hwt 0 #1 June 7, 2010 431,000 jobs were created last month but 411,000 were temporary census jobs. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0415483620100604 The bad news for Democrats is that those hires are likely to come off the employment rolls at the end of summer -- just before voters elect all 435 members of the House of Representatives, 36 senators and 37 governors. "The Democrats have to be concerned the August or September report that comes out could easily show some big negative numbers when the census jobs go away -- right before the election," said John Silvia, chief economist at Wells Fargo. "A lot of these congressmen running for office are going to see unemployment rates in their district that are higher than two years ago. People are going to ask them: 'What have you done for two years?'" he said. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #2 June 7, 2010 Quote 431,000 jobs were created last month but 411,000 were temporary census jobs. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0415483620100604 The bad news for Democrats is that those hires are likely to come off the employment rolls at the end of summer -- just before voters elect all 435 members of the House of Representatives, 36 senators and 37 governors. "The Democrats have to be concerned the August or September report that comes out could easily show some big negative numbers when the census jobs go away -- right before the election," said John Silvia, chief economist at Wells Fargo. "A lot of these congressmen running for office are going to see unemployment rates in their district that are higher than two years ago. People are going to ask them: 'What have you done for two years?'" he said. >>>>>>>>> The bad news for Democrats is that those hires are likely to come off the employment rolls at the end of summer I would think that is bad news for all people who want to see the US do well. Oh yea, the real Americans, the Repuklicans want America to fail, I almost forgot. Even if the Dems are viewed as bad, they have to look atthe alternative and they are the turds who got us here, so it's more bad news for Repubs, I mean the job mess is good news for them, but the election thing is still bad. If you looka the 3.4% unemp rose from Feb 2008 to Feb 2009, the year before Obama, I think jobs are as good as could be expected. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #3 June 7, 2010 Quote Quote 431,000 jobs were created last month but 411,000 were temporary census jobs. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0415483620100604 The bad news for Democrats is that those hires are likely to come off the employment rolls at the end of summer -- just before voters elect all 435 members of the House of Representatives, 36 senators and 37 governors. "The Democrats have to be concerned the August or September report that comes out could easily show some big negative numbers when the census jobs go away -- right before the election," said John Silvia, chief economist at Wells Fargo. "A lot of these congressmen running for office are going to see unemployment rates in their district that are higher than two years ago. People are going to ask them: 'What have you done for two years?'" he said. >>>>>>>>> The bad news for Democrats is that those hires are likely to come off the employment rolls at the end of summer I would think that is bad news for all people who want to see the US do well. Oh yea, the real Americans, the Repuklicans want America to fail, I almost forgot. Even if the Dems are viewed as bad, they have to look atthe alternative and they are the turds who got us here, so it's more bad news for Repubs, I mean the job mess is good news for them, but the election thing is still bad. If you looka the 3.4% unemp rose from Feb 2008 to Feb 2009, the year before Obama, I think jobs are as good as could be expected. See that? Even YOU can't spin the rhetoric that got President Obama elected, the stimulus passed or omnibus passed...first it was "immediate effect" then it was "well it will take some time". Thing is, none of these guys know. What we do know is that the current "limping" isn't enough. We're 15-16 months into the administration. Blaming the predecessor doesn't work. We don't elect leaders to blame. We elect leaders to lead. There is a massive void of leadership right now.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #4 June 7, 2010 Quote If you looka the 3.4% unemp rose from Feb 2008 to Feb 2009, the year before Obama, I think jobs are as good as could be expected. You'll just need to hope that the voters still believe that. They won't forever, you know, even if you're right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #5 June 7, 2010 Quote Quote Quote 431,000 jobs were created last month but 411,000 were temporary census jobs. