FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Obama's Unemployment Numbers Keep Going Up





jmi256
The latest unemployment numbers came out today. For yet another month, the US continues to lose jobs as Obama spends more and more of taxpayer money on pet projects and racks up more and more debt that we will need to pay eventually in the form of even higher taxes and fees. And it looks like the numbers will only get worse.

As the chart below shows, unemployment numbers have been increasing since Obama was elected. Businesses know that he and his fellow Democrats are anti-business and pro-high-taxes, and businesses have been unwilling to hire people because they know they won’t be able to sustain a healthy workforce as they are subjected to higher taxes and increased employee costs. The government-run healthcare scheme that Obama and the Democrats are trying to force on us will only exacerbate the problem. Economists and Republicans have been trying to get Obama to institute some commonsense policies, but he has been unwilling to listen to them. If he would cut taxes, businesses and individuals would have more money to spend. This would not add to the government bureaucracy, but it would lead to even more economic activity, which would lead to new hires. It’s really not that hard to figure out, but one result of this would be that in the short-term he wouldn’t be able to pursue all of his pet projects (at least not without digging us deeper in debt, which he seems more than willing to do). Hopefully Obama will heed what the American public has told him via the November 09 elections. We have clearly sent a signal that we are fed up with his current course of action and want to return to a more clearheaded approach.




Quote:

Jobless rate tops 10 pct. for first time since '83
Unemployment rate tops 10 percent for first time since 1983; 190,000 jobs lost in October



WASHINGTON (AP) -- The unemployment rate has hit double digits for the first time since 1983 -- and is likely to go higher.

The 10.2 percent jobless rate for October shows how weak the economy remains even though it is growing. Rising unemployment also could threaten the recovery if it saps consumers' confidence and makes them more cautious about spending as the holiday season approaches.

Nearly 16 million people can't find jobs even though the worst recession since the Great Depression has apparently ended.

The unemployed rate jumped to 10.2 percent, the highest since April 1983, from 9.8 percent in September, the Labor Department said Friday. The economy shed a net total of 190,000 jobs, more than economists had expected.

The number of unemployed hit 15.7 million, up from 15.1 million. The job losses occurred across most industries, from manufacturing and construction to retail and financial. The job-loss total is based on a survey of businesses, separate from a survey of households that produces the unemployment rate.

Economists say the unemployment rate could reach 10.5 percent next year because employers remain reluctant to hire.

President Barack Obama called the new jobs report another illustration of why much more work is needed to spur business creation and consumer spending. Noting legislation he's signing to provide additional unemployment benefits for laid-off workers, Obama said, "I will not rest until all Americans who want work can find work."

Still, counting those who have settled for part-time jobs or stopped looking for work, the unemployment rate would be 17.5 percent, the highest on records dating from 1994.

"It's not a good report," said Dan Greenhaus, chief economic strategist for New York-based investment firm Miller Tabak & Co. "What we're seeing is a validation of the idea that a jobless recovery is perfectly on track."

Friday's report is the first since the government said last week that the economy grew at a 3.5 percent annual rate in the July-September quarter, the strongest signal yet that the economy is rebounding. But that isn't fast enough to spur rapid hiring.

"You need explosive growth to take the unemployment rate down," Greenhaus said in an interview Thursday.

The economy soared by nearly 8 percent in 1983 after a steep recession, Greenhaus said, lowering the jobless rate by 2.5 percentage points that year. But the economy is unlikely to improve that fast this time, as consumers remain cautious and tight credit hinders businesses. In fact, many analysts expect economic growth to moderate early next year, as the impact of various government stimulus programs aimed at home and car buying fade.

The stock market seesawed in midday trading. The Dow Jones industrial average added about 3 points, while broader indexes were mixed.

High unemployment is likely to become a political liability for Obama and Democrats in Congress. Most economists expect the jobless rate will remain above 9 percent through next November, when congressional elections are held. When unemployment topped 10 percent in the fall of 1982, President Ronald Reagan's Republican Party lost 26 seats in the House.

Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill traded blame over the unemployment figures.

Rep. Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, said the economy would have been much worse had congressional Democrats not approved Obama's $787 billion stimulus package in February.

Republicans countered that Obama's focus on increased spending was making things worse.

"More debt, more spending ... clearly has not worked -- particularly in a time of double-digit unemployment," said Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.


One sign of how hard it still is to find a job: The number of Americans who have been out of work for six months or longer rose to 5.6 million, a record. They account for 35.6 percent of the unemployed population, matching a record set last month.

Congress sought to address the impact of long-term unemployment this week by approving legislation extending jobless benefits for the fourth time since the recession began. The bill would add 14 to 20 extra weeks of aid and is intended to prevent almost 2 million recipients from running out of unemployment insurance during the upcoming holiday season.

October was the 22nd straight month the U.S. economy has shed jobs, the longest on records dating back 70 years. The report showed job losses remain widespread across many industries. Manufacturers eliminated a net total of 61,000 jobs, the most in four months. Construction shed 62,000 jobs, down slightly from the previous month.

Retailers, the financial sector and leisure and hospitality companies all continued to reduce payrolls. The economy has lost a net total of 7.3 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007.

The average work week was unchanged at 33 hours, a disappointment because employers are expected to add more hours for current workers before they begin hiring new ones.

There were some bright spots in the report. Education and health care added 45,000 jobs. That's a good sign for Dahaina Collazo, a 34-year-old mother of three who enrolled in a medical assistantship program last summer. She lost her job in March at a Milwaukee printing shop after six years.

Now, Collazo is collecting unemployment and hoping a job in health care will be available by the time she's out of school in a year.

"I think that's the main thing now," Collazo said of health care. "I think that's the open window."

Professional and business services companies also added 18,000 jobs, according to the government report. And temporary employment grew by 33,700 jobs, after losing positions for months. That's a positive sign because employers are likely to add temporary workers before hiring permanent ones.

"That is always in our business a precursor to more permanent jobs becoming available," said Tony McKinnon, president of Management Recruiters International, an executive recruiting firm.

Still, economists expect jobs likely will remain scarce even as the economy improves. Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial, said that small businesses, a primary engine of job creation, still face tight credit and don't have the cash reserves to support extra workers.

And many companies are squeezing more production from their existing work forces. Productivity, the amount of output per hour worked, jumped 9.5 percent in the third quarter, the Labor Department said Thursday.

That's the sharpest increase in six years and followed a 6.9 percent rise in the second quarter. The increases enable companies to produce more without hiring extra people.

While the unemployment rate hasn't yet topped the post-World War II high of 10.8 percent set in December 1982, many experts say this recession is worse.

The work force, on average, is older now as the baby boomers have aged and fewer teenagers are out looking for work. Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution, notes that older workers are more likely to be employed than younger ones. As a result, it takes a tougher job market to push the rate to 10 percent.

"This may be the toughest employment situation we've seen in the postwar era," Mark Gertler, an economics professor at New York University, said in an interview earlier this week.

Source = http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Jobless-rate-tops-10-pct-for-apf-563122944.html?x=0&.v=8
liljp617
Unemployment always lags behind the real time economy.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
Unemployment always lags behind the real time economy.
Good point. Although we are having an extreme situation here with what had happened at the end of last year and during this year of very large companies having gone bust and millions of people being layed off. The bail-out package was supposed to remedy it "immediately", yet none of that is in evidence. Obviously companies aren't hiring and perhaps there should have been some stipulation written into the bail-out packages that "X" number of people need to be re-hired when loans are given to either the Big Banks for bailing them out, or from the Big Banks to businesses as loans to bail them out of bad times. I sometimes wonder whether a large number of businesses and organizations used this opportunity (i.e. bad times) to get rid of staff anyway to show larger profits.
shkhanal
Does it mean that US has reached to the highest peak and now it is its turn to come down?
ocalhoun
shkhanal wrote:
Does it mean that US has reached to the highest peak and now it is its turn to come down?

No, during the great depression, unemployment was much higher... 30%, I think, rather than today's 10%.

There's plenty of room left to fall; what will happen when the US can no longer get people to buy it's debt?
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
There's plenty of room left to fall; what will happen when the US can no longer get people to buy it's debt?
Is it possible though? I've asked this question before somewhere and never received an answer. At what point would the US become bankrupt, if ever?
lagoon
America has left recession, yet remains in high unemployment. Why is this? Because you're not actually out of recession! The numbers have been fiddled by cash-for-clunkers!
Voodoocat
I agree with Lagoon- I don't think that the recession is actuall over; instead, I believe that the increase in GDP was due to the vast influx of borrowed money that the Government poured into the economy. While this might lead to short term increase in the GDP, it cannot be sustained. Additionally, we have not even began to pay off the interest on the borrowed money!

According the the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the increase in the GDP was due to:

1. Increased consumer spending, especially on cars and trucks. Of course, this increase was not only temporary, but cost the taxpayers two billion dollars.

2. Housing has finally increased. Why? Tax breaks! This shows that the Republican idea that tax breaks have a positive effect on the economy is correct.

3. Increased business inventories and GOVERNMENT SPENDING! Why the caps? Governments do not create wealth, they either confiscate it through taxation, or they borrow it. The third leg of GDP growth was based on borrowed money. The downside, we have to pay the money back plus interest.

Source: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2009/pdf/gdp3q09_adv_fax.pdf
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
There's plenty of room left to fall; what will happen when the US can no longer get people to buy it's debt?
Is it possible though? I've asked this question before somewhere and never received an answer. At what point would the US become bankrupt, if ever?

1: China and Japan stop buying US debt, because they begin to doubt that it will ever be repaid.
2: Interest rates rise sharply.
3: Taxes rise sharply, to pay for government programs that can no longer be financed by debt.
4: Corporations move away from the country, to escape the high taxes and interest rates; jobs are therefore lost.
5: Loosing those corporations and jobs causes the government's financial situation to worsen, so they have to raise taxes again: repeat back from step #3 until complete economic collapse happens.
airh3ad
Well its good to know Economies never completely break down, even in war time people work and buy and sell, for example in Iraq now. The worst it has gotten in the US was 1933 when there was 25% unemployment, but 75% of the people still had jobs, and almost everybody had someone, extended family or friends, that would help them if they were part of the 25%. No one expects things to get that bad now. The estimates is that the unemployment rate will get no higher than 8%. but there is about 4 or 5 percent in a good economy because people are always changing jobs. However people worry about losing their jobs because new ones are hard to get, and young people entering the work force have problems finding work.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
There's plenty of room left to fall; what will happen when the US can no longer get people to buy it's debt?
Is it possible though? I've asked this question before somewhere and never received an answer. At what point would the US become bankrupt, if ever?

1: China and Japan stop buying US debt, because they begin to doubt that it will ever be repaid.
2: Interest rates rise sharply.
3: Taxes rise sharply, to pay for government programs that can no longer be financed by debt.
4: Corporations move away from the country, to escape the high taxes and interest rates; jobs are therefore lost.
5: Loosing those corporations and jobs causes the government's financial situation to worsen, so they have to raise taxes again: repeat back from step #3 until complete economic collapse happens.
I have not seen "1" (may have missed out on articles about this), but all your other points from 2-5 are really very valid. They are presently happening on a national level as well in California for example, corporations are registering themselves in other States outside California to escape high taxes. Next thing probably as you have pointed out, would be registering corporations overseas, such as Dubai for example. Losing those corporations in California has California bankrupt right now, but still it seems to be rolling forwards, regardless. How can California continue to do business when it is obviously completely bankrupt, is it being bailed out by the Federal Government?
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
I have not seen "1" (may have missed out on articles about this)

That's because it hasn't happened yet. When and if it does, be sure to quickly cash in any asset with a $ sign in front of it in favor of something with practical value, because it'll only be downhill from there.
liljp617
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I have not seen "1" (may have missed out on articles about this)

That's because it hasn't happened yet. When and if it does, be sure to quickly cash in any asset with a $ sign in front of it in favor of something with practical value, because it'll only be downhill from there.


I could be wrong as I haven't looked to much into it, but I think China recently slowed or cut back on some of their purchasing of US debts. Japan increased their purchasing.

deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
There's plenty of room left to fall; what will happen when the US can no longer get people to buy it's debt?
Is it possible though? I've asked this question before somewhere and never received an answer. At what point would the US become bankrupt, if ever?

1: China and Japan stop buying US debt, because they begin to doubt that it will ever be repaid.
2: Interest rates rise sharply.
3: Taxes rise sharply, to pay for government programs that can no longer be financed by debt.
4: Corporations move away from the country, to escape the high taxes and interest rates; jobs are therefore lost.
5: Loosing those corporations and jobs causes the government's financial situation to worsen, so they have to raise taxes again: repeat back from step #3 until complete economic collapse happens.
I have not seen "1" (may have missed out on articles about this), but all your other points from 2-5 are really very valid. They are presently happening on a national level as well in California for example, corporations are registering themselves in other States outside California to escape high taxes. Next thing probably as you have pointed out, would be registering corporations overseas, such as Dubai for example. Losing those corporations in California has California bankrupt right now, but still it seems to be rolling forwards, regardless. How can California continue to do business when it is obviously completely bankrupt, is it being bailed out by the Federal Government?


Corporate taxes should be gotten rid of. They're such a minuscule part of government income relatively speaking and they make zero sense.
ocalhoun
liljp617 wrote:

Corporate taxes should be gotten rid of. They're such a minuscule part of government income relatively speaking and they make zero sense.

Well, they are relatively small, but still make up a significant portion:


As for my own view on the subject, well, there's already a whole forum thread on that.
handfleisch
One last stab:

Do you understand how the title of this thread self-discrediting? The financial crisis, Wall Street meltdown, bank collapses and international economic downturn had many causes going back decades, through both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Bonus question: Under what president did the USA go from the biggest creditor nation in the world to the biggest debtor nation? Hint: Republican hero.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

Do you understand how the title of this thread self-discrediting? The financial crisis, Wall Street meltdown, bank collapses and international economic downturn had many causes going back decades, through both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Shocked
handfleisch admitted that both parties caused the crisis!?! Not just the evil republicans?
I'm shocked and impressed, and my opinion of you just raised considerably.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
One last stab:

Do you understand how the title of this thread self-discrediting? The financial crisis, Wall Street meltdown, bank collapses and international economic downturn had many causes going back decades, through both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Bonus question: Under what president did the USA go from the biggest creditor nation in the world to the biggest debtor nation? Hint: Republican hero.
Add another question. Under which President did the USA legislate the largest bail-out package every imaginable, taking the USA from billions to trillions in debt?

And if that is not enough, it is also going to add another trillion plus for a healthcare package, being marketed almost immediately after the approval of 1.2-trillion bail-out money? Handfleisch, we're going for a record breaker here! And this President has been barely in his seat for 11 months. Shocked

Who are really to blame however? Irresponsible Government or Presidents, or people who support and approve Government to the equivalent of a virtual BLANK cheque?
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
One last stab:

Do you understand how the title of this thread self-discrediting? The financial crisis, Wall Street meltdown, bank collapses and international economic downturn had many causes going back decades, through both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Bonus question: Under what president did the USA go from the biggest creditor nation in the world to the biggest debtor nation? Hint: Republican hero.
Add another question. Under which President did the USA legislate the largest bail-out package every imaginable, taking the USA from billions to trillions in debt?


Since your facts are usually wrong, this question is invalid.

Probably you are referring to the series of bailouts by both the Republican and Democratic administrations recently. Or maybe the first Pres.Bush's bail out of the S&Ls, which is still being paid for by the US taxpayers? Or maybe the combined totals in current dollars of the spending under Roosevelt that kept the US from total collapse during the 1930's depression era?

Whatever. Reagan's policies saw the US go from the #1 world creditor to the #1 world debtor.

deanhills wrote:

And if that is not enough, it is also going to add another trillion plus for a healthcare package, being marketed almost immediately after the approval of 1.2-trillion bail-out money? Handfleisch, we're going for a record breaker here! And this President has been barely in his seat for 11 months.

Wrong again. The non-partisan government budgeting office says Obama's healthcare package will cut the deficit.

deanhills wrote:


Who are really to blame however? Irresponsible Government or Presidents, or people who support and approve Government to the equivalent of a virtual BLANK cheque?

The people only get the candidates that the system offers up. Big private money of the megarich and corporations tend to control the system, and also defeats reforms that would hurt their dominance (like taking all matters of wealth out of the process for becoming president). It takes something like the utter disaster of the recent Bush presidency to have the system cough up a few decent choices this time, and the US lucked out with Obama (whose campaign was funded a lot by small individual donations by regular citizens BTW). Still, though it's unfair to totally blame the voters when the system is rigged by and in favor the wealthy, Obama's election and the progress of health care reform (opposed by the corporations) shows there is still a functioning democracy.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
One last stab:

Do you understand how the title of this thread self-discrediting? The financial crisis, Wall Street meltdown, bank collapses and international economic downturn had many causes going back decades, through both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Bonus question: Under what president did the USA go from the biggest creditor nation in the world to the biggest debtor nation? Hint: Republican hero.
Add another question. Under which President did the USA legislate the largest bail-out package every imaginable, taking the USA from billions to trillions in debt?


Since your facts are usually wrong, this question is invalid.
No, it is very valid. And very real:
Quote:
Projected Deficit
In the first independent analysis, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that President Obama's budget would rack up massive deficits even after the economy recovers, forcing the nation to borrow nearly $9.3 trillion over the next decade.


Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/03/21/GR2009032100104.html
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:

And if that is not enough, it is also going to add another trillion plus for a healthcare package, being marketed almost immediately after the approval of 1.2-trillion bail-out money? Handfleisch, we're going for a record breaker here! And this President has been barely in his seat for 11 months.

Wrong again. The non-partisan government budgeting office says Obama's healthcare package will cut the deficit.
This is hardly any factual evidence. It is only an estimate:
Quote:
But in a letter to Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), Elmendof cautioned, "those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty."

Source:http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/10/07/cbo-health-care-reform-will-cut-deficit/
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
This is hardly any factual evidence. It is only an estimate:
Quote:
But in a letter to Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), Elmendof cautioned, "those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty."

Source:http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/10/07/cbo-health-care-reform-will-cut-deficit/


Uh, yes it is factual evidence. It's the analysis from the institution with the experience, the info, and the responsibility to do the job of accurately and honestly ascertaining the situation. Of course it is a projection but it is the best we have (maybe the deficit will be slashed even more).

We have fought hard to keep the CBO non-politicized over the years for exactly this reason. Citing individual biased congressmen that receive money from the megacorporations that don't want this reform is therefore absurd.

It's also unbelievable that there wasn't much uproar when billions of dollars were literally wasted and stolen for the mass deaths program of the Iraq invasion, but now the shrieking is deafening over committing necessary funds to get health insurance for US citizens that are dying daily for lack of coverage. It's positively insane.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
It's also unbelievable that there wasn't much uproar when billions of dollars were literally wasted and stolen for the mass deaths program of the Iraq invasion, but now the shrieking is deafening over committing necessary funds to get health insurance for US citizens that are dying daily for lack of coverage. It's positively insane.
You can argue in any direction you wish, bottomline the US has an enormous debt load and it seems to be ballooning in huge leaps, rather than in baby steps. Worst part is that people seem to have come to accept it as part of daily life as well as believe that debt is necessary to make money. The more debt, the wealthier you can be. The economy is a debt economy.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

The people only get the candidates that the system offers up. Big private money of the megarich and corporations tend to control the system, and also defeats reforms that would hurt their dominance (like taking all matters of wealth out of the process for becoming president). It takes something like the utter disaster of the recent Bush presidency to have the system cough up a few decent choices this time, and the US lucked out with Obama (whose campaign was funded a lot by small individual donations by regular citizens BTW). Still, though it's unfair to totally blame the voters when the system is rigged by and in favor the wealthy, Obama's election and the progress of health care reform (opposed by the corporations) shows there is still a functioning democracy.


What makes you think Obama is an exception to this rigged system?
jmi256
Back on topic…

The real rate of unemployment under Obama is much higher than the reported 10.2% since many people have either stopped looking for jobs or are underemployed, meaning they have accepted lower-paying jobs. Obama threatened the US with unemployment numbers as high as 10% if his “stimulus” bill wasn’t railroaded with no debate or analysis, and now we’re seeing numbers that are higher than what he threatened would happen if we didn’t do as he said. He claimed that the money would be used to jumpstart the economy and add jobs, despite objections by the American people that government is unable to create real wealth and value, only use and redistribute it. And now we’re seeing that our money hasn’t gone to projects to create jobs, but rather to pet projects and projects to reward his contributors.

Quote:

The 'Real' Jobless Rate: 17.5% Of Workers Are Unemployed

As experts debate the potential speed of the US recovery, one figure looms large but is often overlooked: nearly 1 in 5 Americans is either out of work or under-employed.

According to the government's broadest measure of unemployment, some 17.5 percent are either without a job entirely or underemployed. The so-called U-6 number is at the highest rate since becoming an official labor statistic in 1994.

The number dwarfs the statistic most people pay attention to—the U-3 rate—which most recently showed unemployment at 10.2 percent for October, the highest it has been since June 1983.

The difference is that what is traditionally referred to as the "unemployment rate" only measures those out of work who are still looking for jobs. Discouraged workers who have quit trying to find a job, as well as those working part-time but looking for full-time work or who are otherwise underemployed, count in the U-6 rate.

Source = http://www.cnbc.com/id/34040009




And you can read where our money went. Yeah, they’re real job creators (note the sarcasm). I hope those dead people enjoy the $2.5 million of our money.

Quote:

After a flurry of stimulus spending, questionable projects pile up

The $787 billion stimulus bill was passed in February and was promised as a job saver and economy booster. Here is where some of the money went:

- $300,000 for a GPS-equipped helicopter to hunt for radioactive rabbit droppings at the Hanford nuclear reservation in Washington state.

- $30 million for a spring training baseball complex for the Arizona Diamondbacks and Colorado Rockies.

- $11 million for Microsoft to build a bridge connecting its two headquarter campuses in Redmond, Wash., which are separated by a highway.

- $430,000 to repair a bridge in Iowa County, Wis., that carries 10 or fewer cars per day.

- $800,000 for the John Murtha Airport in Johnstown, Pa., serving about 20 passengers per day, to build a backup runway.

- $219,000 for Syracuse University to study the sex lives of freshmen women.

- $2.3 million for the U.S. Forest Service to rear large numbers of arthropods, including the Asian longhorned beetle, the nun moth and the woolly adelgid.

- $3.4 million for a 13-foot tunnel for turtles and other wildlife attempting to cross U.S. 27 in Lake Jackson, Fla.

- $1.15 million to install a guardrail for a persistently dry lake bed in Guymon, Okla.

- $9.38 million to renovate a century-old train depot in Lancaster County, Pa., that has not been used for three decades.

- $2.5 million in stimulus checks sent to the deceased.

- $6 million for a snow-making facility in Duluth, Minn.

- $173,834 to weatherize eight pickup trucks in Madison County, Ill.

- $20,000 for a fish sperm freezer at the Gavins Point National Fish Hatchery in South Dakota.

- $380,000 to spay and neuter pets in Wichita, Kan.

- $300 apiece for thousands of signs at road construction sites across the country announcing that the projects are funded by stimulus money.

- $1.5 million for a fence to block would-be jumpers from leaping off the All-American Bridge in Akron, Ohio.

- $1 million to study the health effects of environmentally friendly public housing on 300 people in Chicago.

- $356,000 for Indiana University to study childhood comprehension of foreign accents compared with native speech.

- $983,952 for street beautification in Ann Arbor, Mich., including decorative lighting, trees, benches and bike paths.

- $148,438 for Washington State University to analyze the use of marijuana in conjunction with medications like morphine.

- $462,000 to purchase 22 concrete toilets for use in the Mark Twain National Forest in Missouri

- $3.1 million to transform a canal barge into a floating museum that will travel the Erie Canal in New York state.

- $1.3 million on government arts jobs in Maine, including $30,000 for basket makers, $20,000 for storytelling and $12,500 for a music festival.

- $71,000 for a hybrid car to be used by student drivers in Colchester, Vt., as well as a plug-in hybrid for town workers decked out with a sign touting the vehicle's energy efficiency.

- $1 million for Portland, Ore., to replace 100 aging bike lockers and build a garage that would house 250 bicycles.

Source = http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/After-a-flurry-of-stimulus-spending_-questionable-projects-pile-up-8474249-68709732.html




And on top of that Obama has tried to con the US by posting faked jobs attributed to his “stimulus.”

Quote:

Stimulus jobs overstated by thousands
WASHINGTON (AP) - An early progress report on President Barack Obama's economic recovery plan overstates by thousands the number of jobs created or saved through the stimulus program, a mistake that White House officials promise will be corrected in future reports.
The government's first accounting of jobs tied to the $787 billion stimulus program claimed more than 30,000 positions paid for with recovery money. But that figure is overstated by least 5,000 jobs, according to an Associated Press review of a sample of stimulus contracts.
The AP review found some counts were more than 10 times as high as the actual number of jobs; some jobs credited to the stimulus program were counted two and sometimes more than four times; and other jobs were credited to stimulus spending when none was produced.

Source = http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091029/D9BKMVMG0.html


Quote:

Stimulus job boost in state exaggerated, review finds
While Massachusetts recipients of federal stimulus money collectively report 12,374 jobs saved or created, a Globe review shows that number is wildly exaggerated. Organizations that received stimulus money miscounted jobs, filed erroneous figures, or claimed jobs for work that has not yet started.

Source = http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/11/11/stimulus_fund_job_benefits_exaggerated_review_finds/



Good to know that he’s ballooning the size of government, though. We all know there’s nothing more effective than the government, right?

Quote:

Stimulus funds boost number of federal jobs
WASHINGTON — The $787 billion economic recovery package also is stimulating growth in the federal government as agencies hire thousands of workers and spend millions of dollars to oversee and implement the package, according to government records and spokesmen.
Fourteen of the top federal agencies responsible for spending under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act say they've hired about 3,000 workers with stimulus money. That's helped fuel the continued growth of the federal government, which increased by more than 25,000 employees, or 1.3%, since December 2008, according to the latest quarterly report. During that time, the ranks of the nation's unemployed increased by nearly 4 million, Labor Department statistics show.

Source = http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-09-23-stimfed_N.htm



In case you forgot the chasm from what Obama threatened to what we are seeing:



Good find DH.
jmi256
The economy shed another 11,000 jobs under Obama in November to a rate of 10%. So where are all those promised jobs from the 'stimulus' package Obama and the Democrats forced through?
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

The average unemployment rate under Bush was just over 5%, and in his last month in office the rate was 7.6%. So the unemployment rate has increased almost 32% under Obama (over 34% if you use last month's report). Nice job liberals. I can't wait to see how royally you screw up our healthcare system if you get your way.
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet;jsessionid=a2301b1c6e65650c6963
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
The economy shed another 11,000 jobs under Obama in November to a rate of 10%. So where are all those promised jobs from the 'stimulus' package Obama and the Democrats forced through?
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

The average unemployment rate under Bush was just over 5%, and in his last month in office the rate was 7.6%. So the unemployment rate has increased almost 32% under Obama (over 34% if you use last month's report). Nice job liberals. I can't wait to see how royally you screw up our healthcare system if you get your way.
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet;jsessionid=a2301b1c6e65650c6963

Hmmmm. Seems someone already answered this
liljp617 wrote:
Unemployment always lags behind the real time economy.

