UNEMPLOYMENT 9.1 for May

[REDREX]

Barack needs to send SEAL Team Six after his Economic advisors

[sappstuf]

Barack needs to send SEAL Team Six after his Economic advisors

He should probably send them after the person that is in charge of those economic advisors. Oh wait....

[delhalew]

The head of Timothy Geitner would be a good start.

[REDREX]

Take out Christina Romer---I hear she is hiding in Berkeley

[pphilfran]

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/pphilfran/unemply81-200912-2.jpg

[delhalew]

QE3 is the answer. Go ahead and wipe your *** with the dolla dolla bill.

[The Profit]

You can blame the slowdown in the economy squarely on the dirty stinking oil companies, and the speculators, who do their dirty work.

[REDREX]

You can blame the slowdown in the economy squarely on the dirty stinking oil companies, and the speculators, who do their dirty work.
---You could but you would be wrong--- I Thought Barack had all the answers?

[tcrb]

Cue up the "It's W's fault" speech on the teleprompter.

[sappstuf]

Cue up the "It's W's fault" speech on the teleprompter.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YxY9uyo4-LE/TaG9UySQfII/AAAAAAAAAfE/I4-sJhy0EoQ/s1600/Bush_Fault%255B1%255D.gif

http://images8.cpcache.com/product/465911978v1_480x480_Front.jpg

[delhalew]

We've spent an unheard of amount of money for these stellar results.

[REDREX]

Maybe we should go waste another Trillion $

[Position Limit]

yeah.. touchdown neocons!!! go team. fight. win.

jobs are not coming back. companies are become very efficient and are making nice profits. once the next bubble arrives, then there will be some bull****e jobs to be had.

until then, go team. fight. win.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/pphilfran/unemply81-200912-2.jpg

I can't figure out why one graph starts Jan 81 and the other Jan 08.

Reagan started in Jan 81 while Obama started Jan 09 - not Jan 08.

During Reagan's 3rd year, the US had 9.6% so-called unemployment rate compared to this month's 9.1%.

Income tax rates are lower now than in 1983. Capital gains tax rates are lower. The full effect of QE2 has not hit yet, given the 12 to 18 month lag.

Everyone knew the spring would be a drag (w/Japan's disasters even more so) but look for a very good finish to 2011. There are lots of reasons to believe we're in for a good bull run.

For Obama's re-election, today's unemployment rate is of little consequence. What matters is May - Sept of 2012.

[Blue]

We've spent an unheard of amount of money for these stellar results.

WINNER!!!!

[Blue]

yeah.. touchdown neocons!!! go team. fight. win.

jobs are not coming back. companies are become very efficient and are making nice profits. once the next bubble arrives, then there will be some bull****e jobs to be had.

until then, go team. fight. win.

We got a neocon in office. i for one cannot tell any difference in this administration from the last.

[Blue]

I can't figure out why one graph starts Jan 81 and the other Jan 08.

Reagan started in Jan 81 while Obama started Jan 09 - not Jan 08.

During Reagan's 3rd year, the US had 9.6% so-called unemployment rate compared to this month's 9.1%.

Income tax rates are lower now than in 1983. Capital gains tax rates are lower. The full effect of QE2 has not hit yet, given the 12 to 18 month lag.

Everyone knew the spring would be a drag (w/Japan's disasters even more so) but look for a very good finish to 2011. There are lots of reasons to believe we're in for a good bull run.

For Obama's re-election, today's unemployment rate is of little consequence. What matters is May - Sept of 2012.

Major countries are defaulting on their debt, credit ratings are being devalued on a weekly basis, and no matter what they try gold and silver are skyrocketing while the dollar is treading water 10 miles out to sea.

But yeah, bull run coming....:rolleyes: LMAO.

[hawaii 5-0]

Maybe it's 'bout time some of the corporations and wealthy folks getting the fat tax breaks actually go out and hire some people.



5-0




Trump/ Carlos 2012

[Chuck Bao]

The head of Timothy Geitner would be a good start.

I very much agree with this and spek. Talk about an east coast banking establishment insider. He had a hand in killing the economy for 500 million people in Southeast Asia and I, guess, he has moved on to doing the same in the US.

[pphilfran]

I can't figure out why one graph starts Jan 81 and the other Jan 08.

Reagan started in Jan 81 while Obama started Jan 09 - not Jan 08.