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0415483620100604 The bad news for Democrats is that those hires are likely to come off the employment rolls at the end of summer -- just before voters elect all 435 members of the House of Representatives, 36 senators and 37 governors. "The Democrats have to be concerned the August or September report that comes out could easily show some big negative numbers when the census jobs go away -- right before the election," said John Silvia, chief economist at Wells Fargo. "A lot of these congressmen running for office are going to see unemployment rates in their district that are higher than two years ago. People are going to ask them: 'What have you done for two years?'" he said. >>>>>>>>> The bad news for Democrats is that those hires are likely to come off the employment rolls at the end of summer I would think that is bad news for all people who want to see the US do well. Oh yea, the real Americans, the Repuklicans want America to fail, I almost forgot. Even if the Dems are viewed as bad, they have to look atthe alternative and they are the turds who got us here, so it's more bad news for Repubs, I mean the job mess is good news for them, but the election thing is still bad. If you looka the 3.4% unemp rose from Feb 2008 to Feb 2009, the year before Obama, I think jobs are as good as could be expected. See that? Even YOU can't spin the rhetoric that got President Obama elected, the stimulus passed or omnibus passed...first it was "immediate effect" then it was "well it will take some time". Thing is, none of these guys know. What we do know is that the current "limping" isn't enough. We're 15-16 months into the administration. Blaming the predecessor doesn't work. We don't elect leaders to blame. We elect leaders to lead. There is a massive void of leadership right now. In the GD era, unemp hit 25% and between Hoovers largest ever income tax in 1932 and FDR tax increases/new deals, it took until 1937 to get unemp down to 14.3%. Then it spiked again and the war spending pulled it down, but even that toom until 1942 to get it down You act as tho this was no big deal when it was/is in fact huge. Stopping the bleeding was amazing. 3.4% gain the year before Obama took office is major. Then it rose only 2% after that with a head of steam of almost twice that the year preceeding. It capped in October 2009, just 9 months after Obama took office and implemented his stimulus. Now it's stabilized and that's not good enough for you. It was teh mess of the guy you elected, my guy halted it and that's not good enough. Hell, Reagan inherited 7.5 unemp that was stable as I recall, he blew it up to 10.8% 18 -24 months into his presidency. Here Obama inherits a skyrocketing mess, curbs it just 2 points higher and now it's shading off yet to you Reagan was a gem and Obama not based on data that clearly shows Obama is handling things better. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #6 June 7, 2010 QuoteQuote If you looka the 3.4% unemp rose from Feb 2008 to Feb 2009, the year before Obama, I think jobs are as good as could be expected. You'll just need to hope that the voters still believe that. They won't forever, you know, even if you're right. Are you saying that unemp didn't rise 3.4% from Feb 08 to Feb 09? As for voters, they're stupid, just look at the GWB elections. Remember, the voters, altho stupid, remember the GWb era and will for quite a while, so even if not happy with Obama, it beats what we had. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #7 June 7, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote If you looka the 3.4% unemp rose from Feb 2008 to Feb 2009, the year before Obama, I think jobs are as good as could be expected. You'll just need to hope that the voters still believe that. They won't forever, you know, even if you're right. Are you saying that unemp didn't rise 3.4% from Feb 08 to Feb 09? As for voters, they're stupid, just look at the GWB elections. Remember, the voters, altho stupid, remember the GWb era and will for quite a while, so even if not happy with Obama, it beats what we had. so, is your strategy for the Democrats this fall to insult the voters, or believe they'll do what's best (ie, continue to keep the Democratic majorities)? This is a wildly contradictory paragraph. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #8 June 7, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote If you looka the 3.4% unemp rose from Feb 2008 to Feb 2009, the year before Obama, I think jobs are as good as could be expected. You'll just need to hope that the voters still believe that. They won't forever, you know, even if you're right. Are you saying that unemp didn't rise 3.4% from Feb 08 to Feb 09? As for voters, they're stupid, just look at the GWB elections. Remember, the voters, altho stupid, remember the GWb era and will for quite a while, so even if not happy with Obama, it beats what we had. so, is your strategy for the Democrats this fall to insult the voters, or believe they'll do what's best (ie, continue to keep the Democratic majorities)? This is a wildly contradictory paragraph. What is contradictory about it? Yes, I hear the votes falling as people read my post . What, don't care to talk about the 3.4% freefall the year before Obama took office? Didn't think so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #9 June 8, 2010 >What we do know is that the current "limping" isn't enough. It's a bad day to be crying the "U" word: ================= Job Openings Rise To Highest Level In April By Christopher S. Rugaber, AP Economics Writer Manufacturing.Net - June 08, 2010 WASHINGTON (AP) -- Job openings jumped in April to the highest level in 16 months, a sign that private employers may boost hiring in coming months. The number of jobs advertised at the end of April rose to 3.1 million from 2.8 million in March, the Labor Department said Tuesday. That's the most openings since December 2008. Private employers accounted for the entire net gain. The government's advertising for jobs decreased, despite the hiring of hundreds of thousands of census workers in May. ================== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #10 June 8, 2010 why didn't that translate into actual jobs in May? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #11 June 8, 2010 Quotewhy didn't that translate into actual jobs in May? Well because advertising isn't an actual job. It is an advertisement.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