Wingnuts. Now 100% fact resistant.

Oh, one more thing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/05/business/economy/05jobs.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1259960475-vAL7IHPy5MOjHYT7pi/Uiw
Quote:
December 5, 2009
Jobs Report Is Strongest Since the Start of the Recession
By LOUIS UCHITELLE and JAVIER C. HERNANDEZ

In the strongest jobs report since the recession began two years ago, the nation’s employers all but stopped shedding jobs in November, the government reported on Friday, and they appeared to be on the verge of finally rebuilding the work force.

The sudden and unexpected improvement surprised even the most optimistic forecasters. Instead of yet another six-figure job loss, only 11,000 jobs disappeared last month and instead of another rise in the unemployment rate, it went down, to 10 percent from 10.2 percent in October.

“This is an emphatic demonstration that the economy is moving in the direction of a self-sustaining recovery,” said Robert Barbera, chief economist at ITT Investment Technology Group, who joined many other forecasters in predicting that the work force would be growing again by early spring.

The Obama administration was quick to take credit for the improvement, asserting that the $787 billion stimulus package had thus far either saved or created a total of 1.6 million jobs.

“I think you have to give our interventions a lot of credit,” said Jared Bernstein, chief economist for Vice President Biden, arguing in effect that without the stimulus employers would still be shedding workers at a six-digit pace.

In Allentown, Pa., President Obama called the latest report “another hopeful sign,” but expressed a note of caution, saying, “we have a lot more work to do before we can celebrate.”

Adding to the good news in Friday’s report, the Bureau of Labor Statistics revised the job loss in September and October, shrinking the number by 159,000. That revision overshadowed the small November loss and it made the work force larger by 148,000 jobs than anyone had realized until Friday’s announcement.

The recession, which started in December 2007 and is by far the longest and most severe since the 1930s, literally shrunk the American work force, driving more than 4 million people not only from their jobs but from even seeking work. As the recovery gathers steam, many of those men and women are likely to return to the labor force, sustaining the unemployment rate until they find work. Indeed, some economists argue that unemployment will come down only slowly, requiring five years or more to fall back to a more or less normal 5 percent.

“Assuming we have a strong recovery,” said Jan Hatzius, chief domestic economist at Goldman Sachs, “it will take five years to get down to 5 percent.”

Still, there was reason for optimism.

“It is clearly a much better picture, and appears to be mostly genuine,” said Nigel Gault, chief domestic economist at IHS Global Insight, who said he was encouraged by gains in the average workweek and the number of temporary workers hired. “It shows employers have come back so much and are starting to rehire.”

But Allen L. Sinai, the founder of the research firm Decision Economics, said there was also reason for caution, given that 15.4 million Americans still remain unemployed.

“It is like a patient after having collapsed with a heart attack sitting up and taking a breath — nothing more than that,” Mr. Sinai said. “Things are getting better, but a one-month respite, frankly, means nothing in the context of the worst labor market ever seen since the 1930s.”

Still, the November jobs report was more encouraging than most forecasters had expected. Apart from the unexpectedly small number of lost jobs, there was a surge in the hiring of temporary workers and the workweek lengthened, suggesting that thousands of workers on shortened schedules got some or all of their hours restored.


Sad news for that tiny but loud rightwing minority who want Obama to fail, good news for the American worker.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
The economy shed another 11,000 jobs under Obama in November to a rate of 10%. So where are all those promised jobs from the 'stimulus' package Obama and the Democrats forced through?
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

The average unemployment rate under Bush was just over 5%, and in his last month in office the rate was 7.6%. So the unemployment rate has increased almost 32% under Obama (over 34% if you use last month's report). Nice job liberals. I can't wait to see how royally you screw up our healthcare system if you get your way.
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet;jsessionid=a2301b1c6e65650c6963

Hmmmm. Seems someone already answered this
liljp617 wrote:
Unemployment always lags behind the real time economy.

Wingnuts. Now 100% fact resistant.


Sticks and stones, handfleisch. But unlike liberals, most people like facts based on truth, not opinion. But I guess you’re going to argue that the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is run by Obama by the way, isn’t fact? But for the sake of argument, let’s say your stance is even remotely debatable. I just ask you to back it up. Prove that “Unemployment always lags behind the real time economy” and show by how long. By most accounts the recession ended in May (even though Obama and the Democrats were screaming that the sky was falling in order to get their pork-filled ‘stimulus’ tax bill forced through). How much does unemployment lag in your alter-universe? May was half a year ago, so why have Obama’s unemployment numbers been increasing month over month?

handfleisch wrote:

Oh, one more thing:

Do you even bother reading the bunk you post? So 15.4 million Americans out of work is cause for celebration? Did you miss these tidbits from the article you posted?


Quote:

Instead of yet another six-figure job loss, only 11,000 jobs disappeared last month and instead of another rise in the unemployment rate, it went down, to 10 percent from 10.2 percent in October.

So Obama’s anti-business and taxpayer policies didn’t fail as badly as everyone expected them to fail, so that’s a win? Nice liberal logic there.
till remain unemployed.


Quote:

“It is like a patient after having collapsed with a heart attack sitting up and taking a breath — nothing more than that,” Mr. Sinai said. “Things are getting better, but a one-month respite, frankly, means nothing in the context of the worst labor market ever seen since the 1930s.”

Again, liberals find reason to break out the champagne while 15.4 million Americans are out of work.


handfleisch wrote:

Sad news for that tiny but loud rightwing minority who want Obama to fail, good news for the American worker.

It seems only liberals are cheering at more job losses. There are less and less American workers under Obama, which most people here in the US are smart enough to realize is not a good thing and are rightfully pissed off about.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:

It seems only liberals are cheering at more job losses. There are less and less American workers under Obama, which most people here in the US are smart enough to realize is not a good thing and are rightfully pissed off about.


LOL. You have been cheering job losses in this whole thread, just as you cheer any bad thing that happens to America if you can manage to blame it on Obama. Now that there is good news, all you can do is go into full denial. Typical.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:

It seems only liberals are cheering at more job losses. There are less and less American workers under Obama, which most people here in the US are smart enough to realize is not a good thing and are rightfully pissed off about.


LOL. You have been cheering job losses in this whole thread, just as you cheer any bad thing that happens to America if you can manage to blame it on Obama. Now that there is good news, all you can do is go into full denial. Typical.


I haven't been cheering anything. It's call accountability. If his policies are detrimental to us here in the US, he needs to be called out on it. Where are all those jobs that Obama's 'stimulus' tax bill was supposed to create? Looks like it went to pet projects, as predicted. And at the cost of almost $800 billion that we taxpayers and our children will have to pay in higher taxes. So 15.4 million Americans who want to work, but are unable to under Obama, is good news? Listen, if that's what qualifies as good news in your alternate-universe, so be it. I think most people like to live in reality, though.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:

It seems only liberals are cheering at more job losses. There are less and less American workers under Obama, which most people here in the US are smart enough to realize is not a good thing and are rightfully pissed off about.


LOL. You have been cheering job losses in this whole thread, just as you cheer any bad thing that happens to America if you can manage to blame it on Obama. Now that there is good news, all you can do is go into full denial. Typical.
I don't understand what one should celebrate here, Handfleisch. There was a 0.2% drop in unemployment from 10.2 to 10%. The following article puts it in a different perspective:
Quote:
The US Department of Labor released the national unemployment numbers today, showing a slight dip in the amount of jobs lost, from 10.2% to 10%. That translates to near 11,000 jobs lost, which was fewer than projected. President Obama appeared optimistic, saying, “Overall, this is the best jobs report we’ve seen since 2007.". Unfortunately, parts of Illinois fair worse than the national average. Rockford is among 15 cities nationwide with an unemployment rate over 15%, with 4,400 fewer jobs than last year. California has the hardest hit metropolitan areas, with nine major cities that have jobless rates above 15%.

The 10% figure though, is only a fraction of the actual amount of Americans unemployed. That number jumps to an astounding 17.2% when “marginally attached" workers, the underemployed and discouraged job-seekers are factored in. The Department of Labor defines “marginally attached” as “persons who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job” and have looked sometime recently. “Discouraged workers” are a subset of that group.

Source: http://chicagoist.com/2009/12/04/unemployment_numbers_it_could_be_wo.php
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:

It seems only liberals are cheering at more job losses. There are less and less American workers under Obama, which most people here in the US are smart enough to realize is not a good thing and are rightfully pissed off about.


LOL. You have been cheering job losses in this whole thread, just as you cheer any bad thing that happens to America if you can manage to blame it on Obama. Now that there is good news, all you can do is go into full denial. Typical.
I don't understand what one should celebrate here, Handfleisch.

Is English your second language? What part of this don't you understand:
Quote:
Jobs Report Is Strongest Since the Start of the Recession
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:

It seems only liberals are cheering at more job losses. There are less and less American workers under Obama, which most people here in the US are smart enough to realize is not a good thing and are rightfully pissed off about.


LOL. You have been cheering job losses in this whole thread, just as you cheer any bad thing that happens to America if you can manage to blame it on Obama. Now that there is good news, all you can do is go into full denial. Typical.
I don't understand what one should celebrate here, Handfleisch.

Is English your second language? What part of this don't you understand:
Quote:
Jobs Report Is Strongest Since the Start of the Recession

Did you read the article that I quoted? As far as I can see the statistics are all from the US Department of Labour although when one reads some of the media reports it gives the impression that there are different reports. It says that there is 0.2% less unemployment in November than the month before. The number is down from 10.2% to 10%. I don't see anything meaningful to be celebrated in this? Not to the extent some of the media and Obama are cheering about it. I took the trouble of showing you an article where there was a 15% unemployment in Chicago. Hopefully you were able to read that. The part that I wanted you to specifically take note of included this particular sentence:
Quote:
The 10% figure though, is only a fraction of the actual amount of Americans unemployed. That number jumps to an astounding 17.2% when “marginally attached" workers, the underemployed and discouraged job-seekers are factored in.


Have a cold and sober look at the unemployment percentages for the last two years, look at the percentages specifically for the last year, and then give me a very rational and intelligent reason why people should get excited about the .2% to the extent that they are?


Source: http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LNS14000000&data_tool=XGtable
liljp617
jmi256 wrote:
Sticks and stones, handfleisch. But unlike liberals, most people like facts based on truth, not opinion. But I guess you’re going to argue that the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is run by Obama by the way, isn’t fact? But for the sake of argument, let’s say your stance is even remotely debatable. I just ask you to back it up. Prove that “Unemployment always lags behind the real time economy” and show by how long. By most accounts the recession ended in May (even though Obama and the Democrats were screaming that the sky was falling in order to get their pork-filled ‘stimulus’ tax bill forced through). How much does unemployment lag in your alter-universe? May was half a year ago, so why have Obama’s unemployment numbers been increasing month over month?


I don't intend to get in the middle of this. Frankly, I think these forums would be much better off if both of you stopped posting, but that's beside the point.

The only thing I will say is that unemployment does lag behind the real time economy. This is not some evil liberal excuse to cover their asses. Not only is it a simple concept they teach in 100-level economics courses anywhere you go, it's also common sense. And yes, it often takes longer than 6 months to see significant changes (at a minimum, two to three quarters of a year AFTER the general economy shows a significant upturn).

Deciding if someone declaring the recession over has any meaning depends entirely on what definition of "recession" that someone is using. There are many definitions used and many others that have been proposed. Declaring an end to a recession doesn't always mean the economy is on its way to being in amazing shape.
deanhills
Problem is however that we have more than a simple recession in the United States. There has been a huge burst of a bubble, in comparison with for example Canada, who did not have to bail out any banks. If you look at the table that I took from the Department of Labour, unemployment is completely out of whack high in comparison with previous years, and previous recessions?

My argument was that if the percentage is at 10%, whereas on average it has been 5% up to July last year, in fact, the percentage rose from 7 to 10% from the beginning of the year, and it goes down .2%. Yes, one can say it looks promising, but to make a huge media campaign for it and ask everyone to cheer is a bit premature and unrealistic to me.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
Yes, one can say it looks promising, but to make a huge media campaign for it and ask everyone to cheer is a bit premature and unrealistic to me.

"Huge media campaign"? Really? Can you prove that? I see just a few articles, a bit of exposure, a few White House statements. The White House even suggested caution about jumping to too many conclusions, that the recession was far from over.

And the media often tries to spread some good news about the economy (when there is some) in times like these, since a large part of a good economy is consumer confidence.
jmi256
liljp617 wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Sticks and stones, handfleisch. But unlike liberals, most people like facts based on truth, not opinion. But I guess you’re going to argue that the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is run by Obama by the way, isn’t fact? But for the sake of argument, let’s say your stance is even remotely debatable. I just ask you to back it up. Prove that “Unemployment always lags behind the real time economy” and show by how long. By most accounts the recession ended in May (even though Obama and the Democrats were screaming that the sky was falling in order to get their pork-filled ‘stimulus’ tax bill forced through). How much does unemployment lag in your alter-universe? May was half a year ago, so why have Obama’s unemployment numbers been increasing month over month?


I don't intend to get in the middle of this. Frankly, I think these forums would be much better off if both of you stopped posting, but that's beside the point.

You're 100% right, liljp617. These back and forths do too often get bogged down in name calling, etc., and I do acknowledge my own part in it. So I want to apologize. I'd rather stick to real debate, so I'll try my best to not get dragged down into the mud.


liljp617 wrote:
The only thing I will say is that unemployment does lag behind the real time economy. This is not some evil liberal excuse to cover their asses. Not only is it a simple concept they teach in 100-level economics courses anywhere you go, it's also common sense. And yes, it often takes longer than 6 months to see significant changes (at a minimum, two to three quarters of a year AFTER the general economy shows a significant upturn).

I'm not saying that there is a 1-to-1 correlation between the health of an economy (and for this I'm referring to GDP) and job growth. I'm just saying that if a sick economy is the underlining basis for a call to increase taxes by almost $800 billion that would then be used to create jobs, where are the jobs? In a normal world I would expect jobs to lag slightly. But if almost $800 billion were pumped in the name of 'creating jobs', you can't expect the normal pattern to hold. If you are saying it's just part of the pattern, then where did the $800 billion go? Obama has liked to cite his "created or saved" nonsense, but as we have seen those numbers are mostly pulled out of thin air.

liljp617 wrote:
Deciding if someone declaring the recession over has any meaning depends entirely on what definition of "recession" that someone is using. There are many definitions used and many others that have been proposed. Declaring an end to a recession doesn't always mean the economy is on its way to being in amazing shape.

I'm using GDP as an indicator. Here's a definition I found:
Quote:

Recession
Business cycle phase of a deteriorating economy, which results in less business and consumer spending and depression of real estate prices. Specifically defined as two consecutive quarters with negative economic growth.

Source = http://www.yourwebassistant.net/glossary/r4.htm

Using the definition above, the recession ended in May 09 as GDP increased at that time. I understand that just because a recession is technically over it doesn't mean we're back to the good old times that we had before the housing bubble. I'm just saying that if there is a lag in jobs after the end of a recession, what is that lag supposed to be under 'normal' conditions. And what should that lag be since almost $800 billion of taxpayer money was supposed to be used for jobs?
jmi256
More of Obama’s job losses. I don’t understand how they can say the economy is losing jobs “unexpectedly.” Create a hostile business environment as Obama has done, and it’s only natural that businesses would not add more employees and cut the employees they already have to weather the increase in taxes and fees, regulations, etc. that Obama has enacted.

Quote:
New jobless claims rise unexpectedly

WASHINGTON (AP) - The number of newly laid off workers filing claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose last week as the recovery of the nation's battered labor market proceeds in fits and starts.

The Labor Department said Thursday that the number of new jobless claims rose to 480,000 last week, up 7,000 from the previous week. That was a worse performance than the decline to 465,000 that economists had expected.

The four-week average for claims, which smooths out fluctuations, did fall, dipping to 467,500, the 15th straight decline, viewed as an encouraging sign that the labor market is gradually improving. The four-week average is now at its lowest point since late September 2008, the period when the financial crisis was hitting with full force.

Unemployment claims have been on a downward trend since this summer. That improvement is seen as a sign that jobs cuts are slowing and hiring could pick up as soon as early next year. But the rise in weekly claims of 7,000 last week, which had followed an increase of 19,000 the previous week, shows that the improvement has been halting.

Economists closely monitor jobless claims, which are considered a key gauge of the pace of layoffs with continuing claims viewed as an indication of how quickly laid off workers are getting new jobs.

Analysts believe that claims need to fall to about 425,000 for several weeks to signal the economy is actually beginning to add jobs.

The govenrment said that the number of people receiving regular benefits rose by 5,000 to 5.19 million for the week ending Dec. 5. That figure does not include millions of people who have used up the regular 26 weeks of benefits typically provided by the state and are now receiving extended benefits for up to 73 additional weeks, paid for by the federal government.

The people receiving extended benefits jumped to 4.73 million for the week ending Nov. 28, an increase of 143,759 from the previous week. That big rise reflected the fact that a total of 17 states are now processing claims for the extention of benefits that Congress approved last month.

Source = http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091217/D9CL3AOG1.html
Starrfoxx
Finding work has been getting harder and harder from what I've experienced and family and friends. I don't know if I would call this Obama's fault, although a stimulus plan aimed towards taxpayers would have helped instead of where it went.

I hope 2010 gets better.
deanhills
Starrfoxx wrote:
Finding work has been getting harder and harder from what I've experienced and family and friends. I don't know if I would call this Obama's fault, although a stimulus plan aimed towards taxpayers would have helped instead of where it went.

I hope 2010 gets better.
If the large Banks had been allowed to fail and the trillions debt package used to create small local cooperative Banks in the real-life areas where the people are living, it would have created jobs for the people in that area as well as assistance to small business in the areas where it mattered. Instead the BIG Banks just plowed the trillions back into Wall Street, and your 1% or more wealthy are wealthier than ever before at the cost of those who lost their employment. What is it about what they say about following where the money goes. It would be an interesting exercise to find out exactly what had happened to those trillions and where they went to.
jmi256
I still don't understand why reports use the term "unexpectedly" when referring to the jobs Obama has been losing. What's unexpected is that more jobs weren't cut by employers given the negative environment toward business and industry his administration has taken. Thankfully the rate of job losses are starting to slow down as they would in any recessionary cycle, but I think the amount of spending, concerns over deficits and impending massive increases in taxes to pay for Obama’s pet projects are going to keep businesses from expanding for quite a while. But instead of worrying about jobs and national security, Obama would rather spend his time concerned about government-run healthcare and global warming, which Americans have repeatedly shown they do not favor. So I guess the question is: Where did our $800 billion in ‘stimulus’ money go since it didn’t create the millions of jobs Obama said it would? And can we have it back?

Quote:
Employers unexpectedly cut jobs in December
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. employers unexpectedly cut 85,000 jobs in December, government data showed on Friday, cooling optimism on the labor market's recovery and keeping pressure on President Barack Obama.

The Labor Department said November payrolls were revised to show the economy actually added 4,000 jobs rather than losing 11,000 as initially reported. With revisions to October, however, the economy lost 1,000 more jobs than previously estimated over the two months.

The unemployment rate was unchanged at 10 percent in December. Analysts polled by Reuters had expected nonfarm payrolls to be unchanged last month and the unemployment rate to edge up to 10.1 percent.

"The American economy is clearly not going to burst out of the gate with growth and job creation but it will perform better than its major competitors in Europe and Japan," said Joseph Trevisani, chief market analyst at FX Solutions in Ridgewood, New Jersey.

U.S. stock futures turned negative on the data, while government bond prices erased losses. The U.S. dollar fell against the euro.

High unemployment is one of the toughest domestic challenges facing Obama. The administration's success in getting people back to work will shape prospects for Obama's political future.

Obama's popularity has steadily fallen, knocking his approval ratings down to around 50 percent. This could dim the election prospects for his Democratic Party in the November congressional elections. Obama is scheduled to make a statement on the economy at 2:40 p.m. EST.

Unemployment remains the Achilles heel of the economic recovery, which started in the third quarter of 2009 following the worst recession in 70 years. Creating jobs is critical to sustaining the economic recovery when government stimulus fades.

For the whole of 2009, the economy shed 4.2 million jobs, the department said.

Still the job market continued to show broad improvements last month, with a number of sectors showing gains.

Professional and business services added 50,000 positions, while education and health services increased payrolls by 35,000. Temporary help employment rose by 47,000.

Manufacturing payrolls fell 27,000 after dropping 35,000 in November. The construction sector lost 53,000 jobs, while the service-providing sector shed only 4,000 workers.

The average workweek was unchanged at 33.2 hours, while average hourly earnings increased by $18.80 from $18.77 in November.

The state of the job market is among the key factors that will determine the timing of the Federal Reserve's first interest rate increase since cutting benchmark overnight borrowing costs to near zero percent in December 2008.

The U.S. central bank has vowed to keep rates low for an extended period, and the jobs data supported that expectation.

Source = http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Economy-sheds-85000-jobs-in-rb-3785494434.html?x=0&.v=2
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
So I guess the question is: Where did our $800 billion in ‘stimulus’ money go since it didn’t create the millions of jobs Obama said it would? And can we have it back?
I'm almost certain it went to Wall Street. Via the big banks that got bailed out. Instead of circulating money, once the Banks had sorted themselves out from their dilemmas. What those dilemmas have been of course and the size as well as evaluation in terms of funds allocated are of course as transparent as mud. After a year, surely the people of the United States should be given a progress report on a public Website, which banks got bailed out, how much, and are they going to repay the bail out money?

Just so ironic. A Government Agency being responsible for the BIG Bank real estate investment disaster, and then instead of making those Banks accountable, hand them money with no feedback to the taxpayers. Are they hiding something?
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:

Just so ironic. A Government Agency being responsible for the BIG Bank real estate investment disaster, and then instead of making those Banks accountable, hand them money with no feedback to the taxpayers. Are they hiding something?

Why of course they are... They're hiding the fact that they'll repay (a small fraction) of that money into certain critical campaign funds.

Some industries favor only one party, some industries 'donate to' (bribe) both parties. As you can see, their campaign contributions are very good investments; they often return huge windfalls like this.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:

Just so ironic. A Government Agency being responsible for the BIG Bank real estate investment disaster, and then instead of making those Banks accountable, hand them money with no feedback to the taxpayers. Are they hiding something?

Why of course they are... They're hiding the fact that they'll repay (a small fraction) of that money into certain critical campaign funds.

Some industries favor only one party, some industries 'donate to' (bribe) both parties. As you can see, their campaign contributions are very good investments; they often return huge windfalls like this.
I'd forgotten about the campaign contribution angle of course. Totally on the mark! And totally agreed. Especially since this was Agenda Item No. 1 on the "To Do" list when Obama became President, and who knows, maybe that is the reason why quite a number of people did not read the bill? It was not only Obama's campaign that was affected, but the election campaigns of many more, perhaps most of Congress?
jmi256
Another example of government-run failure. Despite invoking the threat of unemployment reaching 10% to get taxpayers to fork over $800 billion of their money, the federal government has had little impact creating jobs, even using their fudged numbers and criteria for reporting what constitutes a “saved or created job.” The sickest part is that even though they failed—and failed hard—Congress is now talking about a second ‘stimulus’ bill that will mean even higher taxes. I don’t care what party is voting in favor of this, and I think that even Republicans who vote(d) for this should be held accountable. I’m just POed that we, our children and our grandchildren will be paying for idiotic programs that many people knew wouldn’t work.

Quote:
STIMULUS WATCH: Unemployment Unchanged by Projects
STIMULUS WATCH: Billions of stimulus dollars for roads, bridges didn't chop unemployment


A federal spending surge of more than $20 billion for roads and bridges in President Barack Obama's first stimulus has had no effect on local unemployment rates, raising questions about his argument for billions more to address an "urgent need to accelerate job growth."

An Associated Press analysis of stimulus spending found that it didn't matter if a lot of money was spent on highways or none at all: Local unemployment rates rose and fell regardless. And the stimulus spending only barely helped the beleaguered construction industry, the analysis showed.

With the nation's unemployment rate at 10 percent and expected to rise, Obama wants a second stimulus bill from Congress including billions of additional dollars for roads and bridges — projects the president says are "at the heart of our effort to accelerate job growth."

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood defended the administration's recovery program Monday, writing on his blog that "DOT-administered stimulus spending is the only thing propping up the transportation construction industry."

Road spending would total nearly $28 billion of the Jobs for Main Street Act, a $75 billion second stimulus to help lower the unemployment rate and improve the dismal job market for construction workers. The Senate is expected to consider the House-approved bill this month.

But AP's analysis, which was reviewed by independent economists at five universities, showed the strategy of pumping transportation money into counties hasn't affected local unemployment rates so far.

"There seems to me to be very little evidence that it's making a difference," said Todd Steen, an economics professor at Hope College in Michigan who reviewed the AP analysis.


And there's concern about relying on transportation spending a second time.

"My bottom line is, I'd be skeptical about putting too much more money into a second stimulus until we've seen broader effects from the first stimulus," said Aaron Jackson, a Bentley University economist who also reviewed AP's analysis.

For the analysis, the AP reviewed Transportation Department data on more than $21 billion in stimulus projects in every state and Washington, D.C., and the Labor Department's monthly unemployment data to assess the effects of road and bridge spending on local unemployment and construction employment. The analysis did not try to measure results of the broader aid that also was in the first stimulus such as tax cuts, unemployment benefits or money for states.

Even within the construction industry, which stood to benefit most from transportation money, the AP's analysis found there was nearly no connection between stimulus money and the number of construction workers hired or fired since Congress passed the recovery program. The effect was so small, one economist compared it to trying to move the Empire State Building by pushing against it.

"As a policy tool for creating jobs, this doesn't seem to have much bite," said Emory University economist Thomas Smith, who supported the stimulus and reviewed AP's analysis. "In terms of creating jobs, it doesn't seem like it's created very many. It may well be employing lots of people but those two things are very different."

Despite the disconnect, Congress is moving quickly to give Obama the additional road money he requested.

"We have a ton of need for repairing our national infrastructure and a ton of unemployed workers to do it. Marrying those two concepts strikes me as good stimulus and good policy," White House economic adviser Jared Bernstein said. "When you invest in this kind of infrastructure, you're creating good jobs for people who need them."

Even so, transportation spending is too small of a pebble to create waves in the nation's $14 trillion economy. And starting a road project, even one considered "shovel ready," can take many months, meaning any modest effects of a second burst of transportation spending are unlikely to be felt for some time.

"It would be unlikely that even $20 billion spent all at once would be enough to move the needle of the huge decline we've seen, even in construction, much less the economy. The job destruction is way too big," said Kenneth D. Simonson, chief economist for the Associated General Contractors of America.

Few counties, for example, received more road money per capita than Marshall County, Tenn., about 90 minutes south of Nashville.

Obama's stimulus is paying the salaries of dozens of workers there, but local officials said the unemployment rate continues to rise and is expected to top 20 percent soon. The new money for road projects isn't enough to offset the thousands of local jobs lost from the closing of manufacturing plants and automotive parts suppliers.

"The stimulus has not benefited the working-class people of Marshall County at all," said Isaac Zimmerle, a local contractor who has seen his construction business slowly dry up since 2008. That year, he built 30 homes. But prospects this year look grim.

