RUSH: I have here, ladies and gentlemen, an AP dispatch written by the incompetent and hapless Mary Clare Jalonick. She's hapless; she works for the AP. Here's the opening sentence: "House Republicans have temporarily blocked legislation to feed school meals to thousands more hungry children."
Guess what's back? Republicans want to starve the kids. I mean, they haven't even taken over the House yet, the Democrats still run the show there. Republicans are still in a huge minority right now in the House of Representatives, and yet here we go, it's right out of the playbook. Republicans starve kids. "House Republicans have temporarily blocked legislation to feed school meals to thousands more hungry children." My heart bleeds. "Republicans used a procedural maneuver Wednesday to try to amend the $4.5 billion bill, which would give more needy children the opportunity to eat free lunches at school and make those lunches healthier. First lady Michelle Obama has lobbied for the bill as part of her 'Let's Move' campaign to combat childhood obesity."
The truth is it's Michelle's bill that's gone down the tubes. "House Democrats said the GOP amendment, which would have required background checks for child care workers, was an effort to kill the bill and delayed a final vote on the legislation rather than vote on the amendment." So the Republicans want background checks for child care workers, and that's an effort to kill the bill. What? Are these workers illegal immigrants and the Democrats don't want that learned? What is this? So from all of this we get Republicans want to starve the kids again? Ha! Gee whiz. These people ought not have 20 percent support in public opinion. They're just predictable. They're idiots. They're hapless. You combine this hapless AP story with the one two days ago on unemployment -- and, by the way, that mantra, we've got five or six sound bites today, more Democrats saying unemployment benefits do more to grow the economy than tax cuts do.
RUSH: The Associated Press is officially a joke. We just need to proclaim it now. Look at this. Here's the latest. We'll get to the Fed in the next half hour. Just sit tight, 'cause that's gonna be long and detailed. I'm gonna explain it. You know, one of the things we do here on this program is make the complex understandable, and this is a challenge, this Fed thing, all this money that was essentially printed. It's money that we don't have, yet we do have. We bailed out foreign banks. We bailed out domestic banks. We propped up General Electric. Now that, to me, is key in this. We propped up Harley-Davidson. We propped up a number of domestic American businesses. This is the $2 trillion during the same time TARP was happening and nobody knew where it went. They didn't tell us. It turns out it was $3.3 trillion. We'll get to all of that in the next half hour.
Here from Jeannine Aversa, AP economics writer: "More Americans applied for unemployment benefits last week, but the broader trend in layoffs points to a slowly healing job market. The average over the past month fell to a two-year low. New claims for unemployment aid rose last week" which is great news for the economy, isn't it? The more unemployed seeking benefits, the more unemployed getting checks, that's great for the economy! We ought to be booming by now, according to this same AP. "New claims for unemployment aid rose last week by a seasonally adjusted 26,000 to 436,000, the Labor Department said Thursday. The previous week's claims were revised up slightly to show applications had tumbled by 31,000 to 410,000."
Now, what is this? The AP is finally admitting that last week's new claims number was revised up, just like they've been revised up practically every week during the Obama regime? But lest we forget -- I know it's a lot of numbers to try to keep track of here, but lest we forget -- last week's decline of 31,000 jobs was universally described by the news media as a sharp decrease, a plummet. But an increase of 26,000 is just a blip. Oh, yeah! It's just a blip. It was a decline of 31,000, which was revised and changed. That was great. That was, "Oh, my God, look! We're really coming out of it now! There were 31,000 fewer jobless applications!" Now an increase of 26,000? "Ah, no big deal."
"The figures are often volatile during the weeks around the Veteran's Day and Thanksgiving holidays," because after all, the annual holidays take the Labor Department by surprise. They never see these holidays coming. They're never able to factor in these holidays with these unemployment numbers. Damn it, every year they work and they slave away and they calculate the unemployment numbers, then Thanksgiving shows up and, "Damn it, nobody told us Thanksgiving was coming this year!" They're gonna say the same thing about Christmas and New Year's. "Damn it, nobody told us Christmas was coming!"
So essentially there is no good news here. "Jobless Claims Rise, but Trend Shows Improvement." After all, these holidays just continue to befuddle Labor Department. "Even so," says AP, "the longer-term trend has shown a downward drift. The four-week moving average of claims, which smooths [sic] volatility, fell to 431,000 last week. That's a two-year low," and that number is gonna be revised up by next week. All of these declines end up being revised upwards. It's just they don't get reported. Not much attention is focused on them. You know, unemployment numbers are a lot like losing your hair: Eventually you're gonna run outta hair to lose. Same thing goes for jobs.
"Recent signs suggest the economy is on track to end the year on a stronger note," we hope, we hope, at AP. "The latest evidence came Thursday when retailers reported strong sales in November. That's boosting hopes that shoppers will spend more during the holiday season." Yet tomorrow... Here we have the AP hoping shoppers will spend more. Tomorrow we'll get a story on how shoppers are "waiting for deals," as though that somehow is unique turnover year. I tell you, it's in their computer just like these unemployment stories -- "unexpected," "more than expected," "surprisingly," whatever -- are in their computers. So is this. "Wow! It's Thursday. Customers are gonna be spending more money. Shoppers gonna be spending more money!"
Then tomorrow we'll get a story of hand-wringing. "Oh, no. Surveys indicate that shoppers are holding off, waiting for the best deal," as though that never happens. Remember how evil spending was during the Bush administration, especially holiday spending? When people were spending during the Bush administration, it was selfishness. It was greed. It was people who didn't care about the poor, the hungry, the thirsty and the starving. But now, during the Obama regime, happy shoppers spending during the Christmas season, it's great news! Why, it's a sign of a rebounding economy. Anyway, this story goes on and on and on and on and on, convoluted as it can be, taking bad news and trying to turn it into positive news simply to show something decent and positive to the Democrats and the Obama regime.