During Reagan's 3rd year, the US had 9.6% so-called unemployment rate compared to this month's 9.1%.

Income tax rates are lower now than in 1983. Capital gains tax rates are lower. The full effect of QE2 has not hit yet, given the 12 to 18 month lag.

Everyone knew the spring would be a drag (w/Japan's disasters even more so) but look for a very good finish to 2011. There are lots of reasons to believe we're in for a good bull run.

For Obama's re-election, today's unemployment rate is of little consequence. What matters is May - Sept of 2012.

I was not trying to place blame on one administration or another...nor was I trying to place blame on one party or another...

The chart was initially used to compare the "Worst recession since the depression" to "A normal recession"...I only tried to line up the two trend lines...

I might give you a year for QE1/2 but 18 months is far too long...

I think we are closer to a double dip than a good second half of the year...

I agree that the current unemployment rate will not effect the election...

Income tax rates don't mean squat with all of the available loopholes...Clintons higher income tax rates actually had lower revenue than the previous lower rates...cap gains is where he made the revenue increase...a higher rate on cap gains was part of the reason but the booming and topping stock market was the primary reason for increased cap gains revenue...

[pphilfran]

Maybe it's 'bout time some of the corporations and wealthy folks getting the fat tax breaks actually go out and hire some people.



5-0




Trump/ Carlos 2012

Why should they hire new workers? There are questions about future tax rates...questions about fuel costs...questions about the direction the economy is going...GDP growth was less than 2% in the first quarter...and this quarter probably won't be any better...business would be foolish to hire a bunch of new folks in with this many questions that impact their sales...

[SoCaliSooner]

Why should they hire new workers? There are questions about future tax rates...questions about fuel costs...questions about the direction the economy is going...GDP growth was less than 2% in the first quarter...and this quarter probably won't be any better...business would be foolish to hire a bunch of new folks in with this many questions that impact their sales...

Don't forget about cap and trade carbon tax along with health care coming down the road.

Businesses are becoming about revenues for the cash strapped government and the government ensuring the employee gets more than their evil greedy employer.

My in-laws employed 128 people in their 57 year old business, in 2009 they laid off 12 and in 2010 laid off another 10. This year they laid off 2. While the company has stayed profitable, between California's punitive taxation and regulation and the way the federal government is going, they aren't going to hire anybody for the forseeable future.

[pphilfran]

Don't forget about cap and trade carbon tax along with health care coming down the road.

Businesses are becoming about revenues for the cash strapped government and the government ensuring the employee gets more than their evil greedy employer.

My in-laws employed 128 people in their 57 year old business, in 2009 they laid off 12 and in 2010 laid off another 10. This year they laid off 2. While the company has stayed profitable, between California's punitive taxation and regulation and the way the federal government is going, they aren't going to hire anybody for the forseeable future.

I considered health care are part of the overall tax structure...I think cap and trade is dead for the time being...

I can't believe how f'd up things are...and solutions...

People complain about the high price of gas...so our leadership talks about pulling tax incentives...like higher taxes will lower the price of fuel...

How our leadership wants to curb back oil and gas exploration in the US but we back a loan to Brazil to help them grow their off shore crude business...

How our leadership cries about declining housing prices and how they are trying to keep them from falling further...yet high housing prices caused by loose loan practices (variable, no down, etc loans) are one of the reasons for the current collapse...

How are leaders complain about how the bail out money was used by the corporations yet our leadership are the ones that threw together a cobbled up plan with little of no structure or expectations to the companies involved...

I am sick and tired of the money and power hungry, incompetent, lying, two faced leadership that we have in DC...

[pphilfran]

SoCal, how is your knee doing? I have had two...one pre scope days and that sob hurt like hell for a week...

[pphilfran]

One other thing...

A companies primary focus is not to grow employment...it is to maximize and increase profits over the long term...

If the economic environment is such that a larger company with more employees is the way to go to increase profits then companies will expand...

Sadly, our current economic environment does not fulfill those needs...

[Sooner5030]

You can blame the slowdown in the economy squarely on the dirty stinking oil companies, and the speculators, who do their dirty work.

If this was the case and it was that easy we would all stop what we're doing and become "dirty stinking oil companies".

[JLEW1818]

YES WE CAN AMERICA!!!!!! SPEND DAT MONEY BITCHES!!!