The stimulus has produced some jobs. And a growing body of economic evidence suggests that government programs, including a $700 billion bank bailout program and the $787 billion stimulus, have helped ease the recession.

Highway projects have been the public face of the president's recovery efforts, providing the backdrop for news conferences with workers who owe their paychecks to the stimulus. But those anecdotes have not added up to a national trend and have not markedly improved the country's broad employment picture.

The 400-page stimulus law contains so many provisions — tax cuts, unemployment benefits, food stamps, state aid, military spending — economists agree that it's nearly impossible to determine what worked best and replicate it. It's also impossible to quantify exactly what effect the stimulus has had on job creation, although Obama points to estimates that credit the recovery program for creating or saving 1.6 million jobs.

It is also becoming more difficult to obtain an accurate count of stimulus jobs. Those who receive stimulus money can now credit jobs to the program even if they were never in jeopardy of being lost, according to new rules outlined by the White House's Office of Management and Budget.

The new rules, reported Monday by the Internet site ProPublica, allow any job paid for with stimulus money to count as a position saved or created.


Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., complained in a letter sent last week to the government board monitoring stimulus spending that the new policy would make job counts "even more misleading."

But Republicans aren't expected to oppose Obama's plans to increase transportation spending, a politically popular idea supported even by some in the GOP who have criticized other stimulus programs.

The road money ripples through the economy better than other spending because it improves the nation's infrastructure, said Bernstein, the White House economist.

But that's a policy argument, not a stimulus argument, said Daniel Seiver, an economist at San Diego State University who reviewed AP's analysis.

"Infrastructure spending does have a long-term payoff, but in terms of an immediate impact on construction jobs it doesn't seem to be showing up," Seiver said. "A program like this may be justified, but it's not going to have an immediate effect of putting people back to work."

Source = http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wirestory?id=9527995&page=1
Bikerman
Hmm, but surely that is too narrow a study to draw much of a conclusion from. It only looked at one part in isolation (road and bridge building). For a broader picture you need to look a bit further:
Quote:
CBO estimates that in the third quarter of calendar year 2009, an additional 600,000 to 1.6 million people were employed in the United States, and real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) was 1.2 percent to 3.2 percent higher, than would have been the case in the absence of ARRA (see Table 1). Those ranges are intended to reflect the uncertainty of such estimates and to encompass most economists' views on the effects of fiscal stimulus. [CBO's Estimated Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Employment and Economic Output as of September 2009
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
Despite invoking the threat of unemployment reaching 10% to get taxpayers to fork over $800 billion of their money, the federal government has had little impact creating jobs, even using their fudged numbers and criteria for reporting what constitutes a “saved or created job.”
In your opinion, if you were the Federal Government, what would you have done to bring the unemployment down?

If I had been the Federal Government, instead of bailing out the large banks, I would have put all of the 1.2-trillion dollars in cooperative banks and building societies, in a joint scheme with local authorities, i.e. not only throwing money at society, but helping them to help themselves. Obviously big banking is not really serving people anymore and have become too large. By doing this, there would have been a number of jobs created. Also, money could have been made available for small businesses, where they really are. By involving communities in participating in a bank that is part of their community, it would create the support for it that would make it successful. The Building Societies were really doing a good job in the eighties, before the larger Banks went on their take-over binges and listings on the stock exchanges. I really wish the larger Banks could have been allowed to go through what they needed to have gone through. Have you had a look at Wall Street lately, it is booming again. Whereas there is a complete lack of corresponding hike in employment. At least the bleeding is not continuing any longer, but the whole idea of putting that tremendous amount of bail out money towards bailing out the banks, was supposedly to help the people, and it would appear the main beneficiaries have been the banks and their wealthy clients and through those the Government in terms of people getting re-elected again, not the people who really needed it.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
Hmm, but surely that is too narrow a study to draw much of a conclusion from. It only looked at one part in isolation (road and bridge building). For a broader picture you need to look a bit further:
Quote:
CBO estimates that in the third quarter of calendar year 2009, an additional 600,000 to 1.6 million people were employed in the United States, and real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) was 1.2 percent to 3.2 percent higher, than would have been the case in the absence of ARRA (see Table 1). Those ranges are intended to reflect the uncertainty of such estimates and to encompass most economists' views on the effects of fiscal stimulus. [CBO's Estimated Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Employment and Economic Output as of September 2009

That’s exactly what the study focused on. Obama has claimed that road and bridge projects were where his ‘stimulus’ efforts would be felt first and the most, but it has had little or no effect. The fact remains that more people are out of work under Obama, taxes are going up for everyone, despite his promises that they won’t, and we will be saddled with a deficit that he more than doubled within his first year of office. The unemployment figures Obama likes to cite use a very fuzzy definition of what a “saved or created” job is. Many of the ‘jobs’ cited are outright lies, and others are greatly inaccurate, as has been posted previously. If he really was successful, there would be no need for his to attempts to fudge the numbers.


deanhills wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Despite invoking the threat of unemployment reaching 10% to get taxpayers to fork over $800 billion of their money, the federal government has had little impact creating jobs, even using their fudged numbers and criteria for reporting what constitutes a “saved or created job.”
In your opinion, if you were the Federal Government, what would you have done to bring the unemployment down?

It would take a while to undo all the damage the liberals have done. Just as the real estate crisis was almost 10 years in the making, it would take almost that long to reverse the policies they have instituted in the past and seek to continue today (for example using Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae to make risky loans to those unable to afford them for political reasons).

But if I had to do something to alleviate the problem in the short-term while setting us up for long-term growth, I would have started by being honest with people and letting them know that the federal government is incapable of creating wealth or meaningful jobs; that must be done in the private sector. All the federal government is doing is redistributing earnings. People have been conditioned to expect the government to rob Peter to pay Paul, as the saying goes, but they don’t realize that eventually the system falls apart.

Next I would have cut government spending drastically. Not all the cuts would be popular, and you’ll have some special interest groups up in arms, but just as a household facing financial tightens its belt, the federal government should do the same. For example, all the bailouts shouldn’t have happened. If the companies couldn’t function properly, they have no business being in business. I’ve said this before, but I do not believe in the “too big to fail” doctrine, but it’s a whine that we often hear from big-government proponents to justify their policies. If those companies did fail, their assets would have been sold off and more efficient competitors would be stepping in to run those companies and actually make a profit. Workers would have been hired by these newer, more efficient companies.

I would also cut/reduce certain federal departments. I know someone will attack certain points, but I am leaving a lot of detail out here for sake of brevity. Of course each point would need much more detail and planning, but I present just a high-level, tongue-in-cheek assessment:

--Department of Education: Out. This should be handled locally, and this department is the shining example of a do-nothing agency.

--National Science Foundation: Sorry you’re out. I know you like to think you’re doing good work, but more is happening in the private sector. The private sector is working on curing cancer, and the latest news these clowns have is that “Lizards acquire the same camouflaging adaptation in different ways”. Seriously, check out the latest press release on their website.

--EPA: you’ll be absorbed into the Department of Interior to reduce overhead.

--International ‘Assistance’: Sorry, you’re out too. I’m sick of paying off shady countries and despots who end up using that money to attack us and generate anti-American fervor.

--NASA: I love you and would give my left sack to ride in one of your rockets, but you’ll need to become self-sufficient. Private individuals are returning rockets from space for far less than you are, and private companies have figured out a way to make money from space tourism. I’m sick of thinking that if I’m very, very lucky and wait to die long enough, I might get to see you do something great again. I’m not saying I would cut you out, but I would take a very stern look at your budget and demand results. Tough love.

--Homeland Security: You guys are a joke. Your answer to being unable to follow your own policies and procedures is to call for even more restrictive policies and procedures. While it’s important to safeguard US citizens, I don’t think we have to give up the liberties that make the US great in the process. Sorry, you will be forced to become more efficient (do less things better, like actually protecting US citizens).

--HUD: You’ll also see your budget drastically cut. If someone is unable or unwilling to pay for a house, you shouldn’t be putting them in one.

--Department of Personnel Management: With a smaller government, there will be less of a need for you. Bye.

--DoD: I think one of the reasons we’re perpetually at war is because there is not a carrot for ending them. Set a realistic goal that doesn’t include nation building (capture OBL, bomb an enemy’s installation, etc.), and then hold the generals and senior officers accountable to those goals. If they don’t want to accept an objective, fine, let them bow out before the offensive starts. But once accepted, they can’t go home until it’s accomplished. You’ll see long, expensive, prolonged wars replaced with short, relatively inexpensive, targeted missions with real objectives, translating into less $$ spent. That’s similar to how it used to be done.

--Health and Human Services: This department is a liberal’s wet dream. No clear mission or objectives, subjective standards and a boatload of taxpayer money. This can probably be cut substantially.

--Treasury: These guys spend too much money giving taxpayer money away. Big cuts could happen here.

Finally, after reducing the cost of government, I would let taxpayers keep more of their money. All of them. A flat tax would be instituted across the board with no deductions, credits, etc. for individuals, corporations, special interests, anyone. Of course the first of your earnings, up to 2x the national poverty rate, would be tax exempt. But just imagine what would happen if the government stopped taking so much of everyone’s money. And just think what would be possible when we aren’t punished more the more we produce. People would have more money, businesses would grow and more people would be employed.
ocalhoun
jmi256 wrote:
A flat tax would be instituted across the board with no deductions, credits, etc. for individuals, corporations, special interests, anyone. Of course the first of your earnings, up to 2x the national poverty rate, would be tax exempt. But just imagine what would happen if the government stopped taking so much of everyone’s money. And just think what would be possible when we aren’t punished more the more we produce. People would have more money, businesses would grow and more people would be employed.

Replace that flat tax with 'fairtax'. Then, you can add the dreaded IRS to your list of departments to be cut. (without making taxes regressive)
(And it'll also give US companies an international advantage, prompting domestic growth and prompting foreign companies outsourcing to here.)
jmi256
ocalhoun wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
A flat tax would be instituted across the board with no deductions, credits, etc. for individuals, corporations, special interests, anyone. Of course the first of your earnings, up to 2x the national poverty rate, would be tax exempt. But just imagine what would happen if the government stopped taking so much of everyone’s money. And just think what would be possible when we aren’t punished more the more we produce. People would have more money, businesses would grow and more people would be employed.

Replace that flat tax with 'fairtax'. Then, you can add the dreaded IRS to your list of departments to be cut. (without making taxes regressive)
(And it'll also give US companies an international advantage, prompting domestic growth and prompting foreign companies outsourcing to here.)

The IRS falls under the Treasury Department, and while they would still be needed for some functions, the simplified tax structure would make much of the bureaucracy redundant. But the list above isn’t meant to be exhaustive. There are many other places where waste can be cut.
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
But if I had to do something to alleviate the problem in the short-term while setting us up for long-term growth, I would have started by being honest with people and letting them know that the federal government is incapable of creating wealth or meaningful jobs; that must be done in the private sector. All the federal government is doing is redistributing earnings. People have been conditioned to expect the government to rob Peter to pay Paul, as the saying goes, but they don’t realize that eventually the system falls apart.

Next I would have cut government spending drastically. Not all the cuts would be popular, and you’ll have some special interest groups up in arms, but just as a household facing financial tightens its belt, the federal government should do the same. For example, all the bailouts shouldn’t have happened. If the companies couldn’t function properly, they have no business being in business. I’ve said this before, but I do not believe in the “too big to fail” doctrine, but it’s a whine that we often hear from big-government proponents to justify their policies. If those companies did fail, their assets would have been sold off and more efficient competitors would be stepping in to run those companies and actually make a profit. Workers would have been hired by these newer, more efficient companies.

I would also cut/reduce certain federal departments. I know someone will attack certain points, but I am leaving a lot of detail out here for sake of brevity. Of course each point would need much more detail and planning, but I present just a high-level, tongue-in-cheek assessment:

--Department of Education: Out. This should be handled locally, and this department is the shining example of a do-nothing agency.

--National Science Foundation: Sorry you’re out. I know you like to think you’re doing good work, but more is happening in the private sector. The private sector is working on curing cancer, and the latest news these clowns have is that “Lizards acquire the same camouflaging adaptation in different ways”. Seriously, check out the latest press release on their website.

--EPA: you’ll be absorbed into the Department of Interior to reduce overhead.

--International ‘Assistance’: Sorry, you’re out too. I’m sick of paying off shady countries and despots who end up using that money to attack us and generate anti-American fervor.

--NASA: I love you and would give my left sack to ride in one of your rockets, but you’ll need to become self-sufficient. Private individuals are returning rockets from space for far less than you are, and private companies have figured out a way to make money from space tourism. I’m sick of thinking that if I’m very, very lucky and wait to die long enough, I might get to see you do something great again. I’m not saying I would cut you out, but I would take a very stern look at your budget and demand results. Tough love.

--Homeland Security: You guys are a joke. Your answer to being unable to follow your own policies and procedures is to call for even more restrictive policies and procedures. While it’s important to safeguard US citizens, I don’t think we have to give up the liberties that make the US great in the process. Sorry, you will be forced to become more efficient (do less things better, like actually protecting US citizens).

--HUD: You’ll also see your budget drastically cut. If someone is unable or unwilling to pay for a house, you shouldn’t be putting them in one.

--Department of Personnel Management: With a smaller government, there will be less of a need for you. Bye.

--DoD: I think one of the reasons we’re perpetually at war is because there is not a carrot for ending them. Set a realistic goal that doesn’t include nation building (capture OBL, bomb an enemy’s installation, etc.), and then hold the generals and senior officers accountable to those goals. If they don’t want to accept an objective, fine, let them bow out before the offensive starts. But once accepted, they can’t go home until it’s accomplished. You’ll see long, expensive, prolonged wars replaced with short, relatively inexpensive, targeted missions with real objectives, translating into less $$ spent. That’s similar to how it used to be done.

--Health and Human Services: This department is a liberal’s wet dream. No clear mission or objectives, subjective standards and a boatload of taxpayer money. This can probably be cut substantially.

--Treasury: These guys spend too much money giving taxpayer money away. Big cuts could happen here.

Finally, after reducing the cost of government, I would let taxpayers keep more of their money. All of them. A flat tax would be instituted across the board with no deductions, credits, etc. for individuals, corporations, special interests, anyone. Of course the first of your earnings, up to 2x the national poverty rate, would be tax exempt. But just imagine what would happen if the government stopped taking so much of everyone’s money. And just think what would be possible when we aren’t punished more the more we produce. People would have more money, businesses would grow and more people would be employed.
If you were a politician, I would definitely vote for you Shocked Laughing I particularly am in favour of the Department of Education being limited to State and not being a Federal Department, as well as the other examples of Agencies/Departments that can be either nixed, or trimmed to the bone. Environmental should also be State based, as some States have less industrial exposure than others do. Would also help them to take greater responsibility for local management.
lagoon
You think all education should be handled locally? Wouldn't this inevitably create huge educational inequalities across the country?
jmi256
lagoon wrote:
You think all education should be handled locally? Wouldn't this inevitably create huge educational inequalities across the country?

Do you think that doesn't exist now?
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
lagoon wrote:
You think all education should be handled locally? Wouldn't this inevitably create huge educational inequalities across the country?

Do you think that doesn't exist now?
Thanks jmi, I would agree with your question, and add to it that if all the States had been exactly the same, then there would not be a need for different States. They should then scrap the States and manage everything by a Central Government in Washington DC, OR when they have a Federal Government allow the States to manage their own affairs. There is a total difference in culture between the State of Mississippi and New York for example, and the differences would probably guarantee education systems that would not be completely the same. I believe there should be one standard for the curricula and final exams for all, but the actual presentation and content could vary from State to State.
ocalhoun
lagoon wrote:
You think all education should be handled locally? Wouldn't this inevitably create huge educational inequalities across the country?

There does need to be minimum standards... But that's the only job I could justify a federal education department doing.

And despite the fact that they really don't use (relatively) much money now, I think that with a little innovation and carving out useless jobs, they could do it much cheaper.

1- Develop a national high-school graduation test.
2- Reduce staff until all that is left are these functions:
*Random inspections to ensure local compliance with test procedures -100 employees (graduation test would be given at any time during the last year of high school, so a team of 2 people per state could inspect a large percentage of schools every year.)
*Help desk for problems administering the test -200 employees (reduced over time as problems become less frequent)
*Periodically updating the test every 5 years or so -4 employees
*Distribution office to make sure that electronic tests are available, and paper backups are available to schools without computers. -70 employees (25 technicians, 45 in production and shipping of paper tests)
*Overhead (management, HR, PR, et cetera) -15 employees
Bikerman
LOL. That's pretty ironic to me.
I've got an inspection coming up at the college in Feb. It will be a team of about 40 inspectors over a 1-2 week period (depending on what they see in the first week, they may extend into a second).
The notion of 2 inspectors covering an area the size of England is amusing (and bear in mind that this is just a college, and you also have the schools, primaries etc).
Why the obsession with cheapness? Why should you want education to be cheap? This leads to an almost inevitable lower standard of service as companies outbid each other to get the contract by lowering staff costs, overheads, time on the job ... etc. Two classic examples in the UK include the contracting out of hospital cleaning, and school meals. Result - dirty hospitals and crap junk-food school meals.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Why the obsession with cheapness? Why should you want education to be cheap? This leads to an almost inevitable lower standard of service as companies outbid each other to get the contract by lowering staff costs, overheads, time on the job ... etc. Two classic examples in the UK include the contracting out of hospital cleaning, and school meals. Result - dirty hospitals and crap junk-food school meals.
Totally agreed. They did exactly that with hospital cleaning in Vancouver BC with Government hospitals. The end product was very dirty hospitals. Usually the first contractor they get (to sell the idea of contractors) is good, but then come the next year they usually select the lowest cost contractor with very logical "cheap" consequences.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
LOL. That's pretty ironic to me.
I've got an inspection coming up at the college in Feb. It will be a team of about 40 inspectors over a 1-2 week period (depending on what they see in the first week, they may extend into a second).
The notion of 2 inspectors covering an area the size of England is amusing (and bear in mind that this is just a college, and you also have the schools, primaries etc).

What are they spending all that time inspecting though?
The inspectors I'm talking about would be only asking one question: are you cheating on the national high school graduation exam?
(And it would only be randomized inspections- every test would have a random chance of being inspected, just high enough to keep school administrators fearful of fudging the numbers.)
Of course if they were inspecting the whole school, it would take a LOT more time and a LOT more people.
Quote:

Why the obsession with cheapness? Why should you want education to be cheap? This leads to an almost inevitable lower standard of service as companies outbid each other to get the contract by lowering staff costs, overheads, time on the job ... etc. Two classic examples in the UK include the contracting out of hospital cleaning, and school meals. Result - dirty hospitals and crap junk-food school meals.

Why? Small government.
As long as the schools are meeting national standards for education, let them decide how to do so at the state and local level...
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:

The inspectors I'm talking about would be only asking one question: are you cheating on the national high school graduation exam?
(And it would only be randomized inspections- every test would have a random chance of being inspected, just high enough to keep school administrators fearful of fudging the numbers.)
Of course if they were inspecting the whole school, it would take a LOT more time and a LOT more people.
With that kind of inspection Ocalhoun, probably better to ditch the whole system? There are several questions that need to be asked and scrutinized for minimum standards. On top of the list would be standard of qualifications and experience of teaching staff, number of school children/students per teaching staff, quality of teaching, for example is it problem-based? Standard and type of exams, standard of questions asked in the exam, pass rate of students, profile of students. Feedback from parents. Access to Library, Sports Centres, etc. Quality of career guidance .... One would need quite a large number of inspectors to really make it into a viable mission.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:

The inspectors I'm talking about would be only asking one question: are you cheating on the national high school graduation exam?
(And it would only be randomized inspections- every test would have a random chance of being inspected, just high enough to keep school administrators fearful of fudging the numbers.)
Of course if they were inspecting the whole school, it would take a LOT more time and a LOT more people.
With that kind of inspection Ocalhoun, probably better to ditch the whole system? There are several questions that need to be asked and scrutinized for minimum standards. On top of the list would be standard of qualifications and experience of teaching staff, number of school children/students per teaching staff, quality of teaching, for example is it problem-based? Standard and type of exams, standard of questions asked in the exam, pass rate of students, profile of students. Feedback from parents. Access to Library, Sports Centres, etc. Quality of career guidance .... One would need quite a large number of inspectors to really make it into a viable mission.

That's the beauty of the final examination test... If they pass that, the rest of it can be assumed to be adequate, and left to local supervision. As long as they're accomplishing their mission, don't worry about how they're doing it.
Bikerman
No. Passing an exam shows you have a good memory. It says very little about your actual competence.
Why long inspections? Because the school has to deliver a complex curriculum and we want to spot failing schools before a generation of children are disadvantaged.
Afaceinthematrix
^^ocalhoun: Merely having an exam that needs to be passed in order to graduate doesn't suffice. We actually do have an exam here in California that needs to be passed in order to graduate: it's called the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE for short). The test is a complete joke. There are three sections: writing, reading comprehension, and mathematics. Mathematics and reading are graded out of 450 points - 350 are needed to pass (I believe). Writing is graded out of 4 points - 2 points are needed to pass. On the mathematics, I personally scored a perfect score. On reading, I scored a 440 (plus or minus a point or so; I do not remember the exact score - this was about 5 years ago). And on the writing I scored a 3. Now... You would be surprised how many people actually failed this exam. Dozens and dozens of people at my school failed it.

Now, I consider myself to be above average in intelligence (all my tests scores have shown it, plus I have strong abilities in other mental aspects - I'm especially apt in chess and puzzles such as Rubik's Cubes). But... I am no where near the top when it comes to intelligence. I'm not a genius. I'm not in my garage inventing a hydrogen powered car. So if I'm no where near the top, how did I score so high on those tests? I'll tell you how: they were a joke. The highest math that was tested on those was Algebra I. Algebra I is the math that I took when I was in 8th grade - 13 years old! Algebra I is the class before geometry, which is the class before Algebra II. So the math test that you have to pass to graduate is based on math that I learned at the age of 13. All I have to know is how to graph Y=3x+5 and solve quadratics such as x^2+5x+6=0? How could I not score a perfect? Yet so many people failed that test!

Why am I going into this? I am telling you about this because of the way that this was handled. All of the masses (and this saddens me that this was a huge portion of the student population) that failed the math sections were placed in CAHSEE math courses and the masses that failed in English section were placed in CAHSEE English courses. There they were taught all of this remedial information and they were coached on how to pass the exam. If the students didn't pass these exams, then the teachers that taught them in these remedial classes were considered to be bad teachers! The kids weren't considered to be the dumbasses and slackers that they were. No, the teachers were considered poor teachers because they couldn't motivate even the most difficult cases of students not caring. These teachers are put in a tough, and unfair situation. So what do you expect them to do? They taught the kids how to pass the tests. That's it.

So what is benefited from this CAHSEE test? Nothing that I can see. If you pass it, then congrats... You're not a complete dumbass.* If you do not pass it, then do not worry. We'll teach you exactly how to pass it because if we don't our asses are on the line. I think it would be much more to the benefits of the students to pump some extra money into the inspectors, and have the inspectors go around to schools and visit classrooms and observe what is happening in the classroom. The tests do not show anything really. But if the teachers were inspected randomly to insure that they were doing their job then you'd have a much better idea of what is going on in the classroom...

*Note: I do make a few exceptions with the word "dumbass." When I was a senior in high school, we had a couple of Chinese foreign exchange students. They all scored a 100% on the math sections. But they had difficulty with the English section (one of them didn't pass the first time) because they were still learning the language. That is acceptable. But if you've gone to school your entire life, or even most of your life, in an English speaking country, then I must wonder about your intelligence or how much you care about your life...
ocalhoun
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
^^ocalhoun: Merely having an exam that needs to be passed in order to graduate doesn't suffice.

The test wouldn't be for the benefit of the students. They could conceivably graduate high school after failing it, if their states' laws allow that.

The test would be to test the state's performance in teaching, not the student's ability in learning.



What I think Bikerman isn't understanding is this would be an almost entirely state-run system, and the federal government would only get involved if a given state wasn't doing its job. If the individual states wanted to do inspections to ensure schools were keeping up state standards, they could do so. The feds would only be concerned when the state's standards were too low, or the state's standards were not being met. 99% of the responsibility for doing a good job would fall on the state.
Afaceinthematrix
ocalhoun wrote:
The test wouldn't be for the benefit of the students. They could conceivably graduate high school after failing it, if their states' laws allow that.


Then you have another problem. Let's say that the students were not required to pass the test in order to graduate. Then why try at it? This was actually a real life scenario when I was in school. We were forced to take examinations that directly reflected our school and teachers but that didn't affect us personally. The result was that most people half-assed it, some people randomly guessed at the multiple choice, and some people tried. I personally tried my best at the test during the test, but I didn't go out of my way to do extra studying - I just showed up and tried my best. So forcing students to pass is a must.

But if all you have to do is pass, then why try any harder than you have to? I had some friends barely pass the CAHSEE when they could have done quite well because they tried on 50-75% of it, and when they felt that they had done enough to pass, guessed on the rest of the multiple choice. Now, I do not know if statistical results of individual questions were used to design the curriculum or not. If it is done that way, then they were wrong and doing the system a disservice. If statistical results were not taken into account while designing the curriculum and all you had to do was pass, then it doesn't really matter. But at any rate, if all you have to do is pass, why try too hard? This is especially true when you're able to take the test as many times as you want until you pass (as you could with the CAHSEE). If you don't let people retake it until you past, there will be hell to deal with it from protesting parents.

So how exactly do you encourage people to do their best so that you can accurately access the educational system? There must be some sort of incentive for scoring higher. The only answer that I can see is to use it somewhat like an SAT score to where your score is considered when applying to college. That way at least all of the college-bound students will make sure to score their absolute best. Although, this still leaves out the people not going to college...
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
No. Passing an exam shows you have a good memory. It says very little about your actual competence.
Totally agreed. There has to be overall confirmation that the student is competent to move to the next level on the basis of that qualification, so it would take into account many other factors such as:
1. Assessment by teaching staff of the student's general attitude (including regular class attendance, participation in course activities etc.)
2. Participation in group activities such as a research project, including report writing and presentation abilities
3. Evidence that the students actually understood what they had learned from the course. They may be able to ace the exam, but could easily fail in an oral examination when they are questioned on their knowledge about the course. I.e. they had a good memory, but may not have understood what they had learned.
ocalhoun
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
The test wouldn't be for the benefit of the students. They could conceivably graduate high school after failing it, if their states' laws allow that.


Then you have another problem. Let's say that the students were not required to pass the test in order to graduate. Then why try at it? This was actually a real life scenario when I was in school. We were forced to take examinations that directly reflected our school and teachers but that didn't affect us personally. The result was that most people half-assed it, some people randomly guessed at the multiple choice, and some people tried. I personally tried my best at the test during the test, but I didn't go out of my way to do extra studying - I just showed up and tried my best. So forcing students to pass is a must.

