, I read the 'full employment' claim, and I am wondering what the basis for that was. If you follow the link
, it brings you to a Jobs Calculator little web app from the Fed Reserve Bank of Atlanta without giving you the numbers the conservative think-tank Heritage Foundation actually used.
So we don't know what the 'desired employment' was, we don't know what they used as their 'changeable assumptions'.
But, they credit it to the Federal Reserve Bank Of Atlanta, like they were the ones who actually put in the numbers and made the 'findings'.