[REDREX]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_lawrence_kudlow/boneheaded_stimulus_never_works

[soonercruiser]

You can blame the slowdown in the economy squarely on the dirty stinking oil companies, and the speculators, who do their dirty work.

Alinskyian tactic! - Deamonize busnesses!!!
Couldn't be the fault of the govment, could it???
If BHO wasn't the Pres, we wouldn't be blaming the speclators for anything.

Maybe we can start drilling the environmentalists!
(Sell their blood!)

[soonercruiser]

I can't figure out why one graph starts Jan 81 and the other Jan 08.

Reagan started in Jan 81 while Obama started Jan 09 - not Jan 08.

During Reagan's 3rd year, the US had 9.6% so-called unemployment rate compared to this month's 9.1%.

Income tax rates are lower now than in 1983. Capital gains tax rates are lower. The full effect of QE2 has not hit yet, given the 12 to 18 month lag.

Everyone knew the spring would be a drag (w/Japan's disasters even more so) but look for a very good finish to 2011. There are lots of reasons to believe we're in for a good bull run.

For Obama's re-election, today's unemployment rate is of little consequence. What matters is May - Sept of 2012.

But.....But.....But......!
You need the podium at the next Pres. Press Conference!
:rolleyes:

[sooneron]

So weird. my business is all predicated on companies and entities spending money on marketing. 2008 was the worst professional year for me, ever. 2009 was better, 2010 was better than that. This year, my company has 2 new clients. GO figure, it must really suck out there.
What a lot of people don't seem to understand is, giving out pink slips is the last measure that a corp or company will entertain the thought of - it's bad PR. Things had sunk a great deal in 08 and 09 felt the aftermath of it as companies started to look at what it would take to save the bottom line. VOILA, axe the people. I think that is a very true reason as to why unemployment kept drifting north in 09/10.

[TitoMorelli]

What we have now is a president who makes statements like, “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

We have a president who tells would-be entrepreneurs that “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”

Does anyone still wonder why the economy under a president who seems hostile to business is failing....?

http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/22559.html

[jkjsooner]

Why should they hire new workers? There are questions about future tax rates...questions about fuel costs...questions about the direction the economy is going...GDP growth was less than 2% in the first quarter...and this quarter probably won't be any better...business would be foolish to hire a bunch of new folks in with this many questions that impact their sales...

I'll tell you that in my situation and from many others, businesses have been working those of us left employed almost to the breaking point. I can state two things about this:

1. In these cases there is clearly enough work to support more employees.

2. This is not a long term solution as the employees will soon be burned out and productivity will inevitably decline. In addition, even if you can get employees to work twice as long you can never get twice the expertise out of them.

In some respects I think the companies know it's an employers market and are taking advantage of that. It's not about future economic predictions. It's about getting the most productivity for the cheapest price. They will do so until they start to see negative consequences from this strategy.

(I'm not stating free market economics is a bad thing; just stating your reasoning about the lack of hiring doesn't tell the entire story.)

In my case, my company has jeopardized its relationship with some key clients by not having the staff or expertise needed to support the clients. (It's a very large company so any loss here would be a ripple in the ocean but I'd bet my group isn't unique.)

And to make my point clear, we just hired a couple of developers this last week. What I've been saying is true. They finally realized that they can't do their business long-term with the staff they had.

[jkjsooner]

Alinskyian tactic! - Deamonize busnesses!!!
Couldn't be the fault of the govment, could it???
If BHO wasn't the Pres, we wouldn't be blaming the speclators for anything.

Maybe we can start drilling the environmentalists!
(Sell their blood!)

Right, because nobody blamed speculators in July of '08... :rolleyes:

[jkjsooner]

Cue up the "It's W's fault" speech on the teleprompter.

I can't refrain from commenting on this statement.

Let's go back in history about 10 years. When the early 2000's recession hit, many liberals were quick to point the finger at Bush and the conservatives quickly pointed out that the conditions that caused the early 2000's recession preceeded Bush.

If archives existed for the old SoonerTimes political board you would find many posts of mine where I argued on behalf of Bush.

Now we move forward 10 years and here you are in backwards Bizarro world. A person is chastized for pointing out that the economic conditions long predated Obama's presidency or even any period where he held any political power whatsoever.

The ironic thing is, in this case not only were the conditions in place long before Obama took office but the recession actually started long before Obama took office.