Which is why most states would probably require students to pass the test. (Since it is in the states' best interest to make sure students try hard on it.)
BUT, like almost everything else, that would be up to the state to decide.
(After all, there could be other motivation given. You could make it worth 30% of the grade, you could give students a day/week/whatever off for passing it, you could make it a requirement for going on a cool field trip... Why restrict states' options for motivation?)

deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
No. Passing an exam shows you have a good memory. It says very little about your actual competence.
Totally agreed. There has to be overall confirmation that the student is competent to move to the next level on the basis of that qualification, so it would take into account many other factors such as:
1. Assessment by teaching staff of the student's general attitude (including regular class attendance, participation in course activities etc.)
2. Participation in group activities such as a research project, including report writing and presentation abilities
3. Evidence that the students actually understood what they had learned from the course. They may be able to ace the exam, but could easily fail in an oral examination when they are questioned on their knowledge about the course. I.e. they had a good memory, but may not have understood what they had learned.

1: The state can have its own rules about this, but if the state's rules allow not showing up to class and not participating, yet the students are still learning, let them do as they please.
2: The test could try to assess some of these abilities, but assessing the state's ability to teach kids how to work in a group is impractical.
3: Again, unstructured oral exams, while effective, would place very impractical demands on manpower.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
1: The state can have its own rules about this, but if the state's rules allow not showing up to class and not participating, yet the students are still learning, let them do as they please.
2: The test could try to assess some of these abilities, but assessing the state's ability to teach kids how to work in a group is impractical.
3: Again, unstructured oral exams, while effective, would place very impractical demands on manpower.
Two days ago someone was commenting on the academic qualifications of someone, i.e. the person's PhD. "But, xyz got it through distance learning centre"! People expect solid Institutions behind academic qualifications, before they will take any of the qualifications seriously. In order for those Institutions to be highly regarded, they need to have impeccable standards, that have to be accredited by internationally reputable external examiners. You can get your PhD through a distance learning place, and may even be a brilliant person, but it may not mean much.
jmi256
More job losses under Obama. And once again, I’m amazed that journalists insist on using “unexpectedly” when citing these job losses. Obama and the Democrats have create a very hostile business environment, and then are surprised when businesses don’t grow? Seems ridiculous to me.

Quote:
Initial jobless claims unexpectedly rise
New jobless claims unexpectedly rise, more people receive extended benefits


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The number of newly-laid off workers seeking jobless benefits unexpectedly rose last week, as the economy recovers at a slow and uneven pace.

Layoffs have slowed and the economy began to grow in last year's third quarter, but companies are reluctant to hire new workers. The unemployment rate is 10 percent and many economists expect it to increase in the coming months.

The Labor Department said Thursday that initial claims for unemployment insurance rose by 36,000 to a seasonally adjusted 482,000. Wall Street economists expected a small drop, according to Thomson Reuters.

The four-week average, which smooths fluctuations, rose for the first time since August, to 448,250.

The weekly claims figure is volatile and it can take time for trends to emerge. A Labor Department analyst said that much of the increase last week was due to administrative backlogs leftover from the winter holidays in the state agencies that process the claims.

Claims have dropped steadily since last fall, as companies cut fewer jobs. That has caused some economists to hope that hiring may increase soon. Initial claims have dropped by 50,000, or almost 10 percent, since late October.

Still, the economy is not consistently generating net increases in jobs. The Labor Department said earlier this month that employers cut 85,000 jobs in December, after adding only 4,000 in November. November's increase was the first in nearly two years.

Many economists say the four week average of claims will need to fall to below 425,000 to signal that the economy is close to generating net job gains.

Meanwhile, the number of people continuing to claim regular benefits dropped slightly to just under 4.6 million. The continuing claims data lags initial claims by a week.

But the so-called continuing claims do not include millions of people who have used up the regular 26 weeks of benefits customarily provided by states and are now receiving extended benefits for up to 73 additional weeks, paid for by the federal government.

More than 5.9 million are receiving extended benefits in the week ending Jan. 2, the latest data available, an increase of more than 600,000 from the previous week. The data for emergency benefits lags initial claims by two weeks.

The increasing number of people claiming extended unemployment insurance indicates that even as layoffs are declining, hiring hasn't picked up. That leaves people out of work for longer and longer periods of time.

Among the states, California saw the largest increase in claims, with 16,160. Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania and Georgia saw the next largest increases. The state data lags the initial claims data by a week.

Oregon saw the biggest drop in claims, of 5,784, followed by Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan and Massachusetts.

Source = http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Initial-jobless-claims-apf-3027105474.html?x=0&.v=5
ocalhoun
jmi256 wrote:
I’m amazed that journalists insist on using “unexpectedly”

^.^
It is rather ludicrous that nobody seems to be able to pick up the trend of increasing unemployment, and nobody can expect it to continue.

On another note, Obama's poll numbers unexpectedly fell ^.^
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
On another note, Obama's poll numbers unexpectedly fell ^.^
Laughing Laughing Good point. Maybe there is also a correlation between the two.

I sometimes wonder whether those numbers are really looked at properly, as even if the numbers come down a fraction, or stay the same, there is still this very huge percentage increase in people who lost their jobs. Like a dam overflowing and people reporting that it is overflowing less, or overflowing the same? It is still creating enormous damage, such as jmi's article illustrates, in that that huge percentage of unemployed need to be supported by benefits and they are now going into extended benefits.
jmi256
Again with the "unexpectedly." You'd think that by now they'd realize that this is to be expected when reckless, anti-business policies are implemented. Higher prices and more unemployed. Thanks Obama.


Quote:
Jobless Claims, Inflation Jump as Economy Wobbles

The number of U.S. workers filing new applications for unemployment insurance unexpectedly surged last week, while producer prices increased sharply in January, raising potential hurdles for the economic recovery.

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits increased 31,000 to 473,000, the Labor Department said on Thursday. That compared to market expectations for 430,000.

Another report from the department showed prices paid at the farm and factory gate rose a faster than expected 1.4 percent from December after a 0.4 percent gain in December, as higher gasoline prices and unusually cold temperatures helped boost energy costs.

"When you have PPI moving up and still no progress in the jobs situation, that doesn't bode well for continued improvement in equity prices," said Alan Lancz, president at Alan B. Lancz & Associates in Toledo, Ohio.

Last week was the survey week for the employment report for February, which is scheduled for release in early March.

The labor market, hardest hit by the worst recession in seven decades, has lagged the economic recovery that started in the second half of 2009. The economy has lost 8.4 million jobs since the start of the downturn in December 2007.

The PPI report may give investors, who keeping a wary eye on inflation following massive efforts by the Federal Reserve to pull the economy out of its worst slump since the Great Depression of the 1930s, something to worry about.

"The bottom line is that the Fed is going to have some decisions to make at its next meeting, since it seems inflation is now back on the table," said Lancz.

Fed officials, keeping an eye on how quickly the recovering economy absorbs the excess slack that built up during the recession, have said they are likely to keep interest rates extraordinarily low for "an extended period."

About three-fourths of the increase in PPI last month was due to a 5.1 percent jump in prices for energy goods, the department said. Energy costs were pushed up by a spike in prices for gasoline, liquefied petroleum and home heating oil.

Strong energy prices overshadowed a slowdown in the food prices, which rose 0.4 percent after increasing 1.3 percent in December.

Stripping out the volatile food and energy costs, core producer prices rose a faster than expected 0.3 percent last month after being flat in December. The core index had been forecast to rise 0.1 percent in January.

The department on Friday will release its consumer price report for January. Headline CPI is seen rising 0.3 percent from December and core CPI gaining 0.1 percent, according to a Reuters survey.

"It does present some upside risks to our call for only modest gains in CPI and also points to some possible upward price pressures in the pipeline," said Millan Mulraine, an economics strategist at TD Securities in Toronto.

In the claims report, the four-week moving average of new claims, which irons out week-to-week volatility, fell 1,500 to 467,500, the Labor Department said. The number of people still receiving for benefits after an initial week of aid was unchanged at 4.56 million in the week ended Feb. 6.

This measure has held below the 5 million mark for eight straight weeks and analysts believe it is starting to reflect an improvement in the labor market rather than people merely dropping off rolls because they have exhausted their benefits.

Source = http://www.cnbc.com/id/35457298
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
Again with the "unexpectedly." You'd think that by now they'd realize that this is to be expected when reckless, anti-business policies are implemented. Higher prices and more unemployed. Thanks Obama.
Yet the stats for December had indicated a rise in employment numbers! How reliable are those stats really? Twisted Evil
jmi256
Obama's latest job loss numbers. At least they aren't using "unexpectedly," but they are blaming it on the weather.


Quote:
Jobless claims up 12% in past 2 weeks

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The number of Americans filing for initial unemployment insurance surged to just below the 500,000 level last week, and have climbed more than 12% over the past two weeks, the government said Thursday.

There were 496,000 initial job claims filed in the week ended Feb. 20, up 22,000 from a revised 474,000 the previous week, the Labor Department said in a weekly report. The prior week, there were 442,000 claims filed.

A consensus estimate of economists surveyed by Briefing.com expected new claims to fall to 460,000.

The 4-week moving average of initial claims was 473,750, up 6,000 from the previous week's revised average of 467,750.

"This is certainly not surprising given the very adverse weather conditions for the eastern half of the country, especially in the major population areas," said Robert Dye, a senior economist at PNC Financial Services. "Weather has a huge impact, particularly with things like construction, which remains very soft."

Over the past few weeks, the Northeast, particularly the Washington area, has been hit with snow storms, putting people out of work and resulting in a backlog of claims that the Labor Department wasn't able to process until this week.

Excluding the weather's impact, Dye would have expected initial claims to decline at "a healthy rate" of 10,000 to 20,000 last week.

Continuing claims: The government said 4,617,000 people filed continuing claims in the week ended Feb. 13, the most recent data available. That's up 6,000 from the preceding week's revised 4,611,000 claims.

The 4-week moving average for ongoing claims rose by 4,250 to 4,600,750 from the previous week's revised 4,596,500.

Continuing claims reflect people filing each week after their initial claim until the end of their standard benefits, which usually last 26 weeks. The figures do not include those people who have moved to state or federal extensions, or people whose benefits have expired.

On Wednesday, the Senate passed a $15 billion bill to spur job creation and give businesses tax breaks for hiring the unemployed, but the bill does not extend unemployment benefits.

More than 1 million people will run out of benefits after Feb. 28 if the application deadline is not extended. Lawmakers are trying to pass a short-term extension by the end of the week in order to give them time to enact a longer fix.

State-by-state: Unemployment claims in three states rose more than 1,000 for the week ended Feb. 13, the most recent data available. Claims in North Carolina jumped the most, by 5,897, which the state attributed to layoffs in the construction, furniture and mining industries.

A total of 13 states said claims fell by more than 1,000. Claims in California dropped the most, by 5,540, which the state said was due to fewer layoffs in the service industry.

Outlook: "I would expect that once we get into March and get beyond the weather-related effects, we'll see continued improvement in overall jobless claims," said Dye.

He expects employment to pick up in the next couple of months as private sector hiring continues and the government boosts its hiring of temporary census workers.

"But bear in mind that the census workers are only temporary workers," said Dye. "The government's hiring will ramp up through March, April and into May, and then it will ramp back down in the second half of the year."

Source = http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/25/news/economy/initial_claims/
handfleisch
Unemployment is up worldwide. We are in a Great Recession. This goes back to years of mismanagement, which fortunately was kept from being a depression. To try to use this as a political weapon against the president is just plain dumb.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
Unemployment is up worldwide. We are in a Great Recession. This goes back to years of mismanagement, which fortunately was kept from being a depression. To try to use this as a political weapon against the president is just plain dumb.


Ok, you're back to blaming Bush for every bad thing that has happened in the world, never mind that it was Clinton and the Democrats who sowed the seeds of the housing bubble. The fact remains that Obama said if we handed over our earnings and his pork-filled "stimulus" bill was passed that unemployment wouldn't go over 10%. Obviously he's better at picking numbers out of the thin air than producing results. So can we have the money we earned back?
jmi256
jmi256 wrote:
Obama's latest job loss numbers. At least they aren't using "unexpectedly," but they are blaming it on the weather.

Quote:
Jobless claims up 12% in past 2 weeks



This is a pretty interesting twist. I thought the defense that jobless claims were up due to the weather were silly since winter appears to come every four months, but it seems the reporter was echoing the White House’s explanation for the latest increase in jobless claims (or at least trying to provide cover for what they are expecting this week). The focus on construction as the reason seems particularly weird since usually most construction either halts or dwindles during most winters. Does this seem like a valid excuse to anyone?


Quote:
UPDATE 1-Winter storms to distort US jobless figures-Summers

WASHINGTON, March 1 (Reuters) - White House economic adviser Larry Summers said on Monday winter blizzards were likely to distort U.S. February jobless figures, which are due to be released on Friday.

"The blizzards that affected much of the country during the last month are likely to distort the statistics. So it's going to be very important ... to look past whatever the next figures are to gauge the underlying trends," Summers said in an interview with CNBC, according to a transcript.

Construction activity was hit particularly hard by the storms, but many restaurants and stores also had to close, putting the brakes on hiring plans and temporarily throwing some employees out of work.

Summers, director of the White House's National Economic Council, also said the United States was closely monitoring Greece's debt problems and U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was encouraged by what he had heard from European officials about the issue.

"With respect to Europe, I am obviously very concerned about what's happening in Greece and Portugal, in Spain, in Italy, on the European continent," Summers said.

"I think there have been increasing signs of recognition both in Greece and in the major countries of Europe that this is a situation that has to be managed; that combination of getting the Greek budget under better control and providing more support is necessary to stabilize this situation."

Summers brushed aside speculation that he was interested in changing jobs.

"I like what I'm doing," he said. "My view is if the president asks me to do something in which I think I can make a contribution, the right approach to it is to say yes, and that's why I'm very pleased to be here working at the National Economic Council."

Source = http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0111549320100301?type=marketsNews
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
This is a pretty interesting twist. I thought the defense that jobless claims were up due to the weather were silly since winter appears to come every four months, but it seems the reporter was echoing the White House’s explanation for the latest increase in jobless claims (or at least trying to provide cover for what they are expecting this week). The focus on construction as the reason seems particularly weird since usually most construction either halts or dwindles during most winters. Does this seem like a valid excuse to anyone?
You are right, it is strange to issue a warning like that. I thought that winter storms or some kind of natural disasters are always prevalent during the course of the year. Perhaps they need to put footnotes to each monthly percentage, i.e. December the percentage was up due to seasonal employment, etc. January it was down because of the winter storms. And perhaps they also need to rework the percentages with a special averaging statistical formula to get rid of the monthly bumps.
jmi256
Unemployment is still up under Obama, but it looks like there have been gains due to temporary census worker hiring by the federal government and more people settling for part-time or lower-paying jobs to cope. I wonder if the American people will be getting the $billions Obama took from us when he claimed it was ‘needed’ to fight unemployment, but went to more of his pet projects back anytime soon? I wouldn’t hold your breath. Now I’m willing to entertain the argument that unemployment may not be Obama’s ‘fault’ and actually a result of the housing bubble bursting, but when he then used that ‘crisis’ to take hundreds of billions of dollars out of the private sector to increase the size of government with the claim that it would lead to lower unemployment, he should deliver. Instead the opposite has been true and unemployment has gone up under Obama. Hopefully the tide is turning and the US economy will be able recover from Obama’s administration enough to start adding some private-sector jobs in the near future.

Quote:
THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- MARCH 2010

Nonfarm payroll employment increased by 162,000 in March, and the unemployment rate held at 9.7 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Temporary help services and health care continued to add jobs over the month. Employment in federal government also rose, reflecting the hiring of temporary workers for Census 2010. Employment continued to decline in financial activities and in information.

Household Survey Data
In March, the number of unemployed persons was little changed at 15.0 million, and the unemployment rate remained at 9.7 percent. (See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (10.0 percent), adult women (8.0 percent), teenagers (26.1 percent), whites (8.8 percent), blacks (16.5 percent), and Hispanics (12.6 percent) showed little or no change in March. The jobless rate for Asians was 7.5 percent, not seasonally adjusted. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) increased by 414,000 over the month to 6.5 million. In March, 44.1 percent of unemployed persons were jobless for 27 weeks or more. (See table A-12.)

The civilian labor force participation rate (64.9 percent) and the employment-population ratio (58.6 percent) continued to edge up in March. (See table A-1.)

The number of persons working part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) increased to 9.1 million in March. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job. (See table A-8.)

About 2.3 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force in March, compared with 2.1 million a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)

Among the marginally attached, there were 1.0 million discouraged workers in March, up by 309,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.3 million persons marginally attached to the labor force had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)

Establishment Survey Data
In March, nonfarm payroll employment rose by 162,000. Job growth continued in temporary help services and in health care. Federal government employment increased due to the hiring of temporary workers for Census 2010. Job losses continued in
financial activities and in information. (See table B-1.)

Temporary help services added 40,000 jobs in March. Since September 2009, temporary help services employment has risen by 313,000.

Employment in health care continued to increase in March (27,000), with the largest gains occurring in ambulatory health care services (16,000) and in nursing and residential care facilities (9,000).

In March, employment in mining increased by 8,000. Monthly job gains in mining have averaged 6,000 over the past 5 months.

Employment in federal government was up over the month, reflecting the hiring of 48,000 temporary workers for the decennial census.

Manufacturing employment continued to trend up in March (17,000); the industry has added 45,000 jobs in the first 3 months of 2010. Over the month, job gains were concentrated in fabricated metal products (9,000) and in machinery (6,000).

Employment in construction held steady (15,000) in March. The industry had lost an average of 72,000 jobs per month in the prior 12 months.

Over the month, employment changed little in transportation and warehousing, leisure and hospitality, retail trade, and wholesale trade.

In March, financial activities shed 21,000 jobs, with the largest losses occurring in insurance carriers and related activities (-9,000). Employment in the information industry decreased by 12,000.

The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls was up by 0.1 hour to 34.0 hours in March. The manufacturing workweek for all employees increased by 0.2 hour to 39.9 hours, and factory overtime was up by 0.1 hour over the month. In March, the average workweek for production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls increased by 0.2 hour to 33.3 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)

In March, average hourly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls fell by 2 cents, or 0.1 percent, to $22.47, following a 4-cent gain in February. Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have risen by 1.8 percent. In March, average hourly earnings of private production and nonsupervisory employees fell by 2 cents, or 0.1 percent, to $18.90. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for January was revised from -26,000 to +14,000, and the change for February was revised from -36,000 to -14,000.

Source = http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
jmi256
More job losses under Obama, despite his ‘promise’ that the trillion $ pork-filled “stimulus” bill that no one had time to read would halt job the losses. I’m just floored that they continue to use the word “unexpectedly” to describe his failed policies.

Quote:
Initial jobless claims increase unexpectedly
New claims for jobless benefits increase unexpectedly, while total benefit rolls drop


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The number of newly laid-off workers seeking unemployment benefits rose last week, a sign that jobs remain scarce even as the economy recovers.

The Labor Department said Thursday that first-time claims increased by 18,000 in the week ending April 3, to a seasonally adjusted 460,000. That's worse than economists' estimates of a drop to 435,000, according to a survey by Thomson Reuters.

The report covers the week that includes the Easter holiday, and a Labor Department analyst said seasonal adjustment for Easter can be difficult since the holiday occurs in different weeks each year.

California also closed its state offices for a holiday March 31, the analyst said, which likely held down the claims figures. On an unadjusted basis, claims rose by 6,500 to nearly 415,000.

Economists closely watch unemployment claims, which are seen as a gauge of layoffs and a measure of companies' willingness to hire new workers.

The four week average, which smooths volatility, rose to 450,250. Two weeks ago, the average fell to its lowest level since September 2008, when Lehman Brothers collapsed and the financial crisis intensified.

Jobless claims peaked during the recession at 651,000 in late March 2009.

The figures underscore that the job market remains weak even as the economy recovers. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Wednesday that high unemployment is one of the toughest challenges the economy faces.

While layoffs have slowed, hiring is "very weak," he said. "We are far from being out of the woods. Many Americans are still grappling with unemployment or foreclosure or both."

On a more positive note in the Labor Department's report, the tally of people continuing to claim benefits for more than a week fell by 131,000 to 4.55 million, the lowest level since December 2008.

That figure lags initial claims by a week. But it doesn't include millions of people who have used up the regular 26 weeks of benefits typically provided by states, and are receiving extended benefits for up to 73 additional weeks, paid for by the federal government.

Slightly more than 5.8 million people were receiving extended benefits in the week ended March 20, the latest data available, a drop of about 230,000 from the previous week. The extended benefit data isn't seasonally adjusted and is volatile from week to week.

Other recent reports have indicated that employers are slowly ramping up hiring. The Labor Department said Friday that the nation added a net total of 162,000 jobs in March, the most in three years. The unemployment rate held at 9.7 percent for the third straight month.

Layoffs fell to their lowest level in three years in February, according to a separate government report Tuesday. But hiring remained about 40 percent below pre-recession levels.

Some companies are still cutting jobs. An oilfield services company, Denver-based EnerCrest, said this month it has closed five locations in four states, losing 225 employees. Business software company Computer Associates Inc. said Tuesday that it is cutting 1,000 jobs as part of a plan to reduce costs.

Some recipients of the extended federal aid could see their benefits disrupted this week, as Congress failed to approve a continuation of the federal programs before leaving for a two-week vacation at the end of March.

That could cut off benefits for more than 200,000 people this week, according to the National Employment Law Project, an advocacy group, but Congressional Democratic leaders have said they will make up for the lost checks when they extend the program later this month.

Source = http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Initial-jobless-claims-apf-355511092.html?x=0&.v=7
deanhills
Right! Apparently the different stats had something to do with Easter weekend and obviously it may suit the person who wants to show how the unemployment numbers have dropped, not to look at the number of unemployment benefit claims that have increased at the same time. Guess one should question where the media gets its info from. If it is a Whitehouse or Government News Release, one has to be double vigilant.
jmi256
Again with the “unexpectedly.” I guess they didn’t think Easter would come around this year.

Quote:
Jobless claims jump in post-Easter volatility

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The number of U.S. workers filing new claims for jobless benefits unexpectedly soared last week as applications held back during the Easter holiday were processed, government data showed on Thursday.

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits rose 24,000 -- the largest increase in two months -- to a seasonally adjusted 484,000, the Labor Department said.

Analysts polled by Reuters had expected claims to dip to 440,000 from 460,000 the prior week, a number that was unrevised in Thursday's report.

A Labor Department official said the increase in claims last week was mainly due to administrative factors rather than economic ones. "I don't think there is a whole lot of layoffs going on," he said.

The four-week moving average of new claims, which irons out week-to-week volatility, rose 7,500 to 457,750.

Source = http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Jobless-claims-jump-in-rb-505686255.html?x=0&.v=1
Bikerman
Hmm...let's see.
US unemployment 2007-present



(source Bureau of Labour Statistics - http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet )

UK figures


Very similar pattern. Both Governments invested huge amounts to keep it down.
Looks like, in both cases, unemployment peaked last autumn and has been fairly stable since...
deanhills
This graph from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics gives a slightly different picture. It would appear that US and France unemployment rates are the highest out of the ten developed countries that have been compared with one another. These were observations included in the notes of the Charts and Tables:
Quote:
Of the foreign countries covered by the BLS unemployment comparisons program, the unemployment rate for the latest month available decreased in Japan and the United Kingdom and increased or remained unchanged in the remaining seven countries.

As of the latest month available, the highest unemployment rates were in France (9.9 percent) and the United States (9.7 percent).

CHART 1. Monthly unemployment rates adjusted to U.S. concepts, 10 countries, seasonally adjusted, September 2008–February 2010

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
This graph from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics gives a slightly different picture. It would appear that US and France unemployment rates are the highest out of the ten developed countries that have been compared with one another. These were observations included in the notes of the Charts and Tables:
Quote:
Of the foreign countries covered by the BLS unemployment comparisons program, the unemployment rate for the latest month available decreased in Japan and the United Kingdom and increased or remained unchanged in the remaining seven countries.

As of the latest month available, the highest unemployment rates were in France (9.9 percent) and the United States (9.7 percent).

CHART 1. Monthly unemployment rates adjusted to U.S. concepts, 10 countries, seasonally adjusted, September 2008–February 2010

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

Now, color code those graph bars by countries that did 'bailouts' and countries that did not, and we may be able to reach a conclusion.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Now, color code those graph bars by countries that did 'bailouts' and countries that did not, and we may be able to reach a conclusion.
You're brilliant Ocalhoun, I did not even think off that. And that is of course right on the number.
ocalhoun
In particular I would be interested to find out what Germany did... It seems they were able to stop the recession in its tracks rather early on.
Bikerman
ocalhoun wrote:
In particular I would be interested to find out what Germany did... It seems they were able to stop the recession in its tracks rather early on.


Germany pumped 480 billion euros into the banks back in 2008 when the crisis first became apparent - at just about the same time as the UK.

Actually colouring the graph by bailout wouldn't show anything much. Nearly all western countries bailed money into the banks - only those that couldn't, didn't (Iceland and Greece being the two major examples and they are both in deep doo doo now, though luckily for the Greeks they are part of the EEC, so the other countries (Germany in particular) stood as guarantors, which enables the Greeks to borrow significant amounts on the international markets - without support from other countries they would have been bankrupt about 8 months ago).

Of course the US and UK had more of a problem than most, since it was the banks in these two countries that were the most implicated and the most exposed to the sub-prime collapse. There is quite a bit of resentment in Europe about that, with some justification.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Actually colouring the graph by bailout wouldn't show anything much. Nearly all western countries bailed money into the banks
That is not really true. Canada for one was completely unaffected and because of its conservative banking policies did not have to follow the bailout strategies of the others. I'm almost certain the bailouts were limited to the countries who had made the greatest noises at the time: US, UK, Germany (Germany under protest only as initially they were not going to use any bailout strategies). I would be surprised if there had been bailouts in Japan, Australia, Netherlands and Sweden. I am aware that the Netherlands Government bought a Bank, but to me that is entirely different from bailing out a Bank.
Bikerman
Dean,
you don't know what you are talking about.
a) Canada spent about 75 billion bailing out the chartered banks. True they were not as badly exposed, but they were not 'completely unaffected'.

Germany injected 480 billion euros in December 2008. If fact, far from holding back, the leadership forced the bill through parliament in record time to get the money - and it passed with an overwhelming majority.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7676115.stm

Any notion that the Germans would stand by and let any of their major banks fail, particularly the Bundesbank, simply reveals a deep ignorance of the German system and the German psyche.

The Dutch Government bailed out two of the largest banks - ING and Forte.
http://www.theatlanticright.com/2008/10/19/dutch-government-to-bailout-ing-bank/

And no. buying a bank is not 'entirely different' from bailing it out. It is the same thing. The British government bought two banks - RBS and HBOS - precisely to stop them from failing.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article4932250.ece

Instead of spouting inaccurate and misleading opinion why don't you first check your facts?

PS - just to complete your 'full set':
Sweden spent about the same proportion of GDP propping up banks in 1992 as the US has done now. The difference is that the Swedes used my preferred method - they nationalised the banks and squeezed them hard. Exactly what I have proposed seveal times, but something which is anathema to the US because it is 'socialism'.

Now, who else did you list? Ah yes. Japan.
You could hardly pick a worse example for your 'point'. Remember the Japanese financial crisis in the early 1990s? Remember that the Japanese government did not intervene for years? Remember how long? 7 years. Most economists agree that was a BAD mistake and the result was that Japan paid far more than if the government had stepped in earlier.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3130558/Bail-out-Can-Japan-offer-the-solution-to-the-financial-crisis.html

Who is left on your list? Australia. Well, fair play to the ozzies - their banks didn't get into the sub-prime markets in a big way and were still pretty secure. Even so, the Government stepped in and underwrote ALL deposits held with Australian banks, just in case.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Dean,
you don't know what you are talking about.
a) Canada spent about 75 billion bailing out the chartered banks. True they were not as badly exposed, but they were not 'completely unaffected'.
For once I would like to be wrong, however at the time of the bailouts Canada was priding itself all over the show that there had been no bail outs needed in Canada because its Banks had careful regulations. At that time I had wondered during Frihost discussions how that could have been possible. The following is one of the typical articles that were going around the press. This article is from CBS News in Canada:

Harper credits regulations for preventing bank bailouts
PM takes economic message to U.S. media ahead of G20 summit

Quote:
Last Updated: Sunday, March 29, 2009 | 12:20 PM ET Comments640Recommend122.
CBC News
Canada has achieved a balance in the regulation of its banks that will serve the country well once the global economy begins to recover, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in an interview Sunday with a U.S. television network.

On Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace pointed out that Canada's relatively tough banking regulations mean no Canadian banks have needed a bailout, but he asked Harper if he was worried that regulation saps the innovation and risk-taking that goes on in a freer market.

Harper said it's fine to say that countries should have less regulation in principle and less intervention in the marketplace, but that approach can mean more intervention.

"It's led us to a situation where the government is, in fact, intervening massively as a consequence of under-regulation and where we now have, effectively in many countries, nationalization of the financial system," the prime minister said.

"I know in Canada there have been some criticisms in the past that we were perhaps too [much of an] activist, intervening too much, but we're emerging from this probably with the only truly free market financial system in the world," he said.

Question then is whether Harper had lied at the time?

Bikerman wrote:
Germany injected 480 billion euros in December 2008. If fact, far from holding back, the leadership forced the bill through parliament in record time to get the money - and it passed with an overwhelming majority.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7676115.stm

Any notion that the Germans would stand by and let any of their major banks fail, particularly the Bundesbank, simply reveals a deep ignorance of the German system and the German psyche.
If you read my posting carefully you would have noted that I said that initially the Germans did not support bailouts, which obviously meant that eventually they did. Angela Merkel's first spontaneous response was "no". It then changed quite rapidly after that as the drama in Germany unfolded.

Bikerman wrote:
The Dutch Government bailed out two of the largest banks - ING and Forte.
http://www.theatlanticright.com/2008/10/19/dutch-government-to-bailout-ing-bank/
There were two arms of Forte. The one that was in Belgium and had more to do with insurance, and the other that was more financial. I used to Bank with forte, and the name of the Bank I was banking with changed eventually, as ownership completely changed of that portion. None of the dealings has been really completely transparent, all I can speak for is my own personal experience. Part of Forte does not exist anymore and has changed hands.

Bikerman wrote:
And no. buying a bank is not 'entirely different' from bailing it out. It is the same thing. The British government bought two banks - RBS and HBOS - precisely to stop them from failing.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article4932250.ece
I have no insights in the British system. I have also not made any comment for that reason. What I do know is that banking in Britain was already not of the strongest even before the crisis with Lehman Bros struck. The Footsie never managed to get to the same highs as the US did just before everything started to fall apart.

Quote:
Instead of spouting inaccurate and misleading opinion why don't you first check your facts?
A remark like this is completely unnecessary Bikerman. It also assumes that you are the expert, which obviously you are not. You are not a world economist by even the closest of observances. Nor am I. None of the information that was given to the media about the bailouts has ever been transparent or finite enough for anyone to really know what was going on nor to claim that they are experts on the bailouts.
Bikerman
I didn't ask for expertise, I asked you to simply check your facts before you tell me I am wrong.
You didn't and I wasn't.
Your bluster adds nothing substantive and needs no reply, apart from pointing out that equating the relative strengths of banking systems using the stock market as a measure is not just wrong, it is bizarre.
I have never claimed to be an economist, but when I post I try to make sure it is, at least, accurate. You seem to just type whatever happens to come into your head. It may be entertaining to some, but I find it highly irritating and unhelpful.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
I didn't ask for expertise, I asked you to simply check your facts before you tell me I am wrong.
You didn't and I wasn't.
Your bluster adds nothing substantive and needs no reply, apart from pointing out that equating the relative strengths of banking systems using the stock market as a measure is not just wrong, it is bizarre.
I have never claimed to be an economist, but when I post I try to make sure it is, at least, accurate. You seem to just type whatever happens to come into your head. It may be entertaining to some, but I find it highly irritating and unhelpful.
When you posted your chart about the unemployment numbers earlier in this thread, I probably could also have come up with biting words or sarcasm, but instead I posted another chart I discovered when I was doing my research, which was an improvement over what you had been trying to do, but without saying so. I thought it a fun exercise. As I have no doubt that someone else could yet again have come up with another chart that could have been an improvement over mine, which would have been great, as this is what the discussion is supposed to be about. All those stats and polls are always wheels within wheels, and it depends when, where, how, and with whom, etc. and how they are applied whether they receive their moment of glory or not, so everyone could have a good point of view, using the right set of stats/polls/charts to their own advantage.

I enjoy posting in these forums, and I do my research as best as I can. I'm sure there will always be something you can correct in my postings, and I have no problem with that, I don't think any of our postings in Frihost are ever really that 100% perfect anyway, including yours. But to come up with personal remarks like "irritating" and "entertaining some" and other derogatory descriptions like the ones you have made in your posting above, as well as many other postings, is totally unnecessary. We are not here to like or dislike one another, nor to judge one another. Perhaps we need to keep our irritations and petty dislikes to ourselves.
Bikerman
Quote:
But to come up with personal remarks like "irritating" and "entertaining some" and other derogatory descriptions like the ones you have made in your posting above, as well as many other postings, is totally unnecessary.
Neither were derogatory, in fact neither were the slightest bit personal to YOU. Irritating is how I find your interruption and 'entertaining to some' speaks for itself.
Quote:
We are not here to like or dislike one another, nor to judge one another. Perhaps we need to keep our irritations and petty dislikes to ourselves.
I'll be generous and pretend that this isn't patronising garbage, but if you talk to me like a three year old again you will find out just how much I dislike it.

Let me make it very simple for you.
If I enter a thread to discuss a particular point with someone, I don't really want your input. When I have finished the point I will happily leave you to continue, but in the meantime it would please me no end if you would find somewhere else to post. It won't be for long - normally a couple of postings whilst I straighten out something, and I don't post in many threads in this forum, so that is not particularly a big ask.

Now, in this thread (and in another here) you interrupted a point I was trying to discuss with ocalhoun. Your interruptions, in both cases, were not relevant to the specific point, contained inaccurate comment and resulted in a long sidetrack. That irritates me greatly. You might not know you are doing it, which is why I am posting this very reasonable request. I'm not talking about the chart. You did indeed post a better version, which is why I butted-out and let it continue. I re-entered because ocalhoun wondered about Germany. I provided the information and you then proceeded to write a lot of nonsense, which interrupted the point and forced me to show that it WAS nonsense.

Keep that simple 'rule'* and all will be well (at least in this form), I won't get irritated and you can post what you like.

I will now exit this thread and let you continue.


* It is not a rule in terms of the TOS, but it is common netiquette.
jmi256
More bad news as Obama continues to fail to deliver on his promises. Federal hiring of temporary part-time census workers artificially propped up Obama’s unemployment numbers, but as the census wraps up, those workers will again be out of luck. Where are the millions of jobs that were somehow supposed to magically materialize due to the pork-filled, multi-billion-dollar ‘stimulus’ package Obama rammed through Congress?


Quote:
Stocks off sharply after disappointing jobs report

By STEPHEN BERNARD (AP) – 5 days ago

NEW YORK — A monthly report on unemployment that fell far short of expectations sent stocks and interest rates sharply lower Friday.

The Dow Jones industrial average dropped 158 points.

Investors got an unpleasant surprise from the Labor Department's report that 431,000 jobs were created last month. Most of those jobs, 411,000, came from the government's hiring of temporary census workers. Economists polled by Thomson Reuters had forecast employers would add 513,000 jobs.

Hiring by private employers was particularly weak, which is raising concerns that the economic recovery remains slow. Private employers added just 41,000 jobs in May, down from 218,000 in April and the fewest since January.

The unemployment rate fell to 9.7 percent from 9.9 percent in April. That was slightly better than the 9.8 percent unemployment rate economists had forecast. That number, however, could creep higher again as more people try to find work and census workers lose their temporary jobs.

Overall, 15 million American remain unemployed. Including workers who have given up looking for work or part-time workers who want full-time jobs, the so-called underemployment rate dipped to 16.6 percent in May from 17.1 percent a month earlier.

The monthly jobs report is one of the most important reports on the economic calendar. High unemployment remains one of the biggest obstacles to strong, sustained growth. Without people returning to the work force, consumer spending is expected to remain sluggish and limit future growth. Consumer spending accounts for the bulk of economic activity.

In morning trading, the Dow plummeted 158.10, or 1.5 percent, to 10,096.80. The Standard & Poor's 500 index fell 18.58, or 1.7 percent, to 1,084.25, while the Nasdaq composite index futures dropped 39.83, or 1.7 percent, to 1,864.50.

About 18 stocks fell for every one that rose on the New York Stock Exchange where volume came to 77.9 million shares.

Investors poured into safe-havens like U.S. Treasurys because of the weak employment report and a faltering euro. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note, which moves opposite its price, fell to 3.25 percent from 3.37 percent late Thursday. The yield on the 10-year note is often used as a benchmark for consumer loans and mortgages.

Fresh concerns about the health of European banks also dragged down U.S. and European indexes.

The euro, which is used by 16 countries in Europe, fell as low as $1.2019 before climbing back to $1.2045. The euro has become an indicator for investors' confidence in Europe's economy. European and U.S. stocks have often mirrored moves in the euro over the past month.

Investors are concerned that mounting debt problems in countries such as Greece, Spain and Portugal will upend an economic recovery on the continent and slow a rebound globally.

Overseas, Britain's FTSE 100 fell 1.9 percent, Germany's DAX index fell 1.9 percent, and France's CAC-40 dropped 2.3 percent. All three indexes traded higher earlier in the day.

Oil prices fell sharply as investors pulled out of risky assets. Benchmark crude dropped $1.52 to $73.09 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

The Russell 2000 index of smaller stocks fell 13.95, or 2.1 percent, to 653.42.

Source = http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jmT59dgLTTziX4p9X9MRBRpWZGdQD9G4G8EG1
jmi256
I wonder if Obama is going to blame his inability to deliver on his promises on the weather or on an annual holiday springing up again. I can’t believe that his diehard supports actually want people to believe that Obama’s performance is anything close to satisfactory.

Quote:
Unemployment rate dips as more workers leave labor force
Employment-seekers decline by 652,000 June, which may reflect people giving up on job-hunting and a reluctance to hire. Overall, the jobless rate falls to 9.5% from 9.7%, the Labor Department reports.


Washington — Private employers added a smaller-than-expected 83,000 jobs in June, but the unemployment rate edged down to 9.5% as many workers dropped out of a labor market that remains very sluggish.

The Labor Department reported Friday that total payroll employment, including government workers, was down 125,000 in June, reflecting the loss of 225,000 census workers who finished their assignments.

The decrease in Census Bureau staffing was expected, but most analysts were looking for stronger job growth in the private sector, which has yet to generate momentum and looms as a major threat to the overall economic recovery. In May, private employers added just 33,000 jobs. What's more, the average hours worked in manufacturing and other industries in June declined, as did average hourly earnings.

Job gains last month were largely in low-paying industries -- leisure and hospitality, and the temporary-help industry. Manufacturing payrolls grew by 9,000, but that was much smaller than the average of 25,400 in the prior five months. And the construction industry shed another 22,000 jobs in June.

Although the jobless rate in June fell from 9.7% in May, that reflected a big drop of 652,000 people in the labor force over the month. The labor force is made up of workers and those actively looking for jobs. With the economic recovery weakening and many employers reluctant to hire, many more unemployed people may have quit looking for work, which would push down the jobless rate.

In fact, the percentage of the overall working-age population that is in the labor force fell last month to 64.7% -- near a 25-year low.


Source = http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-jobs-report-20100703,0,3397439.story?track=rss
jmi256
Here's a very simple illustration of Obama's 'stimulus' results.



The Obama Stimulus: Predictions vs. Reality
deanhills
@jmi. The YouTube show was interesting, but I don't see substance in it. I'm really looking for something objective that explains exactly how many jobs have been saved. Instead of working the numbers such as Obama has done both when he pitched for the funding and afterwards. The same thing with tax "savings". Everything is a marketing pitch so that very little is transparent.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
@jmi. The YouTube show was interesting, but I don't see substance in it. I'm really looking for something objective that explains exactly how many jobs have been saved. Instead of working the numbers such as Obama has done both when he pitched for the funding and afterwards. The same thing with tax "savings". Everything is a marketing pitch so that very little is transparent.


Well, it's impossible to tell how many jobs have been saved, because nobody can say for sure what the employment situation would look like without it.

When I evaluate the effect of the stimulus though, this seems to make it clear cut:

Obama: Without the stimulus, unemployment might rise above 8%
*Stimulus passes*
*Employment rises to 10%+*
Obama: The stimulus worked.

Wait, what?
jmi256
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
@jmi. The YouTube show was interesting, but I don't see substance in it. I'm really looking for something objective that explains exactly how many jobs have been saved. Instead of working the numbers such as Obama has done both when he pitched for the funding and afterwards. The same thing with tax "savings". Everything is a marketing pitch so that very little is transparent.


Well, it's impossible to tell how many jobs have been saved, because nobody can say for sure what the employment situation would look like without it.

When I evaluate the effect of the stimulus though, this seems to make it clear cut:

Obama: Without the stimulus, unemployment might rise above 8%
*Stimulus passes*
*Employment rises to 10%+*
Obama: The stimulus worked.

Wait, what?


@deanhills. The video was just an illustration of the issue, not intended to be literal. Good luck finding anything trustworthy that claims Obama has created any jobs. The rise in unemployment makes that a very hard case to make, and all I’ve been able to find is spin and outright lies by Democrats.

@ocalhoun. To be honest with you, it’s a sad commentary on the state of affairs that the idea that people have to look to the government to ‘create’ jobs is so prevalent. It just shows how successful liberals/Progressives/etc. have been in turning a country of strong, self-sufficient individuals reliant on themselves and each other into weak, groveling nanny-state devotees who are constantly looking for a handout even if it means taking the money forcefully from their neighbors. It’s really sad. Instead the government should get out of the way and let those who are able to start and grow businesses, and create jobs do so. That is where economic recovery will occur. Not by paying for more handouts to failed businesses and the Democrats’ campaign contributors. But as you pointed out, Obama and the Democrats drew a line in the sand with their promises. I don’t agree with them, but they should be held accountable for what they claim, especially when they take hundreds of billions of our money to finance their schemes and handouts.


BTW, it looks like we’re back to “expectedly,” even though this is exactly what has been occurring for the last year and a half. What else would they expect when policies that harm businesses and individuals are enacted? Instead of the economy, Obama and the Democrats have decided to waste the last year and a half focusing on pet projects and handouts to their Big Business campaign contributors.

Quote:
Stocks fall after spike in jobless benefits claims
Stocks drop after surprise jump in weekly claims for unemployment benefits



NEW YORK (AP) – Stocks fell Thursday after first-time claims for jobless benefits rose unexpectedly last week.

The high unemployment rate in the U.S. remains one of the biggest worries for investors. The surprise jump in claims last week suggests that employers are still reluctant to create jobs, which could keep a damper on economic growth the coming months.

The Labor Department said initial claims for unemployment benefits jumped to 479,000 last week from a 460,000 a week earlier. Economists polled by Thomson Reuters had forecast new claims would fall modestly to 455,000.

The market will get a stronger reading on the jobs market on Friday when the government releases its closely watched monthly tally of payrolls and the unemployment rate. Investors have been getting mixed signals on the economy in recent weeks, and sent stocks higher on Wednesday after payroll company ADP reported that private employers slightly increased hiring last month.

In other news, monthly retail sales reports showed shoppers remain skittish about spending as hiring remains scarce. Costco Wholesale Corp. and Limited Brands Inc. both reported big jumps in July sales, but that was compared with weak results a year ago. Teen retailers like The Buckle Inc. and The Wet Seal Inc. continue to struggle as consumers increase their savings rate.

Thursday's jobless claims report added to a murky picture heading into the monthly employment survey. The Labor Department is expected to say private employers hired 90,000 workers in July, a slight increase from the 83,000 hired in June. But because of government layoffs tied to cutting temporary census jobs, the unemployment rate is expected to rise to 9.6 percent from 9.5 percent.

In early morning trading, the Dow Jones industrial average fell 61.38, or 0.6 percent, to 10,618.37. The Standard & Poor's 500 index fell 8.06, or 0.7 percent, to 1,119.18, while the Nasdaq composite index fell 14.44, or 0.6 percent, to 2,289.13.

Source = http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Stocks-fall-after-spike-in-apf-2317341206.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=
Bikerman
Quote:
It just shows how successful liberals/Progressives/etc. have been in turning a country of strong, self-sufficient individuals reliant on themselves and each other into weak, groveling nanny-state devotees who are constantly looking for a handout even if it means taking the money forcefully from their neighbors.
Can you tell me when this self-sufficient, self reliant America was, in history? 19th century pioneers? Early 20th century? Depression? WW2?
The founding fathers certainly believed in a big government. Listen to Ben Franklin on property, using Native Americans as an example:
Franklin wrote:
All property, indeed, except the savage's temporary cabin, his bow, his matchcoat and other little Acquisitions absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the creature of public Convention. Hence, the public has the rights of regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the quantity and uses of it. All the property that is necessary to a man is his natural Right, which none may justly deprive him of, but all Property superfluous to such Purposes is the property of the Public who, by their Laws have created it and who may, by other Laws dispose of it.


Chicago Tribine 1998 wrote:
William J. Novak had garnered acclaim and serious attention for his assertion that the prevailing view upholding 19th-century America as a folkloric golden age of small government, unfettered individual rights, and laissez-faire economics is sheer myth.

"I had always learned the old story that American regulatory history begins with the shift from a laissez-faire approach to the modern welfare state in the 20th century," says Novak. "But I kept uncovering 19th-century precedents in every area of regulation. I don't see a period from the mid-18th century to the present in which government and public policy weren't playing a key role in economic and social life."

Awarded the Littleton-Griswold prize by the American Historical Association as 1997's best book on law and society, "The People's Welfare" presents reams of 19th-century municipal, state, and federal laws that sought to affect the economy, the use of public spaces, social and cultural conditions, and public health and safety.

Wrote University of California law professor Reuel Schiller in "Reviews in American History": "If...any historical evidence can destroy the myth of the stateless 19th-century, it is in this book."

"Welfare" includes a list drawn up by the Illinois legislature in 1837 of 34 governmental powers that granted the fledgling city of Chicago the authority to prevent obstructions in public waterways, to restrain and prohibit gaming, to regulate the sale of spirits, to oversee the management of slaughterhouses, and to enforce a range of other rules.

In one of numerous similar examples, Novak points out how, as early as 1801, New York's legislature regulated lotteries, guns, rents, ferries, attorneys, and lumber inspections.

Novak's conclusions have implications for today's political debates. As one book reviewer noted, Novak's views, though supported by exhaustive research, "will come as heresy to any politician who got into office, or is trying to get there, on the usually reliable platform that the liberals, the do-gooders, the good-government crowd, and the meddlers have invented an overbearing and intrusive government of a kind we never had before."

Although historian Novak refrains from taking a political stance on whether regulation is good or bad for the country, he goes so far as to warn that reliance on references to a golden age of statelessness represent, at best, a simplistic way of viewing history and, at worst, a disingenuous appraisal of American governance history.

It seems to me that this golden age of liberty and individualism is a bit of a myth.....
jmi256
The non-farm payroll numbers came out today, and as expected Obama’s policies have led to more job losses. Obama’s Chairperson of his Council of Economic Advisors has come to a revelation, though. At least those Brainiacs in the Obama Administration have come up with this tidbit after a year and a half of their epic failure to deliver on what they said they would when they took hundreds of billions of dollars from American taxpayers to fund their pet projects. No wonder the left flunks Econ 101.

Quote:
Romer Says Need Stronger Employment Growth to Cut Jobless Rate
Aug. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Christina Romer, who chairs the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers, said the U.S. needs stronger job growth to lower the nation’s unemployment rate.

Source = http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-08-06/romer-says-need-stronger-employment-growth-to-cut-jobless-rate.html





Quote:
Jobs Picture Worsens With 131,000 Losses; 9.5% Rate
U.S. employment fell for a second straight month in July as more temporary census jobs ended while private hiring rose less than expected, pointing to an anemic economic recovery.

Non-farm payrolls fell 131,000, the Labor Department said on Friday as temporary jobs to conduct the decennial census dropped by 143,000. Private employment, considered a better gauge of labor market health, rose 71,000 after increasing 31,000 in June.

In addition, the government revised payrolls for May and June to show 97,000 fewer jobs than previously reported.

Analysts polled by Reuters had forecast overall employment falling 65,000 and private-sector hiring increasing 90,000.

"We're seeing an economy that's moving ahead slowly but not creating net on balance a lot of new jobs, and it points to continued expectations the economic slowdown we've seen will probably extend another two to three months, if not longer," said Fred Dickson, chief market strategist at The Davidson Cos. in Lake Oswego, Ore.

The unemployment rate was unchanged at 9.5 percent in July, just below market expectations for a rise to 9.6 percent. The steady jobless rate largely reflected a drop in the labor force as discouraged workers gave up the search for jobs.

Job growth has taken a step back after fairly strong gains between February and April, putting in jeopardy the economy's recovery from its worst downturn since the 1930s.

Growing unease over the health of the economy is weighing on President Barack Obama's popularity and hurting the Democratic Party's prospects of keeping control of Congress in November's mid-term elections.

The state of the labor market is one of the factors that will determine the timing of the Federal Reserve's first interest rate rise since reducing overnight lending rates to near zero in December 2008.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has said the U.S. central bank could take steps to further ease monetary policy if the recovery were to falter.

The central bank holds its next policy-setting meeting on Tuesday and the employment report is likely to keep debate alive on whether more easing is needed.

Economic growth slowed to a 2.4 percent annual rate in the second quarter after expanding at a 3.7 percent pace in the first three months of this year.

Work Week, Wages Increase
There were some positive elements in the report. The average workweek edged up to 34.2 hours after slipping to 34.1 hours in June. Employers normally increase working hours for existing staff before hiring additional workers.

Average hourly earnings increased by four cents to $22.59 last month.

"Average hourly earnings, our only monthly proxy of wages, rose 0.2 percent after a distressing no gain in June," said Cary Leahey, economist at Decision Economics in New York.

"Add that together and it suggests that the liftoff point for GDP is not that bad for the third quarter. No one will lower their GDP forecast for the third quarter based on this report."

Despite the tepid private sector jobs growth, the pace of layoffs has moderated significantly from the first quarter of last year, when employers were culling an average of 752,000 jobs a month.

Last month, the dominant service sector added 38,000 jobs after June's 34,000 gain. More disturbing, temporary help services, seen as a harbinger of future permanent hiring, fell 5,600 after increasing 11,200. Temporary employment gains had averaged 45,000 per month from October 2009 to May.

State and local governments, struggling with huge budget deficits, purged more workers last month, combining with mass layoffs of temporary federal census workers to push government payrolls down by 202,000 compared to a 252,000 drop in June.

Payrolls in the goods-producing sector unexpectedly rose in July, reversing the prior month's decline as manufacturing employment was boosted by auto makers who did not shut down their plants in July for retooling. Manufacturing jobs increased 36,000 after gaining 13,000 in June.

The sector is leading the economic recovery, which started in the second half of 2009. However, construction employment fell 11,000. A strike in the sector reduced construction payrolls by 10,000 last month.

Source = http://www.cnbc.com/id/38590746
handfleisch
You should rename this thread

Right Wing Cheers Any Bad News! Hopes for More!
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
You should rename this thread

Right Wing Cheers Any Bad News! Hopes for More!


Ahhh.... another of your recycled comments, I see. Since we're at it, I guess I'll just have to recycle my response to basically the same comment you made previously:

Quote:
I haven't been cheering anything. It's call accountability. If his policies are detrimental to us here in the US, he needs to be called out on it. Where are all those jobs that Obama's 'stimulus' tax bill was supposed to create? Looks like it went to pet projects, as predicted. And at the cost of almost $800 billion that we taxpayers and our children will have to pay in higher taxes. So 15.4 million Americans who want to work, but are unable to under Obama, is good news? Listen, if that's what qualifies as good news in your alternate-universe, so be it. I think most people like to live in reality, though.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
You should rename this thread

Right Wing Cheers Any Bad News! Hopes for More!


Ahhh.... another of your recycled comments, I see. Since we're at it, I guess I'll just have to recycle my response to basically the same comment you made previously:

Quote:
I haven't been cheering anything. It's call accountability.... I think most people like to live in reality, though.

Thanks for repeating this reply since I needed a good laugh today. You're the one living in reality? In your reality, Obama is sending thugs to shut down town hall meetings while evil scientists invent climate change in the horror movie that started when Obama took office, destroying the peace and prosperity created by the Republicans for eight years.

Since you're so happy to reply today, could you entertain us further with
-telling us how much Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, right wing talk shows, FOX News, Newsbusters, townhall.com, worldnetdaily.com and breitbart.com you take in per week?
-supplying us with forums where you posted before and during the war in Iraq, so we can see your cheerleading for the invasion, for the scary dangers of WMD, and for how Saddam was going to strike the USA any secone (you're not going to pretend you didn't cheerlead the invasion, are you?). People need to know where your type of right wing nonsense comes from and leads to.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
You should rename this thread

Right Wing Cheers Any Bad News! Hopes for More!


Ahhh.... another of your recycled comments, I see. Since we're at it, I guess I'll just have to recycle my response to basically the same comment you made previously:

Quote:
I haven't been cheering anything. It's call accountability.... I think most people like to live in reality, though.

Thanks for repeating this reply since I needed a good laugh today. You're the one living in reality? In your reality, Obama is sending thugs to shut down town hall meetings while evil scientists invent climate change in the horror movie that started when Obama took office, destroying the peace and prosperity created by the Republicans for eight years.

Since you're so happy to reply today, could you entertain us further with
-telling us how much Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, right wing talk shows, FOX News, Newsbusters, townhall.com, worldnetdaily.com and breitbart.com you take in per week?
-supplying us with forums where you posted before and during the war in Iraq, so we can see your cheerleading for the invasion, for the scary dangers of WMD, and for how Saddam was going to strike the USA any secone (you're not going to pretend you didn't cheerlead the invasion, are you?). People need to know where your type of right wing nonsense comes from and leads to.

I’m not going to engage in your typical flamebaiting nonsense. If you have something worthwhile to add or discuss, I’d be happy to respond.
jmi256
I’m just constantly amazed that some people continue to be surprised at how poor of a job Obama and the Democrats have been at delivering on their promises. From the get-go people have been saying that their pie-in-the-sky promises were just the typical empty campaign-style pledges that Obama and the Democrats have come to be known for, and that the ‘Stimulus Bill’ money grab was poorly planned and even more poorly executed and managed. Like I said before I didn’t agree with Obama’s promises, but if he and the Democrats wanted to make them, that’s their business. And if people wanted to believe their promises, that’s also their prerogative. But since Obama and the Democrats have used the downturn in the economy as a premise to take trillions of dollars from American taxpayers and out of the economy, they should be held accountable to deliver on what they said they would. But I guess this type of waste and ineffectiveness is what to expect with Obama and the other Democrats in power. Hopefully this November we’ll be able to get rid of the Democrats’ almost half-decade-long stranglehold on Congress as they are voted out of power as I think it’s no coincidence that the economic downturn began shortly after they took control of Congress. But instead of taking more money from taxpayers and out of the economy for pet projects, which will all result in higher taxes, whoever replaces the Democrats shouldn’t follow in their failed footsteps and instead work to control the size and scope of government intrusion, allow taxpayers to keep more of their own earnings and work on reducing the blossoming national debt that has been racked up.

Quote:
New claims for unemployment aid reach 484K
New applications for jobless benefits rise to highest since February as layoffs continue



WASHINGTON (AP) -- The employment picture is looking bleaker as applications for jobless benefits rose last week to the highest level in almost six months.

It's a sign that hiring is weak and employers are still cutting their staffs.

First-time claims for jobless benefits edged up by 2,000 to a seasonally adjusted 484,000, the Labor Department said Thursday. Analysts had expected a drop. That's the highest total since February.

Initial claims have now risen in three of the last four weeks and are close to their high point for the year of 490,000, reached in late January. The four-week average, which smooths volatility, soared by 14,250 to 473,500, also the highest since late February.

Analysts said that the unexpected rise in claims suggests hiring in August won't be much better than July. The economy added a net 12,000 jobs last month after excluding the loss of temporary census positions.

The jobless claims report "represents a very adverse turn in the labor market, threatening income growth and consumer spending," Pierre Ellis, an economist at Decision Economics, wrote in a note to clients.

The prospect of more layoffs added to this week's grim outlook for the economy, which began Tuesday when the Federal Reserve lowered its assessment of the recovery.

Investors were bracing for another rocky day on Wall Street. Dow Jones industrial average futures, which were down about 50 points before the report came out, fell further. They were down nearly 90 points before the market opened.

Economists closely watch weekly claims, which are considered a gauge of the pace of layoffs and an indication of employers' willingness to hire.

The government's July jobs report, released Friday, showed that the economy lost a net total of 131,000 jobs last month. Excluding the impact of the elimination of 143,000 temporary census jobs, the economy added a meager 12,000 positions, as layoffs by state and local governments almost canceled out weak hiring by businesses.

Thursday's report on jobless claims indicates that trend may not change soon. Claims fell steadily last year from their peak of 651,000, reached in March 2009. But they have mostly leveled out this year at or above 450,000. In a healthy economy with rapid hiring, claims usually drop below 400,000.

The rise in claims could be a sign private employers are ramping up layoffs, which declined as recently as June, according to a separate government report released Wednesday.

Some economists speculate that many census workers whose jobs are finished are requesting unemployment benefits.

Claims could also be rising because of large job cuts by state and local governments, which are struggling with unprecedented budget gaps. State and local governments cut 48,000 jobs in July.

Another possibility is that small companies, facing tight credit, are still reducing their staffs, even as larger corporations slowly resume hiring.

The total number of people receiving benefits dropped 118,000 to 4.45 million, the department said. But that doesn't include another 5.3 million people receiving extended benefits paid for by the federal government, as of the week ending July 24, the latest data available.

During the recession, Congress added up to 73 extra weeks of unemployment benefits, on top of the 26 usually provided by states. That extended program lapsed in early June but was reinstated by Congress last month.

Some companies are still cutting workers. Medical products manufacturer CareFusion Corp. said Wednesday it plans to eliminate 700 jobs, saving the company up to $120 million a year.

Source = http://finance.yahoo.com/news/New-claims-for-unemployment-apf-3180551258.html?x=0&.v=1
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
I’m just constantly amazed that some people continue to be surprised at how poor of a job Obama and the Democrats have been at delivering on their promises.


Please tell us:
1. What exactly Obama supposedly did wrong that the Republicans wouldn't have done, and how this would have affected unemployment
2. Whether you have heard about the worldwide financial crisis, and don't you understand that the US economy has rebounded quite well from the worst crisis since the Depression that Obama inherited?
3. What the Republican / right wing solution is to the unemployment problem? Because they sure haven't made many concrete proposals in Congress. They just want to repeat their mistakes, deny unemployment benefits to jobless Americans, make more disastrous deregulation, give more tax breaks to the rich.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
I’m just constantly amazed that some people continue to be surprised at how poor of a job Obama and the Democrats have been at delivering on their promises.


Please tell us:
1. What exactly Obama supposedly did wrong that the Republicans wouldn't have done, and how this would have affected unemployment

What did Obama and the Democrats do wrong? How about not deliver on their promises. They made the promises, and they are accountable for them. Like I said earlier in the part you left out, I wouldn’t have such a problem with his empty promises except he took almost a trillion dollars of our money for his ‘stimulus’ bill and all he has to show for it is higher unemployment. I thought he was supposed to be competent?

handfleisch wrote:
2. Whether you have heard about the worldwide financial crisis, and don't you understand that the US economy has rebounded quite well from the worst crisis since the Depression that Obama inherited?

The worst unemployment in decades is “quite well” in your mind? Ok, if you say so. I guess you still think he’s doing just a peachy job and delivering on his promises then. The rest of us know better though. But if you are now saying that the economic downturn is a worldwide phenomenon and US economy is just a victim of some large-scale economic cycle rather than Obama’s gross mishandling and ineptitude, doesn’t that negate your other common refrain that “it’s Bush’s fault”? To be honest I actually agree that the recent economic downturn is a “worldwide financial crisis.” Periods of economic growth as we saw in the first three quarters of this decade are bound to be followed by retraction/recession. That’s simple economics. In fact, most economists agree the recession as they classify recessions has been over for quite a while now. Obama has simply been unable to deliver on what he said he would in exchange for the almost trillion dollars he took. What has made this especially difficult is the housing bubble that was created due to borrowers who had no business borrowing money to buy houses (bad credit, no down payment, no job, etc.), which is just idiotic. The Clinton Administration and the Democrats began pressuring Fannie Mae back in 1999 to provide more mortgages to those who shouldn’t have them, and we are feeling the results of their idiocy.

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html



handfleisch wrote:
3. What the Republican / right wing solution is to the unemployment problem? Because they sure haven't made many concrete proposals in Congress. They just want to repeat their mistakes, deny unemployment benefits to jobless Americans, make more disastrous deregulation, give more tax breaks to the rich.

Ahhh…. I see you’re back to the same old nonsense/talking points you seem to have picked up from the latest newsletter/talking points memo/blog/etc. This discussion has already happened, and as I have pointed out/posted before, here are a few things that could be done:

jmi256 wrote:
It would take a while to undo all the damage the liberals have done. Just as the real estate crisis was almost 10 years in the making, it would take almost that long to reverse the policies they have instituted in the past and seek to continue today (for example using Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae to make risky loans to those unable to afford them for political reasons).

But if I had to do something to alleviate the problem in the short-term while setting us up for long-term growth, I would have started by being honest with people and letting them know that the federal government is incapable of creating wealth or meaningful jobs; that must be done in the private sector. All the federal government is doing is redistributing earnings. People have been conditioned to expect the government to rob Peter to pay Paul, as the saying goes, but they don’t realize that eventually the system falls apart.

Next I would have cut government spending drastically. Not all the cuts would be popular, and you’ll have some special interest groups up in arms, but just as a household facing financial tightens its belt, the federal government should do the same. For example, all the bailouts shouldn’t have happened. If the companies couldn’t function properly, they have no business being in business. I’ve said this before, but I do not believe in the “too big to fail” doctrine, but it’s a whine that we often hear from big-government proponents to justify their policies. If those companies did fail, their assets would have been sold off and more efficient competitors would be stepping in to run those companies and actually make a profit. Workers would have been hired by these newer, more efficient companies.

I would also cut/reduce certain federal departments. I know someone will attack certain points, but I am leaving a lot of detail out here for sake of brevity. Of course each point would need much more detail and planning, but I present just a high-level, tongue-in-cheek assessment:

--Department of Education: Out. This should be handled locally, and this department is the shining example of a do-nothing agency.

--National Science Foundation: Sorry you’re out. I know you like to think you’re doing good work, but more is happening in the private sector. The private sector is working on curing cancer, and the latest news these clowns have is that “Lizards acquire the same camouflaging adaptation in different ways”. Seriously, check out the latest press release on their website.

--EPA: you’ll be absorbed into the Department of Interior to reduce overhead.

--International ‘Assistance’: Sorry, you’re out too. I’m sick of paying off shady countries and despots who end up using that money to attack us and generate anti-American fervor.

--NASA: I love you and would give my left sack to ride in one of your rockets, but you’ll need to become self-sufficient. Private individuals are returning rockets from space for far less than you are, and private companies have figured out a way to make money from space tourism. I’m sick of thinking that if I’m very, very lucky and wait to die long enough, I might get to see you do something great again. I’m not saying I would cut you out, but I would take a very stern look at your budget and demand results. Tough love.

--Homeland Security: You guys are a joke. Your answer to being unable to follow your own policies and procedures is to call for even more restrictive policies and procedures. While it’s important to safeguard US citizens, I don’t think we have to give up the liberties that make the US great in the process. Sorry, you will be forced to become more efficient (do less things better, like actually protecting US citizens).

--HUD: You’ll also see your budget drastically cut. If someone is unable or unwilling to pay for a house, you shouldn’t be putting them in one.

--Department of Personnel Management: With a smaller government, there will be less of a need for you. Bye.

--DoD: I think one of the reasons we’re perpetually at war is because there is not a carrot for ending them. Set a realistic goal that doesn’t include nation building (capture OBL, bomb an enemy’s installation, etc.), and then hold the generals and senior officers accountable to those goals. If they don’t want to accept an objective, fine, let them bow out before the offensive starts. But once accepted, they can’t go home until it’s accomplished. You’ll see long, expensive, prolonged wars replaced with short, relatively inexpensive, targeted missions with real objectives, translating into less $$ spent. That’s similar to how it used to be done.

--Health and Human Services: This department is a liberal’s wet dream. No clear mission or objectives, subjective standards and a boatload of taxpayer money. This can probably be cut substantially.

--Treasury: These guys spend too much money giving taxpayer money away. Big cuts could happen here.

Finally, after reducing the cost of government, I would let taxpayers keep more of their money. All of them. A flat tax would be instituted across the board with no deductions, credits, etc. for individuals, corporations, special interests, anyone. Of course the first of your earnings, up to 2x the national poverty rate, would be tax exempt. But just imagine what would happen if the government stopped taking so much of everyone’s money. And just think what would be possible when we aren’t punished more the more we produce. People would have more money, businesses would grow and more people would be employed.
jwellsy
I would like to see a graph that plots disenfranchised workers and the unemployment rate on the same graph. It would not surprise me if there was an inverse proportional relationship between the two that maintains the reported unemployment rate below 10%.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
I’m just constantly amazed that some people continue to be surprised at how poor of a job Obama and the Democrats have been at delivering on their promises.


Please tell us:
1. What exactly Obama supposedly did wrong that the Republicans wouldn't have done, and how this would have affected unemployment

What did Obama and the Democrats do wrong? How about not deliver on their promises.


I thought you would do better than this. Not one concrete example of what Obama supposedly did wrong vis a vis unemployment, just "not deliver on their promises". You gotta do better than that.

jmi256 wrote:

handfleisch wrote:
2. Whether you have heard about the worldwide financial crisis, and don't you understand that the US economy has rebounded quite well from the worst crisis since the Depression that Obama inherited?

The worst unemployment in decades is “quite well” in your mind? Ok, if you say so. I guess you still think he’s doing just a peachy job and delivering on his promises then. The rest of us know better though. But if you are now saying that the economic downturn is a worldwide phenomenon and US economy is just a victim of some large-scale economic cycle rather than Obama’s gross mishandling and ineptitude, doesn’t that negate your other common refrain that “it’s Bush’s fault”? To be honest I actually agree that the recent economic downturn is a “worldwide financial crisis.” Periods of economic growth as we saw in the first three quarters of this decade are bound to be followed by retraction/recession. That’s simple economics. In fact, most economists agree the recession as they classify recessions has been over for quite a while now. Obama has simply been unable to deliver on what he said he would in exchange for the almost trillion dollars he took. What has made this especially difficult is the housing bubble that was created due to borrowers who had no business borrowing money to buy houses (bad credit, no down payment, no job, etc.), which is just idiotic. The Clinton Administration and the Democrats began pressuring Fannie Mae back in 1999 to provide more mortgages to those who shouldn’t have them, and we are feeling the results of their idiocy.


Here you are all over the map. First unemployment is Obama's fault, then you agree it's part of the worldwide financial crisis that has been going since well before he was president, then you trail off onto sidetracks that have nothing directly to do with unemployment.
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
3. What the Republican / right wing solution is to the unemployment problem? Because they sure haven't made many concrete proposals in Congress. They just want to repeat their mistakes, deny unemployment benefits to jobless Americans, make more disastrous deregulation, give more tax breaks to the rich.

Ahhh…. I see you’re back to the same old nonsense/talking points you seem to have picked up from the latest newsletter/talking points memo/blog/etc. This discussion has already happened, and as I have pointed out/posted before, here are a few things that could be done:


Then you cite a big long list of parts of the US government to get rid of. That's pretty far off the subject, except that your proposed dismantling of large sectors of the government would increase unemployment pretty quickly. You never mentioned a single proposal to decrease unemployment, never mentioned a single thing Obama has done on the unemployment issue that he shouldn't have, or something he hasn't that he should have. You basically supported my point, which is that the right wing has no solutions to offer and not even any valid criticisms of the president's measures to fight unemployment. Interesting, given the title of your thread here.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
I’m just constantly amazed that some people continue to be surprised at how poor of a job Obama and the Democrats have been at delivering on their promises.


Please tell us:
1. What exactly Obama supposedly did wrong that the Republicans wouldn't have done, and how this would have affected unemployment

What did Obama and the Democrats do wrong? How about not deliver on their promises.


I thought you would do better than this. Not one concrete example of what Obama supposedly did wrong vis a vis unemployment, just "not deliver on their promises". You gotta do better than that.

I find it hard to believe you’re quite as dense as you let on, and are instead trying to muddy up the waters with false characterizations of what I write and/or leaving out what I write in your responses. As I said (and you keep leaving out):

jmi256 wrote:
What did Obama and the Democrats do wrong? How about not deliver on their promises. They made the promises, and they are accountable for them. Like I said earlier in the part you left out, I wouldn’t have such a problem with his empty promises except he took almost a trillion dollars of our money for his ‘stimulus’ bill and all he has to show for it is higher unemployment. I thought he was supposed to be competent?


Record unemployment and almost a trillion dollars isn’t “concrete” enough for you? Tell that to the American people who are hurting for jobs and will now be saddled with a huge spike in taxes to pay for Obama and the Democrats’ waste. Now, like I have said, they were the ones who said that unless their huge, pork-filled ‘stimulus’ bill passed early last year, we would see unemployment above 8%. Without the stimulus bill, unemployment went above what they said it would be if the bill wasn’t passed. Either they blatantly lied, or they are simply incompetent. If you want to continue being a cheerleader for failure, that’s your right. But I think they should be held accountable.


handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
2. Whether you have heard about the worldwide financial crisis, and don't you understand that the US economy has rebounded quite well from the worst crisis since the Depression that Obama inherited?

The worst unemployment in decades is “quite well” in your mind? Ok, if you say so. I guess you still think he’s doing just a peachy job and delivering on his promises then. The rest of us know better though. But if you are now saying that the economic downturn is a worldwide phenomenon and US economy is just a victim of some large-scale economic cycle rather than Obama’s gross mishandling and ineptitude, doesn’t that negate your other common refrain that “it’s Bush’s fault”? To be honest I actually agree that the recent economic downturn is a “worldwide financial crisis.” Periods of economic growth as we saw in the first three quarters of this decade are bound to be followed by retraction/recession. That’s simple economics. In fact, most economists agree the recession as they classify recessions has been over for quite a while now. Obama has simply been unable to deliver on what he said he would in exchange for the almost trillion dollars he took. What has made this especially difficult is the housing bubble that was created due to borrowers who had no business borrowing money to buy houses (bad credit, no down payment, no job, etc.), which is just idiotic. The Clinton Administration and the Democrats began pressuring Fannie Mae back in 1999 to provide more mortgages to those who shouldn’t have them, and we are feeling the results of their idiocy.


Here you are all over the map. First unemployment is Obama's fault, then you agree it's part of the worldwide financial crisis that has been going since well before he was president, then you trail off onto sidetracks that have nothing directly to do with unemployment.

That’s obviously not what I said.* You made the reference to the financial crisis and the housing/mortgage bubble that caused it, whose origins I easy showed falls in squarely in the lap of Clinton and the Democrats who pushed for easier credit and relaxed standards for those who obviously couldn’t afford the homes they were buying on credit. You also claimed that the “US economy has rebounded quite well” and I pointed out that worst unemployment in decades is not what most people consider as “quite well.” Ultimately the financial crisis that had its roots in Clinton’s policies was a long time in the making, and I was willing to give Obama some leeway on that. But just as Bush was able to turn the recession he inherited around through tax cuts and stimulus policies (tax breaks, tax credits, etc.) that you know… actually stimulated the economy to the prosperity we enjoyed for most of his two terms in office, Obama has resisted doing anything that stimulated the economy and instead has wasted almost two years pursuing pet projects and failed healthcare ‘reform’ that takes more money out of peoples’ pockets and puts it into the pockets of the health insurance giants, who gave Obama and the Democrats the most contributions. Despite the recession he inherited, Bush was able to get the unemployment rate around the 5% mark until the Democrats took over congress. Obama, on the other hand, has squandered trillions and unemployment has gone up. I’m not going to restate everything I said again, because if you take the time to read the above, you’ll find it there.

*(BTW, if you have a hard time following along, I suggest you re-read what I wrote and maybe sound out the letters. It’s ok if you have to use your finger to follow along; no one is looking…. /sarcasm )

handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
3. What the Republican / right wing solution is to the unemployment problem? Because they sure haven't made many concrete proposals in Congress. They just want to repeat their mistakes, deny unemployment benefits to jobless Americans, make more disastrous deregulation, give more tax breaks to the rich.

Ahhh…. I see you’re back to the same old nonsense/talking points you seem to have picked up from the latest newsletter/talking points memo/blog/etc. This discussion has already happened, and as I have pointed out/posted before, here are a few things that could be done:


Then you cite a big long list of parts of the US government to get rid of. That's pretty far off the subject, except that your proposed dismantling of large sectors of the government would increase unemployment pretty quickly. You never mentioned a single proposal to decrease unemployment, never mentioned a single thing Obama has done on the unemployment issue that he shouldn't have, or something he hasn't that he should have. You basically supported my point, which is that the right wing has no solutions to offer and not even any valid criticisms of the president's measures to fight unemployment. Interesting, given the title of your thread here.


Again, read what I wrote. You asked a question that was already answered, so I provided the answer again. My point, however, is that to stimulate economic growth, the government has to let the private sector, which actually creates jobs, to keep some of its money so it can create more. The federal government has simply never been good at sustaining real jobs that have value. To do this, however, one of two things have to happen: the federal government borrows money (increases deficit) or cuts waste. Obviously cutting waste is the better way, and one of my frequent criticisms of Bush was that he failed to do this. He reduced taxes while increasing government spending, which is not what conservatives voted for. There are other problems I had with Bush, but since he hasn’t run for office in over six years and has been out of office for almost two, it seems like a waste of time to dig into those issues. Obama, on the other hand, is failing as we speak. The guy seems to be a real pro at it.

Now one topic you raised that I want to touch upon is this notion that reducing government waste results in higher unemployment since those workers will no longer work for the government. That is simply false. First of all, you are assuming they are working and providing no value whatsoever. If they are qualified or provide a valuable service, they would be snatched up by the private sector, which would have its own money back to hire them. For example, I cited reducing NASA’s budget. Do you really think some freakin’ genius who works for NASA won’t be snatched up by an R&D firm or manufacturer? Of course he will. Secondly, the federal government is grossly inefficient and wasteful, and the jobs it ‘creates’ cost more and produce less than what private businesses do. Just look at the below as an example. Obama and the Democrats ‘stimulus’ bill spent $111 million to create 55 jobs. That’s $2 million per job. If you gave that money back to those who are creating the jobs instead of creating make-work jobs, thousands of jobs would have been created. Like I said, the federal government just isn’t good at creating real job, but Obama and the Democrats seem especially incompetent.


Quote:
Employment generation disappointing: LA City Controller

The Los Angeles City Controller said on Thursday the city's use of its share of the $800 billion federal stimulus fund has been disappointing.

The city received $111 million in stimulus under American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) approved by the Congress more than year ago.

"I'm disappointed that we've only created or retained 55 jobs after receiving $111 million," says Wendy Greuel, the city's controller, while releasing an audit report.

"With our local unemployment rate over 12% we need to do a better job cutting red tape and putting Angelenos back to work,” she added.

According to the report, the Los Angeles Department of Public Works generated only 45.46 jobs (the fraction of a job created or retained correlates to the number of actual hours works) after receiving $70.65 million, while the target was 238 jobs.

Similarly, the city’s department of transportation, armed with a $40.8 million fund, created only 9 jobs in place of an expected 26 jobs.

The audit says the numbers were disappointing due to bureaucratic red tape, absence of competitive bidding for projects in private sectors, inappropriate tracking of stimulus money and a laxity in bringing out timely job reports.

“While it doesn’t appear that any of the ARRA funds were misspent, the City needs to do a better job expediting the process and creating jobs,” she said


Source = http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/63228/20100917/american-recovery-and-reinvestment-act-arra-los-angeles-stimulus-wendy-greuel.htm
handfleisch
I made the effort of going through your long winded post, ignoring all the personal insults, to try to find the concrete examples of solutions to the unemployment that Obama could have tried but did not, what Obama did wrong in terms of solutions, and what Republicans would have done better. Here are your answers.

When asked the above question about what the Obama administration has done wrong, you said
Quote:
not deliver on their promises


Obviously, not an answer to the question at all. Your next answer:

Quote:
to stimulate economic growth, the government has to let the private sector, which actually creates jobs, to keep some of its money so it can create more.


That's not concrete at all but it's closer to an answer. The problem with it, besides being totally vague, is it just sounds like the tax cuts for the rich and the big corporations, the deregulation of the banks, etc. that were all part of the financial collapse we had at the end of the Bush era. Not much of a solution, unless you want to give some details otherwise.

Next:
Quote:
I cited reducing NASA’s budget. Do you really think some freakin’ genius who works for NASA won’t be snatched up by an R&D firm or manufacturer? Of course he will. Secondly, the federal government is grossly inefficient and wasteful, and the jobs it ‘creates’ cost more and produce less than what private businesses do.


This isn't really an answer to the question about the unemployment problem but more of a generalized anti-government rant. Your example would not affect the unemployment problem (your already-employed NASA worker would just become an employed private sector worker) except to probably increase it (no way would 100% of the fired employees all get jobs, and it would be a huge shock to the economy to dump a huge amount of job hunters onto the market, especially at this time.) This also just sounds like the conservative solution of privatization that has led to financial and social disasters all over the USA.

So, if there are any solutions in your answer that I have missed, feel free to list them. And consider keeping them short, polite and to the point for the sake of us "dense" people.

One more thing:
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
I made the effort of going through your long winded post, ignoring all the personal insults, to try to find the concrete examples of solutions to the unemployment that Obama could have tried but did not, what Obama did wrong in terms of solutions, and what Republicans would have done better. Here are your answers.

When asked the above question about what the Obama administration has done wrong, you said
Quote:
not deliver on their promises

Best case scenario: you fail to grasp what I have said and are having genuine difficulty. Worst case scenario: You are explicitly misrepresenting what I wrote to continue making factually incorrect arguments. Given the fact that you feel the need to paste one small portion of a sentence where I answer your question and find some kind of fault in that points to the second option. You or anyone else who is interested can go back and read what I actually wrote, but I just don’t have the energy to argue with you on something that you are obviously lying about. At the end of the day, Obama took almost $1 trillion from taxpayers to fund his failed “stimulus” bill that has failed to stimulate anything other than more government bureaucracy and waste. He said that if the stimulus bill was passed, unemployment would only go to about 8%, and if it didn’t pass, unemployment would reach 10%. He made the claims, and he said himself he wanted to be held accountable. Like I said, continue to lie and cheer on Obama and the Democrats’ failure, but the American people are seeing through their BS.


handfleisch wrote:
Obviously, not an answer to the question at all. Your next answer:

Quote:
to stimulate economic growth, the government has to let the private sector, which actually creates jobs, to keep some of its money so it can create more.


That's not concrete at all but it's closer to an answer. The problem with it, besides being totally vague, is it just sounds like the tax cuts for the rich and the big corporations, the deregulation of the banks, etc. that were all part of the financial collapse we had at the end of the Bush era. Not much of a solution, unless you want to give some details otherwise.

Again, the facts are against you. The Bush tax cuts affected all tax brackets, with the lowest taxpayers seeing their tax rate drop from 15% to 10%, the largest drop in percentage. The wealthy saw their rates go from around 39% to 35%. Obviously the wealthy are still paying more in income taxes than the lower brackets, but from a percentage of income perspective, Obama will increase the tax burden and the effect of his tax increases on those least able to pay. For someone making low wages, a 50% tax rate increase under Obama’s plan from 10% to 15%, will have horrible effects. These people are barely able to stay afloat, and now Obama wants to increase their taxes to pay for his and the Democrats’ pet project and waste. Nice.


handfleisch wrote:
Next:
Quote:
I cited reducing NASA’s budget. Do you really think some freakin’ genius who works for NASA won’t be snatched up by an R&D firm or manufacturer? Of course he will. Secondly, the federal government is grossly inefficient and wasteful, and the jobs it ‘creates’ cost more and produce less than what private businesses do.


This isn't really an answer to the question about the unemployment problem but more of a generalized anti-government rant. Your example would not affect the unemployment problem (your already-employed NASA worker would just become an employed private sector worker) except to probably increase it (no way would 100% of the fired employees all get jobs, and it would be a huge shock to the economy to dump a huge amount of job hunters onto the market, especially at this time.) This also just sounds like the conservative solution of privatization that has led to financial and social disasters all over the USA.

No, it’s part of the answer to the question that you decided to leave out. I believe that in order to cut everyone’s taxes and actually stimulate the economy, it means we will need to cut waste mismanaged bureaucracies.

My full answer that you ‘omitted.’
Quote:
Now one topic you raised that I want to touch upon is this notion that reducing government waste results in higher unemployment since those workers will no longer work for the government. That is simply false. First of all, you are assuming they are working and providing no value whatsoever. If they are qualified or provide a valuable service, they would be snatched up by the private sector, which would have its own money back to hire them. For example, I cited reducing NASA’s budget. Do you really think some freakin’ genius who works for NASA won’t be snatched up by an R&D firm or manufacturer? Of course he will. Secondly, the federal government is grossly inefficient and wasteful, and the jobs it ‘creates’ cost more and produce less than what private businesses do. Just look at the below as an example. Obama and the Democrats ‘stimulus’ bill spent $111 million to create 55 jobs. That’s $2 million per job. If you gave that money back to those who are creating the jobs instead of creating make-work jobs, thousands of jobs would have been created. Like I said, the federal government just isn’t good at creating real job, but Obama and the Democrats seem especially incompetent.



handfleisch wrote:
So, if there are any solutions in your answer that I have missed, feel free to list them. And consider keeping them short, polite and to the point for the sake of us "dense" people.

Like I said in my previous post, you are either dense or trying to mischaracterize what I write to make it seem like I say something I am not or make some kind of response on your end based on your false characterization of what I write.
Quote:
I find it hard to believe you’re quite as dense as you let on, and are instead trying to muddy up the waters with false characterizations of what I write and/or leaving out what I write in your responses.




handfleisch wrote:
One more thing:

Wow a chart from a blog you dug up that totally misrepresents reality. Obama and the Democrats should send that to all the millions of people who have lost their jobs under his watch, and all the taxpayers who will have to pay for their wasted “stimulus” bill for years to come. They may be out of jobs, paying higher healthcare costs than they were before Obamacare, saddled with higher taxes and called racists and bigots just because they disagree with Obama and the Democrats’ failed policies, but at least they will have a cheap-looking chart to make them feel better. Orwell would be proud.
handfleisch
I'm thinking that discussing things with JMI is like discussing politics with Glenn Beck -- hard to tell if he really is so self-deluded he believes the wild things he says, or if he's just good at putting on a show. JMI also has a need to call things and other people stupid, like on this thread http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-117145.html where everyone kindly tried to point out that JMI was the actual stupid part of the equation.

But I will keep going, just for my own practice.

On this answer, which is supposed to be to the question of what concrete measures should or shouldn't have been done to help the unemployment problem, you say
Quote:
but I just don’t have the energy to argue with you on something that you are obviously lying about. At the end of the day, Obama took almost $1 trillion from taxpayers to fund his failed “stimulus” bill that has failed to stimulate anything other than more government bureaucracy and waste. He said that if the stimulus bill was passed, unemployment would only go to about 8%, and if it didn’t pass, unemployment would reach 10%. He made the claims, and he said himself he wanted to be held accountable.

So, even though you give yet another rambling answer, you "don't have the energy" to be specific. You seem to be saying that the Stimulus Package should never have happened, and you think that somehow unemployment would be lower because of it. First of all, tons of jobs where saved because of the stimulus, and it's pure speculation to say that somehow unemployment would be lower without it -- in fact, with the way the economy was cratering before it and somewhat stabilized now in comparison, it's a pretty groundless thing to say.

Next:
Quote:

but from a percentage of income perspective, Obama will increase the tax burden and the effect of his tax increases on those least able to pay. For someone making low wages, a 50% tax rate increase under Obama’s plan from 10% to 15%, will have horrible effects. These people are barely able to stay afloat, and now Obama wants to increase their taxes to pay for his and the Democrats’ pet project and waste.


Besides having nothing to do directly with the question of unemployment, this part really goes into your famous fantasyland. You're saying people with low wages are having their taxes go up 50% under Obama? In what universe? Funny how that's the first time anyone has said that -- if it were remotely true, the GOP would be having a field day with it.

Next
Quote:

Now one topic you raised that I want to touch upon is this notion that reducing government waste results in higher unemployment since those workers will no longer work for the government. That is simply false. First of all, you are assuming they are working and providing no value whatsoever. If they are qualified or provide a valuable service, they would be snatched up by the private sector, which would have its own money back to hire them. For example, I cited reducing NASA’s budget. Do you really think some freakin’ genius who works for NASA won’t be snatched up by an R&D firm or manufacturer? Of course he will. Secondly, the federal government is grossly inefficient and wasteful, and the jobs it ‘creates’ cost more and produce less than what private businesses do. Just look at the below as an example. Obama and the Democrats ‘stimulus’ bill spent $111 million to create 55 jobs. That’s $2 million per job. If you gave that money back to those who are creating the jobs instead of creating make-work jobs, thousands of jobs would have been created. Like I said, the federal government just isn’t good at creating real job, but Obama and the Democrats seem especially incompetent.


Whether we cite your full answer here or not, you still don't reply to this:

Quote:
This isn't really an answer to the question about the unemployment problem but more of a generalized anti-government rant. Your example would not affect the unemployment problem (your already-employed NASA worker would just become an employed private sector worker) except to probably increase it (no way would 100% of the fired employees all get jobs, and it would be a huge shock to the economy to dump a huge amount of job hunters onto the market, especially at this time.) This also just sounds like the conservative solution of privatization that has led to financial and social disasters all over the USA.


Beside the part I comment on (about your example being off) you're just saying again that the Stimulus Bill should never have happened? See my first point.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
I'm thinking that discussing things with JMI is like discussing politics with Glenn Beck -- hard to tell if he really is so self-deluded he believes the wild things he says, or if he's just good at putting on a show. JMI also has a need to call things and other people stupid, like on this thread http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-117145.html where everyone kindly tried to point out that JMI was the actual stupid part of the equation.

But I will keep going, just for my own practice.


I’ve already answered your questions several times and I don’t know how many times you need me to say the same thing before it finally gets through to you. If you want to continue reposting over and over, that’s between you and the mods.


But back on topic, Obama and the Democrats are still failing to deliver on their promise that if the trillion-dollar “stimulus” bill was passed, unemployment wouldn’t go over around 8%. Can the taxpayers’ have their money back?


Quote:
Initial claims for unemployment aid rise to 465K

WASHINGTON — The tally of newly laid-off workers requesting unemployment benefits rose last week for the first time in five weeks as the job market remains sluggish.

Initial claims for jobless aid rose by 12,000 to a seasonally adjusted 465,000, the Labor Department said Thursday. Many economists had expected a flat reading or small drop.

The rise suggests that jobs remain scarce and some companies are still cutting workers amid weak economic growth. Initial claims have fallen from a recent spike above a half-million last month. But they have been stuck above 450,000 for most of this year.

"What's becoming increasing clear is that this isn't a normal recovery," said Dan Greenhaus, chief economic strategist at Miller Tabak. "There's little we can do to create jobs until demand returns, and demand isn't returning."

Separately, the National Association of Realtors said sales of previously occupied homes rose 7.6 percent in August from July, to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 4.13 million. Still, it was the second-worst month for sales in more than a decade. July was the worst month for sales in 15 years, a factor unchanged by a slightly upward revision.

And the Conference Board, a private research group, said its index of leading economic indicators rose modestly in August, more evidence that the economy will keep growing at a slow pace through the fall.

Jobless claims typically fall below 400,000 when hiring is robust and the economy is growing.

The four-week average of claims, a less volatile measure, declined by 3,250 to 463,250. That's the lowest level since the end of July, but down by only 4,000 since January.

Initial claims, while volatile, are considered a real-time snapshot of the job market. The weekly claims figures are considered a measure of the pace of layoffs and an indication of companies' willingness to hire.

New requests for jobless benefits have fallen sharply since June 2009, the month the recession ended. They topped 600,000 at the end of that month. But most of the decline took place last year.

Economic growth has slowed considerably in recent months, and many employers are reluctant to add new employees. The economy grew at a 1.6 percent annual rate in the second quarter, an anemic pace that isn't fast enough to reduce the jobless rate, now at 9.6 percent. Growth in the current July-September quarter isn't expected to be much faster.

While layoffs have eased since the recession ended, hiring hasn't picked up much. Businesses added a net total of only 67,000 jobs in August. The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco estimated earlier this month that the economy will need to generate as many as 300,000 net jobs every month to reduce the unemployment rate to 8 percent over the next two years.


The number of people continuing to receive jobless benefits fell by 48,000 to 4.49 million, the department said. But that doesn't include several million people who are receiving unemployment aid under extended programs approved by Congress during the recession.

The extended benefit rolls rose by about 200,000 to nearly 5.2 million in the week ending Sept. 4, the latest data available.

Some companies are still cutting jobs. Cessna Aircraft said Tuesday that it will lay off 700 workers because the economy hasn't recovered as strongly as the company had hoped earlier this year. The latest reductions are on top of 8,000 jobs the company has shed since late 2008, reducing its work force by half.


Source = http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gNiyJ905Ho0Ur96V2TQhsBX19lGwD9IDOBSG0
handfleisch
I hate to interrupt mindless Obama-bashing with facts, but...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/who_can_we_blame_for_job_losse.html
Quote:
How much unemployment can we blame on the Obama administration? Economist Rob Shapiro dug into some Bureau of Labor Statistics data and came back with the best numbers I've seen on the subject. He separated job losses into two buckets: Those that happened before the stimulus, which was Obama's major effort to deal with joblessness, and those that happened after the stimulus. Here's what he found:

From December 2007 to July 2009 – the last year of the Bush second term and the first six months of the Obama presidency, before his policies could affect the economy – private sector employment crashed from 115,574,000 jobs to 107,778,000 jobs. Employment continued to fall, however, for the next six months, reaching a low of 107,107,000 jobs in December of 2009. So, out of 8,467,000 private sector jobs lost in this dismal cycle, 7,796,000 of those jobs or 92 percent were lost on the Republicans’ watch or under the sway of their policies. Some 671,000 additional jobs were lost as the stimulus and other moves by the administration kicked in, but 630,000 jobs then came back in the following six months. The tally, to date: Mr. Obama can be held accountable for the net loss of 41,000 jobs (671,000 – 630,000), while the Republicans should be held responsible for the net losses of 7,796,000 jobs.

We can argue about how much of the job losses should really be pinned on Republicans or Republican policies, of course. Financial deregulation happened under Bill Clinton, for instance. And it's hard to hold George W. Bush solely responsible for a global financial crisis. But insofar as the job losses go, it's hard to credibly blame this White House for the vast, vast majority of them.

which explains the accuracy of this graph

Check that last line -- "credibly". For the right wing, credibility is a foreign concept.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
I hate to interrupt mindless Obama-bashing with facts, but...

ROFL. So some cheaply made up chart from a discredited blogger and founder of Journo List is all you have to counter the stark reality that unemployment has gone up and up under Obama? And your answer to Obama’s repeated failures predictably is to blame Bush. You’ll have to try harder than that if you are trying to retain any credibility at all. The simple fact you cannot escape no matter how many lefty blog posts, homemade charts, etc. you post is that Obama said that if his “stimulus” bill passed, he would create millions of jobs and keep the unemployment rate below 8%. In fact, his report claims that by Q42010, unemployment would be at 7% with the stimulus bill enacted, but 8.8% without Obama’s stimulus bill. Not only did he say he would create millions of jobs, but he also said his bill would move workers from part-time jobs to full-time ones. Instead we are stuck with unemployment that is around 10%, plus all the debt resulting from Obama’s massive failure.


Quote:
We reach several key preliminary findings:
- A package in the range that the President-Elect has discussed is expected to create between three and four million jobs by the end of 2010.

- Tax cuts, especially temporary ones, and fiscal relief to the states are likely to create fewer jobs than direct increases in government purchases. However, because there is a limit on how much government investment can be carried out efficiently in a short time frame, and because tax cuts and state relief can be implemented quickly, they are crucial elements of any package aimed at easing economic distress quickly.

- Certain industries, such as construction and manufacturing, are likely to experience particularly strong job growth under a recovery package that includes an emphasis on infrastructure, energy, and school repair. But, the more general stimulative measures, such as a middle class tax cut and fiscal relief to the states, as well as the feedback effects of greater employment in key industries, mean that jobs are likely to be created in all sectors of the economy.

- More than 90 percent of the jobs created are likely to be in the private sector. Many of the government jobs are likely to be professionals whose jobs are saved from state and local budget cuts by state fiscal relief.

- A package is likely to create jobs paying a range of wages. It is also likely to move many workers from part-time to full-time work.


He delivered on all those promises, right? He was able to “create between three and four million jobs by the end of 2010” right? More than 90 percent of the jobs created are in the private sector instead of counting temporary, seasonal census jobs and day-long poll workers, right? Oh, yeah, he failed on all those counts.

But Obama’s pie-in-the-sky predictions continue, and your whole excuse for Obama’s failures that somehow he should count ‘saved’ jobs with no way to account for how he comes up with the numbers is blown out of the water. As you can see from Obama’s report he estimated that there would be 3 to 4 million jobs without his stimulus bill and he would therefore be creating at least 5 million jobs with his bill.:

Quote:
First, the likely scale of employment loss is extremely large. The U.S. economy has already lost nearly 2.6 million jobs since the business cycle peak in December 2007. In the absence of stimulus, the economy could lose another 3 to 4 million more. Thus, we are working to counter a potential total job loss of at least 5 million. As Figure 1 shows, even with the large prototypical package, the unemployment rate in 2010Q4 is predicted to be approximately 7.0%, which is well below the approximately 8.8% that would result in the absence of a plan.


Source = http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/The_Job_Impact_of_the_American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Plan.pdf





It’s all there in Obama’s proposal for his stimulus bill that he rammed down everyone’s throat. Obama and the Democrats knew the bill was hogwash and just an excuse to squeeze taxpayer money from American workers, so they didn’t provide time for anyone to read the bill with the excuse that it was oh so critical it be passed ASAP. But I’m sure you took the time to read it before defending as you have, right? At the very least you read his proposal report, right? If you did and still spread lies and made false assertions as you have in this thread and others, well that just calls your honesty into question. If you didn’t read anything yourself and solely relied on what left-wing pundits told you what to think, then your judgment is called into question. Your call.

The bottom line is that it’s easy to make promises, and Obama is really good at that part of the job. The test of whether he isn’t a complete failure as president is whether he lives up to his promises. So far he hasn’t.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
I hate to interrupt mindless Obama-bashing with facts, but...

ROFL.

You're definitely on the floor and there's definitely the sound of laughter but...

jmi256 wrote:

\So some cheaply made up chart from a discredited blogger and founder of Journo List is all you have to counter the stark reality that unemployment has gone up and up under Obama?

Uh, no, wrong on both counts. Even if we had pushed "reset" on your credibility, you're already at -2. I cited
1) an economist whose credentials include "a Senior Fellow of the Georgetown University School of Business, advisor to the International Monetary Fund" who analyzed Bureau of Labor stats to make an objective study of assertions like yours, and
2) a graph from the Washington Post (not exactly "homemade")

Then you just repeat ad nauseum your whine about Obama's breaking his promise about unemployment This has already been debunked elsewhere on the website (so that's -3 on your credibility.) It wasn't a "promise" but a projection of one the many benefits of the stimulus package, which stopped the cratering of the economy (does Lehman Brothers ring a bell with you?) that was going on when Obama was elected, and it all but levelled off the unemployment increases that were out of control when he came into office. Unemployment still needs to be worked on, and we're working on it, with sane measures and competent people in the White House, thank god, unlike 2000-2008.

I know it's frustrating for a Tea Bagger like yourself, in these days of Christine O'Donnell embarrassing all of you, but let's try to be rational, shall we?
deanhills
I found a very interesting YouTube Show by Peter Schiff of "Schiff Report" fame in which he raises some very interesting points about Obama's Stimulus Package. In his opinion the stimulus package is a disaster as it is resulting in jobs in the service industry, whereas goods producing jobs are the ones that are really needed for the economy. If the country is not going to manufacture its own products, it will have to buy it from elsewhere, which would contribute to the trade deficit. He is happy that Obama's stimulus package is moving so slowly in getting jobs, as the service jobs are completely wrong, the slower therefore the better. He also recommends a focus on less Government, getting rid of all the regulations and cutting costs as a very high priority. His worry presently is the US dollar that is at its lowest it has ever been, and he believes the weak dollar and relatively high gold price is telling a story that the Government should be paying attention to:
jmi256
Obama and the Democrats’ ‘stimulus’ bill continues to fail as they are unable to deliver the reduction in the unemployment rate they said they would to justify their almost $800 trillion pork-filled waste. The most amazing part is that almost a year and a half of failure, the term “unexpectedly” is still used to characterize Obama and the Democrats’ failure.

Quote:
Private sector sheds 39,000 jobs in September
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Private employers unexpectedly cut 39,000 jobs in September after an upwardly revised gain of 10,000 in August, a report by a payrolls processor showed on Wednesday.

The August figure was originally reported as a loss of 10,000.

The median of estimates from 38 economists surveyed by Reuters for the ADP Employer Services report, jointly developed with Macroeconomic Advisers LLC, was for a rise of 24,000 private-sector jobs in September.

The ADP figures come ahead of the government's much more comprehensive labor market report on Friday, which includes both public and private sector employment.

That report is expected to show overall nonfarm payrolls were unchanged in September, based on a Reuters poll of analysts, but a rise in private payrolls of 75,000.

Economists often refer to the ADP report to fine-tune their expectations for the payrolls numbers, though it is not always accurate in predicting the outcome.

Source = http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Private-sector-sheds-39000-rb-1277482169.html?x=0&.v=1
ocalhoun
jmi256 wrote:
The most amazing part is that almost a year and a half of failure, the term “unexpectedly” is still used

That truly is the outrageous part.

It leaves two possibilities:
1- Biased media.
2- Very stupid media. (Unable to recognize patterns at all... Or possibly unwilling to admit they don't see a pattern.)
Bikerman
ocalhoun wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
The most amazing part is that almost a year and a half of failure, the term “unexpectedly” is still used

That truly is the outrageous part.

It leaves two possibilities:
1- Biased media.
2- Very stupid media. (Unable to recognize patterns at all... Or possibly unwilling to admit they don't see a pattern.)

Hang on. The consensus of economists was that it would be positive for the month in question. It turns out to be negative. I would say 'surprising' was justified in that context.
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
Obama and the Democrats’ ‘stimulus’ bill continues to fail as they are unable to deliver the reduction in the unemployment rate they said they would to justify their almost $800 trillion pork-filled waste. The most amazing part is that almost a year and a half of failure, the term “unexpectedly” is still used to characterize Obama and the Democrats’ failure.
Peter Schiff in the YouTube of my previous posting is happy because of this failure as he says it is in the interest of the economy that Obama fails as the jobs he is working on are service sector jobs, and for the economy to truly recover manufacturing jobs are needed. He feels Obama is going in a totally wrong direction, and needs to be given a compass to that he can work on creating the right kind of jobs.
jmi256
Two years after Obama and the Democrats’ “stimulus” bill that was supposed to keep unemployment below 8% at a cost of over $800 billion, and we’re still facing 10% unemployment. When Obama fails, he fails hard, but unfortunately it’s the American taxpayers who will have to pay for his gross mismanagement and ineptitude for decades to come.

Quote:
Gallup Finds U.S. Unemployment Rate at 10.0% in March
Underemployment falls to 19.3% from 19.9% at the end of February


PRINCETON, NJ -- Unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, was 10.0% in March -- down from 10.2% in mid-March and 10.3% at the end of February, but above the 9.8% at the end of January. U.S. unemployment was 10.4% at the end of March a year ago.

The percentage of part-time workers who want full-time work was 9.3% at the end of March -- down from 9.7% in mid-March and 9.6% in both February measurements. The current percentage remains higher than the 9.1% at the end of January but lower than the 10.0% of a year ago.

Underemployment Declines in March
Underemployment combines part-time workers wanting full-time work with those who are unemployed. Both groups' readings fell in March; consequently, underemployment also fell, to 19.3% from 19.9% in mid-March and at the end of February. Underemployment was more than a full percentage point higher one year ago.

Implications
ADP on Wednesday reported that U.S. private-sector jobs increased by 201,000 in March -- the third consecutive month at this level of job growth. At the same time, Challenger, Gray & Christmas showed a sharp decline in March U.S. layoffs compared with last year. All of this is consistent with Gallup's Job Creation Index, which has shown slightly more jobs being created and comparatively low layoffs during the first quarter of 2011.

However, contrary to the federal government's recent job reports, Gallup's unemployment and underemployment measures suggest that recent job increases have not been sufficient to significantly improve the jobs situation so far in 2011. Although both of Gallup's measures were marginally better in March, they remain higher now than they were in January.

The March improvement in the jobs situation compared with February may be partly the result of seasonal hiring patterns, with companies increasing their hiring at this time of year. However, the 2010 jobs situation didn't show substantial improvement until the second half of April. Regardless, the decline in the underemployment rate year-over-year is consistent with a cautious hiring approach in which employers avoid layoffs while taking on more part-time workers and limiting their hiring of full-time employees.

Despite the March uptick, Gallup's view of the U.S. jobs situation remains substantially less optimistic than the government's recent unemployment report might suggest. Added to this, late March Gallup Daily tracking results show a continuing decline in economic optimism, a pullback in consumer spending, and a drop in Gallup's Job Creation Index. This suggests that recent behavior on Main Street does not reflect the government's rosier assessment. It also implies that the recent marginal improvement Gallup finds may be more temporary than one might hope.

Source = http://www.gallup.com/poll/146900/Gallup-Finds-Unemployment-Rate-March.aspx
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
Two years after Obama and the Democrats’ “stimulus” bill that was supposed to keep unemployment below 8% at a cost of over $800 billion, and we’re still facing 10% unemployment. When Obama fails, he fails hard, but unfortunately it’s the American taxpayers who will have to pay for his gross mismanagement and ineptitude for decades to come.
The US has had it good for many years with regard to violent protests, etc. I wonder if Wisconsin is a good example of what may become a much more regular occurrence, and may get much worse while people are unemployed? When people are unemployed, and have no money to live on, they are usually much more into uprisings.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Two years after Obama and the Democrats’ “stimulus” bill that was supposed to keep unemployment below 8% at a cost of over $800 billion, and we’re still facing 10% unemployment. When Obama fails, he fails hard, but unfortunately it’s the American taxpayers who will have to pay for his gross mismanagement and ineptitude for decades to come.
The US has had it good for many years with regard to violent protests, etc. I wonder if Wisconsin is a good example of what may become a much more regular occurrence, and may get much worse while people are unemployed? When people are unemployed, and have no money to live on, they are usually much more into uprisings.
Which planet are you two on? Wisconsin is an ongoing, effective peaceful protest against a right wing Tea Party governor. The unemployment rate news is positive. Earth to JMI and Dean, wake up and smell the coffee (it aint tea).
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9MAT0P00.htm
Quote:
Stocks set to rise after unemployment rate falls

Stocks were poised for modest gains Friday after a key report showed that the unemployment rate fell to a two-year low in March.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Which planet are you two on? Wisconsin is an ongoing, effective peaceful protest against a right wing Tea Party governor. The unemployment rate news is positive. Earth to JMI and Dean, wake up and smell the coffee (it aint tea).
What do you call a high unemployment rate then? If there were 226,000 unemployed people in Wisconsin, that is low? And how accurate are those figures anyway? Here is an interesting article in workers.org that fits in with what I was talking about. Also gives interesting info about inflated statistics for people who are not part of the work force, and aren't included in the stats for jobless when they should have been:
Quote:
By this writer’s estimate*, some 16.8 million unemployed workers have been shunted over to the “Not in the Labor Force” category since April 2000, the point which was the peak of the last economic cycle. When added to the officially listed 14.6 million currently unemployed, the total becomes 31.4 million actually unemployed. When you then add in the 8.5 million who are working part time but want full-time work, this incredible total becomes almost 40 million distressed workers.

*Author is Mike Gimbel chair of AFSCME Local 375’s Labor/Community Unity Committee and a co-coordinator of the May 1 Coalition for Worker and Immigrant Rights.

[...]
Quote:
As labor leaders, we cannot sit back and wait for the Democratic Party politicians to come to our rescue while millions more workers lose their jobs and homes. Despite a massive effort by labor to elect Democrats in the last two elections, resulting in an overwhelming Democratic Party majority in both houses of Congress, the Employee Free Choice Act died even before it had a chance to be introduced in Congress!

All serious labor activists, community activists and left organizations need to regroup and organize so as to create a classwide, independent, anti-racist fightback movement from below. As a first step, we need to mobilize for the massive Oct. 2 demonstration in Washington, D.C. And wouldn’t it be wonderful if millions of workers in organized labor unions across the U.S. joined their undocumented sisters and brothers on May Day — May 1, 2011 — in rallies all across the country! Wouldn’t that be a powerful statement of solidarity and worker unity!

Gimbel is chair of AFSCME Local 375’s Labor/Community Unity Committee and a co-coordinator of the May 1 Coalition for Worker and Immigrant Rights.
jmi256
Looks like they’re back to using “unexpectedly” to describe Obama and the Democrats’ horrible performance. But of course to the Left, Obama’s almost $1 trillion “stimulus” package failure, which his administration claimed was needed to keep unemployment below around 8% is “positive.”

Quote:
Jobless Claims Unexpectedly Rise; Inflation Pressure Grows

New claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose last week, bouncing back above the key 400,000 level, while core producer prices clumbed faster than expected in March, government reports showed on Thursday.

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits rose 27,000 to a seasonally adjusted 412,000, the Labor Department said.

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast claims slipping to 380,000.

The prior weeks figure was revised up to 385,000 from the previously reported 382,000.

The four-week moving average of unemployment claims—a better measure of underlying trends—climbed 5,500 to 395,750.

The rise in claims interrupted a downward trend that had kept them below the 400,000 threshold for four weeks. That level is normally associated with steady job growth. Despite last weeks rise, the four-week average held below the 400,000 mark for a seventh straight week.

A Labor Department official said claims tend to rise the first week of a new quarter.

The number of people still receiving benefits under regular state programs after an initial week of aid fell 58,000 to 3.68 million in the week ended April 2, the lowest level since September 2008.

Economists had expected so-called continuing claims to ease to 3.70 million from a previously reported 3.72 million.

The number of people on emergency unemployment benefits fell 12,245 to 3.55 million in the week ended March 26, the latest week for which data is available. A total of 8.52 million people were claiming unemployment benefits during that period under all programs.

Core Producer Prices Climb

U.S. core producer prices rose slightly faster than expected in March and the increase from a year ago was the largest since August 2009, pointing to a broadening in pipeline inflation pressures.

The Labor Department said on Thursday its seasonally adjusted index for prices paid at the farm and factory gate - excluding volatile food and energy costs—rose 0.3 percent after gaining 0.2 percent in February.

Economists had expected core PPI to rise 0.2 percent in March.

Light trucks prices, which advanced 0.7 percent, accounted for a third of the rise in core PPI last month. The increase in light truck prices was the biggest since July. Passenger vehicle prices increased 0.9 percent, the largest increase since June 2009.

In the 12 months to March, the core producer price index rose 1.9 percent, the biggest increase since August 2009, after gaining 1.8 percent in February. Marchs increase was in line with market expectations.

The increase in headline PPI, however, slowed to 0.7 percent after surging 1.6 percent in February.

Economists polled by Reuters had expected PPI to rise 1 percent last month. In the 12 months to March, producer prices increased 5.8 percent, the largest gain in a year, after rising 5.6 percent in February.

Although rising gasoline prices are exerting upward pressure on inflation at the production level, the Federal Reserve largely views this as transitory. Officials have, however, said they would act if necessary to ensure that an inflation psychology does not take root.

Energy prices, which rose 2.6 percent, accounted for nearly 90 percent of the increase in wholesale prices last month.

Energy prices rose 3.3 percent in February.

Gasoline prices rose 5.7 percent after increasing 3.7 percent in February. Food prices fell 0.2 percent, the first decline since August.


Source = http://www.cnbc.com/id/42586453
jmi256
More evidence of Obama and the Democrats’ failed economic policies. Obama’s massive “stimulus” bill that the administration claimed would keep unemployment below 8% has been worse than a bust as it has taken money out of the hands of taxpayers to pay ofr pork-filled handouts to Democrats’ campaign contributors while also ballooning the federal deficit. And despite Obama and the Democrats’ failure after failure, they think the American taxpayer will fall for their lies again. 2012 can’t come soon enough.


Quote:
Jobs Picture Gets Even Worse as Rate Swells to 9.2%

U.S. employment growth ground to a halt in June, with employers hiring the fewest number of workers in nine months, dampening hopes the economy was on the cusp of regaining momentum after stumbling in recent months.

Nonfarm payrolls rose only 18,000, the weakest reading since September, the Labor Department said on Friday, well below economists' expectations for a 90,000 rise.
Many economists raised their forecasts on Thursday after a stronger-than-expected reading on U.S. private hiring from payrolls processor ADP, and they expected gains of anywhere between 125,000 and 175,000.

The unemployment rate climbed to 9.2 percent, the highest since December, from 9.1 percent in May.

The government revised April and May payrolls to show 44,000 fewer jobs created than previously reported. The report shattered expectations that the economy was starting to accelerate after a soft patch in the first half of the year.

The private sector added 57,000, accounting for all the jobs created, with government employment shrinking 39,000 because of fiscal problems at local and state governments.
Economic activity in the first six months of the year was dampened by rising commodity prices and supply chain disruptions following Japan's devastating earthquake in March.

White House Headaches
Signs the labor market is struggling is a major blow for the Obama administration, which has struggled to get the economy to create enough jobs to absorb the 14.1 million unemployed Americans.

The economy is the top concern among voters and will feature prominently in President Barack Obama's bid for re-election next year. So far, the economy has regained only a fraction of the more than 8 million jobs lost during the recession.

At the same time, the Federal Reserve—which wrapped up a $600 billion bond-buying program last week designed to spur lending and stimulate growth—appears unlikely to take any further steps to boost the economy.

The economy needs to create between 125,000 and 150,000 new jobs a month just to absorb new labor force entrants.

Details of the report showed widespread weakness, though factory payrolls rebounded 6,000 after contracting in May for the first time in seven months, with the recovery reflecting a step-up in motor vehicle production.

Construction employment fell 9,000 last month after declining 4,000 in May. Government employment declined for an eighth straight month as municipalities and state governments continued to wield the axe to balance their budgets.

The report also showed the average workweek fell to 34.3 hours from 34.4 hours. Employers have been reluctant to extend hours because of the uncertainty surrounding the recovery.

Average hourly earnings slipped a penny, more evidence that wage-driven inflation is not a risk.

Source = http://www.cnbc.com/id/43682730
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
More evidence of Obama and the Democrats’ failed economic policies. Obama’s massive “stimulus” bill that the administration claimed would keep unemployment below 8% has been worse than a bust as it has taken money out of the hands of taxpayers to pay ofr pork-filled handouts to Democrats’ campaign contributors while also ballooning the federal deficit. And despite Obama and the Democrats’ failure after failure, they think the American taxpayer will fall for their lies again. 2012 can’t come soon enough.


Mitt Romney, the Republican's main presidential candidate, admits that Obama's policies have both created the recovery and helped the economy (he just says it could be better but has no new solutions). All mainstream economists agree that the economy has benefited and would be much worse now without Obama's measures. Republicans have zero solutions on the table and nothing but failed policies they want to continue (tax cuts for the rich, etc.) JMI we see your reign as a serial fabulist and discredited spreader of right wing lies continues.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
More evidence of Obama and the Democrats’ failed economic policies. Obama’s massive “stimulus” bill that the administration claimed would keep unemployment below 8% has been worse than a bust as it has taken money out of the hands of taxpayers to pay ofr pork-filled handouts to Democrats’ campaign contributors while also ballooning the federal deficit. And despite Obama and the Democrats’ failure after failure, they think the American taxpayer will fall for their lies again. 2012 can’t come soon enough.


Mitt Romney, the Republican's main presidential candidate, admits that Obama's policies have both created the recovery and helped the economy (he just says it could be better but has no new solutions). All mainstream economists agree that the economy has benefited and would be much worse now without Obama's measures. Republicans have zero solutions on the table and nothing but failed policies they want to continue (tax cuts for the rich, etc.) JMI we see your reign as a serial fabulist and discredited spreader of right wing lies continues.


Huh? The economy is worse off than when Obama took office, and a lot worse since the Democrats took control of the House. How exactly is 9.2% unemployment a good thing? And where are the millions of jobs Obama and the Democrats promised in exchange for the “stimulus” bill that cost so much? Where’s the 8% unemployment the administration said we’d see unless the stimulus was passed? The Left has made every excuse in the book for Obama’s mismanagement and ineffectiveness, from blaming the weather, to being surprised that a holiday came up despite the fact that they come up every year. Where’s the accountability Obama demanded of himself?
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
More evidence of Obama and the Democrats’ failed economic policies. Obama’s massive “stimulus” bill that the administration claimed would keep unemployment below 8% has been worse than a bust as it has taken money out of the hands of taxpayers to pay ofr pork-filled handouts to Democrats’ campaign contributors while also ballooning the federal deficit. And despite Obama and the Democrats’ failure after failure, they think the American taxpayer will fall for their lies again. 2012 can’t come soon enough.


Mitt Romney, the Republican's main presidential candidate, admits that Obama's policies have both created the recovery and helped the economy (he just says it could be better but has no new solutions). All mainstream economists agree that the economy has benefited and would be much worse now without Obama's measures. Republicans have zero solutions on the table and nothing but failed policies they want to continue (tax cuts for the rich, etc.) JMI we see your reign as a serial fabulist and discredited spreader of right wing lies continues.


Huh? The economy is worse off than when Obama took office, and a lot worse since the Democrats took control of the House. How exactly is 9.2% unemployment a good thing? And where are the millions of jobs Obama and the Democrats promised in exchange for the “stimulus” bill that cost so much? Where’s the 8% unemployment the administration said we’d see unless the stimulus was passed? The Left has made every excuse in the book for Obama’s mismanagement and ineffectiveness, from blaming the weather, to being surprised that a holiday came up despite the fact that they come up every year. Where’s the accountability Obama demanded of himself?


Here we go again --is this going to be a case of believe JMI, or believe every mainstream economist or the overall economic indicators? Believe JMI, or believe Mitt Romney when he admits Obama presided over the recovery? Your statement "The economy is worse off than when Obama took office" is just plain wrong, incorrect, factually bankrupt. We have had a recovery from the depth of 2008 and 2009. Unemployment has largely stabilized and our country is working to improve those figures, and to avoid GOP measures that would make it worse (tax breaks for the rich, job-killing spending cuts, etc.)

Then you repeat your 8% promise lie, a direct Republican talking point. It's a crock, as the non-partisan Politifact shows:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/09/eric-cantor/Cantor-and-other-republicans-say-obama-promised-s/
Quote:
The claim that the Obama administration "promised" the stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent is a popular talking point among Republican critics of the stimulus.

...What we can rule on, however, is whether the Obama administration "promised" that unemployment rates would not rise above 8 percent if the stimulus were passed. We could find no instance of anyone in the administration directly making such a public pledge.

What we saw from the administration in January was a projection, not a promise. And it was a projection that came with heavy disclaimers.


So all you've got is lies, Republican talking points, and vile reaction. In other words, your typical post.
jmi256
I guess the Obama administration was simply lying or making up numbers when they published this report then. It clearly claims that with the stimulus package, unemployment was supposed to stay around 7.0%, and if it wasn’t passed it would go up to 8.8%. But Obama and the Democrats got their “stimulus” bill and unemployment went to 10% and now is creeping back up at 9.2%.

Quote:
As Figure 1 shows, even with the large prototypical package, the unemployment rate in 2010Q4 is predicted to be approximately 7.0%, which is well below the approximately 8.8% that would result in the absence of a plan.

Source - http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf



image source = http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/assets_c/2010/07/white%20house%20unem%20updated%202010-06-thumb-570x367-29599.png
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
I guess the Obama administration was simply lying or making up numbers when they published this report then. It clearly claims that with the stimulus package, unemployment was supposed to stay around 7.0%, and if it wasn’t passed it would go up to 8.8%. But Obama and the Democrats got their “stimulus” bill and unemployment went to 10% and now is creeping back up at 9.2%.


There you go again, unable to admit a mistake, desperately trying to cover up your lies, like in all your posts lately.

No, the Obama admin wasn't "simply lying" or "making up numbers". They made a economic projection with heavy disclaimers. I'm sure you understand the difference, right? Or do you say that any economic projection is a "promise"?

I notice you've dropped the subject of your other laughably wrong contention, that "The economy is worse off than when Obama took office". I guess even you can't bear trying to back up that canard.
jmi256
Maybe you don't remember, but Obama and the Democrats used his projections/fudged numbers to make a case that his "stimulus" bill, which was basically a pork-filled bill that wasted taxpayer money and rewarded their campaign contributors with taxpayer money. Sensible people saw it was simply bunk, but the brain-dead Obamaniacs refused listen to anything that contradicted their Dear Leader. But only someone out of touch with reality would expect anyone to believe that Obama and the Democrats have done a good job with the economy. To anyone not living in Bizarro World, unemployment over 9% is not signs of a job well done.


handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
Maybe you don't remember, but Obama and the Democrats used his projections/fudged numbers to make a case that his "stimulus" bill, which was basically a pork-filled bill that wasted taxpayer money and rewarded their campaign contributors with taxpayer money. Sensible people saw it was simply bunk, but the brain-dead Obamaniacs refused listen to anything that contradicted their Dear Leader. But only someone out of touch with reality would expect anyone to believe that Obama and the Democrats have done a good job with the economy. To anyone not living in Bizarro World, unemployment over 9% is not signs of a job well done.



Nice cartoon, JMI, to go with your cartoonish view of reality. Even funnier is your claim to represent the "sensible", followed by the usual insults, malicious sarcasm and lies.

Hey, sensible conservative, how many job bills have the Republicans sponsored since their little Congressional victory in the last election, after running on the platform of "jobs, jobs, jobs"? Answer: zero.

Hey, sensible conservative, why are you blaming the President for unemployment? I thought conservatives always say the government/President doesn't make jobs, business makes jobs.

Hey, sensible conservative, Obama famously compromised with the Republicans and extended the tax breaks for the rich, because that was supposed to trickle down and make jobs. So where is the decrease in unemployment from that tax break?

Hey, sensible conservative, are you aware that the latest unemployment increase is mostly made up of government workers who were laid off in conservative-agenda cut backs in government spending? So how can conservatives call for firing government workers and then blame someone else for increased unemployment?

Please remember to answer with a cartoon.
jmi256
Obama and the Democrats are the ones who p#ssed away almost a trillion taxpayer dollars on waste, bureaucracy and pet projects under the claim that it was needed to get and keep the unemployment rate down to 7%, but all we've seen is the unemployment rate jump since the Dems took over Congress and skyrocket since Obama did. Claiming that somehow others are to blame for Obama and the Democrats’ failures (while also somehow claiming there are no failures) puts the credibility of Obama’s brain-dead supporters about par with Baghdad Bob. I could see him right now saying “Obamanomics is not a failure! I am looking at an unemployment line right now and there is no one in line, I say. No one!”, with Obama supporters parroting the same line.



I really don’t mind if they want to be idiots. They are free to be as stupid as they want. But when they use the government to take away the earnings of others to fund their failures and line the pockets of their ‘friends’ and campaign contributors, it becomes my problem. I’m sick of politicians like Obama who run off with schemes that are clearly going to fail and seem to be hatched in some alternate reality, yet expect us taxpayers to pony up and pay for their failures for years and years to come.

If you want to keep arguing that increasing unemployment rates as we've seen under Obama is a good thing for the economy, knock yourself out.
jwellsy
I would like to see a plot of expected/reported/revised unemployment numbers over time.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
Obama and the Democrats are the ones who p#ssed away almost a trillion taxpayer dollars on waste, bureaucracy and pet projects under the claim that it was needed to get and keep the unemployment rate down to 7%, but all we've seen is the unemployment rate jump since the Dems took over Congress and skyrocket since Obama did. Claiming that somehow others are to blame for Obama and the Democrats’ failures (while also somehow claiming there are no failures) puts the credibility of Obama’s brain-dead supporters about par with Baghdad Bob. I could see him right now saying “Obamanomics is not a failure! I am looking at an unemployment line right now and there is no one in line, I say. No one!”, with Obama supporters parroting the same line.

I really don’t mind if they want to be idiots. They are free to be as stupid as they want. But when they use the government to take away the earnings of others to fund their failures and line the pockets of their ‘friends’ and campaign contributors, it becomes my problem. I’m sick of politicians like Obama who run off with schemes that are clearly going to fail and seem to be hatched in some alternate reality, yet expect us taxpayers to pony up and pay for their failures for years and years to come.

If you want to keep arguing that increasing unemployment rates as we've seen under Obama is a good thing for the economy, knock yourself out.


Comparing Obama supporters to Saddam's regime is pathetic, even for you. Your credibility hit bottom in the thread about illegal immigration and now you're digging. The world is getting sick of right wing extremists like you.
deanhills
jwellsy wrote:
I would like to see a plot of expected/reported/revised unemployment numbers over time.

This is the only material I could find. It's from the US Bureau of Labour Statistics.
Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2010-11 Edition
jmi256
Another jobs report, another 400,000+ people out of work thanks to Obama and the Democrats’ policies. Looks like they decided to spice it up a bit and use “more than forecast” rather than “unexpectedly” to characterize Obama and the Democrats’ failures. What’s Obama and the Democrats’ the latest excuse for adding $1 trillion to the deficit so that they can p*ss it away on pet projects kickbacks to campaign contributors as part of a “stimulus bill” and having taxpayers on the hook for it?


Quote:
Jobless Claims in U.S. Top Forecast

More Americans than forecast filed applications for unemployment benefits last week, signaling the labor market is struggling two years into the economic recovery.

Jobless claims climbed by 9,000 to 408,000 in the week ended Aug. 13, the highest in a month, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. Economists surveyed by Bloomberg News projected a rise in claims to 400,000, according to the median forecast. The number of people on unemployment benefit rolls rose, while those receiving extended payments fell.

Companies like Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (BK) are paring staff, one reason consumers are limiting their spending, which accounts for about 70 percent of the economy. Unemployment at 9.1 percent helps explain why Federal Reserve policy makers last week pledged to hold interest rates at a record low until at least mid-2013 to spur growth.

“People continue to get laid off,” David Semmens, a U.S. economist at Standard Chartered Bank in New York, said before the report. “The uncertainty in the economic outlook is continuing to give hiring managers sleepless nights and is keeping businesses from expanding. We have an incredibly long way to go” to get a healthy labor market, Semmens said.

Jobless benefits applications were projected to rise from the 395,000 initially reported for the prior week, according to the median forecast of 41 economists in a Bloomberg survey. Estimates ranged from 390,000 to 420,000.

Stock-index futures held earlier losses after the report. The contract on the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index maturing in September fell 2.2 percent to 1,163.40 at 8:39 a.m. in New York. The yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note fell to 2.1 percent from 2.17 percent late yesterday.

Four-Week Average
Today’s data showed the four-week moving average, a less- volatile measure than the weekly figures, dropped to 402,500 last week, the lowest since April 16, from 406,000.

The number of people continuing to receive jobless benefits climbed by 7,000 in the week ended Aug. 6 to 3.7 million.

The continuing claims figure does not include the number of Americans receiving extended benefits under federal programs.

Those who’ve used up their traditional benefits and are now collecting emergency and extended payments decreased by about 43,700 to 3.66 million in the week ended July 30.

The unemployment rate among people eligible for benefits, which tends to track the jobless rate, held at 2.9 percent in the week ended Aug. 6, today’s report showed.

By State
Thirty-four states and territories reported an increase in claims, while 18 reported a decline. These data are reported with a one-week lag.

Businesses reducing headcount include Bank of New York Mellon Corp. The world’s largest custody bank plans to eliminate 1,500 jobs, or 3 percent of the workforce, after expenses surged in the second quarter. It will implement an immediate hiring freeze across most departments and reduce its use of temporary workers, consultants and contractors.

“Expenses have been growing unsustainably faster” than revenue, Robert Kelly, BNY Mellon’s chief executive officer, said in a statement on Aug. 10. “We expect our natural turnover and immediate hiring freeze will reduce the impact on existing staff” from the reductions.

Initial jobless claims reflect weekly firings and tend to fall as job growth -- measured by the monthly non-farm payrolls report -- accelerates.

July Employment
Payrolls grew by 117,000 in July, bringing the average gain over the past three months to 111,000, according to Labor Department data. That was about half the 204,000 increase on average in the first four months of the year.

The lack of a pickup in hiring and an economy that’s growing “considerably slower” than expected prompted Fed policy makers to pledge for the first time to keep the benchmark interest rate at a record low at least through mid-2013.

“Indicators suggest a deterioration in overall labor market conditions in recent months,” the Federal Open Market Committee said in a statement on Aug. 9 after its meeting. “The unemployment rate will decline only gradually toward levels that the Committee judges to be consistent with its dual mandate” of maximum employment and price stability.

Source = http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-18/first-time-unemployment-claims-in-u-s-rise-more-than-estimated-to-408-000.html
jmi256
Another week of Obamanomics and his failed $1 trillion + "stimulus" that was supposed to keep the unemployment rate below 8%, and another 400,000+ jobs lost. It has become the "new normal" under Obama and the Democrats to see hundreds of thousands of jobs lost each week, yet the media is back to using the term "unexpectedly" to describe Obama and the Democrats' failed economic policies. And on top of that presiding over the historic downgrade of the US credit rating due to their overspending and poor economic performance, Obama and the Democrats are expected propose a new stimulus tonight that will cost taxpayers another $300 billion on top of the $1 trillion Obama and the Democrats have squandered to payoff campaign contributors and pursue failed pet projects.

Quote:
New jobless claims rise to 414,000 last week

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - New U.S. jobless claims rose unexpectedly last week, further evidence of a weak labor market just hours before President Barack Obama delivers a major address to Congress on the issue.

Applications for unemployment benefits rose to 414,000 in the week ending September 3 from an upwardly revised 412,000 the prior week, the Labor Department said on Thursday. Wall Street analysts had been looking for a dip to 405,000.

Excluding one week in early August, claims have held above 400,000 since early April. The Labor Department said there was no discernible effect from recent hurricanes and storms on the national figures this week.

The four-week moving average of claims, which smooths out volatility, rose to 414,750 from 411,000 the prior week.

Continuing claims eased to 3.72 million from 3.75 million. The number of total recipients on benefit rolls was 7.17 million.

U.S. employment growth ground to a halt in August, with zero net job creation raising fears of a new recession and putting pressure on the Federal Reserve to ease monetary policy further at its meeting later this month.

Source = http://finance.yahoo.com/news/New-jobless-claims-rise-to-rb-3640825807.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=



Afaceinthematrix
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14841746

Let's see how this new American Jobs Act will go or if it will be another blundering of tax dollars (assuming it even passes). The main thing that annoys me, that Obama has constantly been doing, is this:

Quote:
tax breaks for firms taking on new employees


Do those firms only get the tax breaks if they take on new employees as far as increasing the net amount? Or can I just fire my current employees and hire new ones to get the tax breaks - keeping the unemployment numbers the same? This never seems to be specified very well. The tax breaks should only come if you're increasing the net amount of employees that you employ.
c'tair
I don't get what's up with high unemployment rates in the US at the moment. I have never searched more than 2 weeks for a job here (US) and while I'm only a high school graduate, I get to make almost twice the minimum wage of my state.

From my perspective it looks as if a large portion of the unemployed simply don't want to work. A lot of the people I've seen when I was recruited came in shabby or dirty cloths, could barely write, spoke slang and simply had no idea how to answer questions like "Why do you want to work for us?". And from what I see in the community college I'm attending, people who are taking liberal arts courses or imho BS majors like political science have the hardest time finding work AND they whine the most.

I mean finding a job is simply selling your labor. The employer will hire the person they deem is best suited for the job: the best looking, well groomed, courteous, skilled, fast, energetic and positive individual they find. We have a free market, why in seven hells would an employer hire a dirty, slang speaking unskilled person?

Sure, both of those people need food, and money to buy the food, but one person is more profitable to hire than the other. While we may debate about things like us entering a post-scarcity phase of civilization, we must focus on the current day and it's issues.
ocalhoun
c'tair wrote:

I mean finding a job is simply selling your labor. The employer will hire the person they deem is best suited for the job: the best looking, well groomed, courteous, skilled, fast, energetic and positive individual they find. We have a free market, why in seven hells would an employer hire a dirty, slang speaking unskilled person?

Because they couldn't find anybody else to hire and they needed a new hire.

Now, with the economy weakened and unemployment high, they can afford to be choosy... which is why the less desirable ones are having a terribly hard time finding a job.



(As for why all of this is happening in the first place, I'd recommend the book, "The 86 biggest lies on wall street". I just finished reading it (from the library), and it really does explain a lot of things about the recent recession, including why it really happened, why the current policies aren't fixing it, and what will happen to the economy in the future*. It comes from a guy who used to work at Goldman Sachs, and who wrote other books that predicted the housing bust before it happened, and 90% of the stuff he said in the book made quite a lot of sense... so I'm inclined to believe it.)

(* Spoiler: over-leveraging in corporations, especially in the finance sector, with collapse triggered by falling home prices when everybody assumed they would rise forever; because only de-leveraging the banks and financial institutions will get them lending again, even with the stimulus, they are still too close to being insolvent (as well as tight new regulations to fix the interconnectedness problem, the 'too big to fail' problem, and the no-transparency problem; bad news... since the banks are over-leveraged, the only way to fix it is to de-leverage them... which involves paying off the debt somehow... and since the previous boom was fueled by risky over-leveraging, the economy can't safely bounce back to that level until it is reached by real, solid growth... which -- due to the debt that needs to be paid off -- will take a very long time.)
lrj945
And on top of that presiding over the historic downgrade of the US credit rating due to their overspending and poor economic performance, Obama and the Democrats are expected propose a new stimulus tonight that will cost taxpayers another $300 billion on top of the $1 trillion Obama and the Democrats have squandered to payoff campaign contributors and pursue failed pet projects. Jobless benefits applications were projected to rise from the 395,000 initially reported for the prior week, according to the median forecast of 41 economists in a Bloomberg survey. Estimates ranged from 390,000 to 420,000.

Payrolls grew by 117,000 in July, bringing the average gain over the past three months to 111,000, according to Labor Department data. That was about half the 204,000 increase on average in the first four months of the year.
crystalkey
After reading most of the arguments for and against Obama, one thing is certain. The system itself is broken and is bad need of repair. We are living in the past and are woefully unprepared for a change which needs to come about, if the US is to regain some of its past stature.

Neither party has the answer, despite the figures created by the media and think tanks. The world is in turmoil. This is not limited to the US, folks ....
deanhills
crystalkey wrote:
Neither party has the answer, despite the figures created by the media and think tanks. The world is in turmoil. This is not limited to the US, folks ....
Agreed. Although the world has become so connected with the US, when the US sneezes the rest of the world catches a cold. Very Happy
jmi256
lrj945 wrote:
And on top of that presiding over the historic downgrade of the US credit rating due to their overspending and poor economic performance, Obama and the Democrats are expected propose a new stimulus tonight that will cost taxpayers another $300 billion on top of the $1 trillion Obama and the Democrats have squandered to payoff campaign contributors and pursue failed pet projects. Jobless benefits applications were projected to rise from the 395,000 initially reported for the prior week, according to the median forecast of 41 economists in a Bloomberg survey. Estimates ranged from 390,000 to 420,000.

Payrolls grew by 117,000 in July, bringing the average gain over the past three months to 111,000, according to Labor Department data. That was about half the 204,000 increase on average in the first four months of the year.


Obama’s unemployment numbers would be even higher, except many have simply stopped looking for work or have run out of unemployment benefits, so they are no longer tallied in the calculations.

Obama and the Democrats claimed the $1+ trillion “stimulus” bill that was used for pet projects and to line the pockets of their campaign contributors was going to bring the unemployment rate down, yet it has gone higher than it was before the “stimulus” was passed by the Democrats without giving taxpayers the opportunity to read what they would have to pay for. I guess Obama and the Democrats didn’t want the hardworking taxpayers to see exactly how they were getting screwed again by Obama and the Democrats.

Even without the pork-filled “stimulus” bill, Obama and the Democrats forecast the unemployment rate to be around 7.5% by now. I wonder if hard-working taxpayers can have their $1+ trillion back from the Democrats in exchange for that unemployment rate rather than the official unemployment rate Obama and the Democrats have saddled us with now.


handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
I wonder if hard-working taxpayers can have their $1+ trillion back from the Democrats in exchange for that unemployment rate rather than the official unemployment rate Obama and the Democrats have saddled us with now.


So you would take away the work of millions of Americans who have jobs thanks to the stimulus package? I am not surprised, this is basically the Republican and right wing position, only caring about giving tax breaks to the richest 1%.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
this is basically the Republican and right wing position, only caring about giving tax breaks to the richest 1%.

Isn't that what they all do?

Sure, the left goes to more trouble to hide it, but still...
Klusner
He cant do any thing else lonely.Entire world is in global recession.So i will must say that it will take time and whole world has to play the role on aggregate basis.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
this is basically the Republican and right wing position, only caring about giving tax breaks to the richest 1%.

Isn't that what they all do?
Right. Particularly during a Presidential campaign.
deanhills
Just heard on the news that unemployment is down to 8.5% in the US for the month of December. Is this really true? Or seasonal?


Source: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

Looks great, however when one takes a larger period of time, before the 2008 financial disaster, the graph looks quite different:

Ankhanu
deanhills wrote:
Just heard on the news that unemployment is down to 8.5% in the US for the month of December. Is this really true? Or seasonal?
...
Looks great, however when one takes a larger period of time, before the 2008 financial disaster, the graph looks quite different:



That's the graph that's useful... and I'd say it looks pretty promising. The trend is certainly downward. Recovery is slow, but, that's to be expected; it would be miraculous if it were to plunge as fast as it rose. Rebuilding a nation with jobs is a long, slow task.
deanhills
Ankhanu wrote:
That's the graph that's useful... and I'd say it looks pretty promising. The trend is certainly downward. Recovery is slow, but, that's to be expected; it would be miraculous if it were to plunge as fast as it rose. Rebuilding a nation with jobs is a long, slow task.
Particularly when there is so much debt that needs to be repaid.
Related topics
Alternate Realities
PHI
Which one do use: Open Office or Microsoft Office and Why?
The Daily Guess A Number Game: Day 111
servers going down today?
500,000 posts
[C] Splitting names program
Is it ever right to go to war?
An algorithm to solve sudoku
Infinity, does it exist?
should we care about antartic ice melting?
Democrats to increase tax burden over $5,000 per taxpayer
Obama down in polls
Obama stimulus: +millions of American jobs
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.