Anyway, I sure hope you are not one of those who defended Bush in 2001. If so then you need to find some intellectual honesty. Nobody can argue that Obama's policies caused this deep recession. Only a fool who believes in time travel could take this stance.

That only leaves one area of criticism - that we have been stuck in this recession for a long time and that Obama's policies are to blame.

I think this point ignores the reality. Economists were saying years ago that we were in for many years of very tough times. This recession was a really tough one. We knew that long before Obama took office. Since it affected the financial industry and not just tech industry its impact was much more widespread. Because housing was a huge part of it, it had a direct impact on 70% of American's bottom line. Because of our country's deteriorated financial situation and because we had already used all of our silver bullets (lowering taxes / dropping interest rates) prior to the recession, we had no easy way out. In addition there was no magical housing bubble to get us out of this mess.


Now for my opinion, neither Bush nor Obama nor either party can be soley blamed for our current economic conditions. In my opinion, radical economic ideology from both sides caused the mother of all recessions. We had a nasty mixture of liberals trying to manipulate the market while ignoring the idea of unintended consequences and we have conservatives (and some Democrats such as Clinton) with their radical no-regulation stance. Mix those two together and you have a dangerous economic mixture.

And let's not forget Alan Greenspan - the man who made himself out to be a genius but in hindsight led us on a disasterous path. Afterall, this is the guy who thought he could manipulate any market and at the same time thought that it wasn't even the role of the government to regulate outright fraud.

[jkjsooner]

To add to my previous post, this is coming from someone who can't stand political partisanship and how it blinds people. It is in my nature to get defensive when I encounter these types of blind political comments.

[pphilfran]

I'll tell you that in my situation and from many others, businesses have been working those of us left employed almost to the breaking point. I can state two things about this:

1. In these cases there is clearly enough work to support more employees.

2. This is not a long term solution as the employees will soon be burned out and productivity will inevitably decline. In addition, even if you can get employees to work twice as long you can never get twice the expertise out of them.

In some respects I think the companies know it's an employers market and are taking advantage of that. It's not about future economic predictions. It's about getting the most productivity for the cheapest price. They will do so until they start to see negative consequences from this strategy.

(I'm not stating free market economics is a bad thing; just stating your reasoning about the lack of hiring doesn't tell the entire story.)

In my case, my company has jeopardized its relationship with some key clients by not having the staff or expertise needed to support the clients. (It's a very large company so any loss here would be a ripple in the ocean but I'd bet my group isn't unique.)

And to make my point clear, we just hired a couple of developers this last week. What I've been saying is true. They finally realized that they can't do their business long-term with the staff they had.

Employers will not hire new people until the economy gets back on track....employers will not hire new people until furutre uncertaninties are clarified...

Want em to hire? Pass a budget. Show where taxes will be.

[pphilfran]

I can't refrain from commenting on this statement.

Let's go back in history about 10 years. When the early 2000's recession hit, many liberals were quick to point the finger at Bush and the conservative quickly pointed out that the conditions that caused the early 2000's recession preceeded Bush.

If archives existed for the old SoonerTimes political board you would find many posts of mine where I argued on behalf of Bush.

Now we move forward 10 years and here you are in backwards Bizarro world. A person is chastized for pointing out that the economic conditions long predated Obama's presidency or even any period where he held any political power whatsoever.

The ironic thing is, in this case not only were the conditions in place long before Obama took office but the recession actually started long before Obama took office.

Anyway, I sure hope you are not one of those who defended Bush in 2001. If so then you need to find some intellectual honesty. Nobody can argue that Obama's policies caused this deep recession. Only a fool who believes in time travel could take this stance.

That only leaves one area of criticism - that we have been stuck in this recession for a long time and that Obama's policies are to blame.

I think this point ignores the reality. Economists were saying years ago that we were in for many years of very tough times. This recession was a really tough one. We knew that long before Obama took office. Since it affected the financial industry and not just tech industry it's impact was much more widespread. Because housing was a huge part of it, it had a direct impact on 70% of American's bottom line. Because of our country's deteriorated financial situation and because we had already used all of our silver bullets (lowering taxes / dropping interest rates) prior to the recession, we had no easy way out. In addition there was no magical housing bubble to get us out of this mess.


Now for my opinion, neither Bush nor Obama nor either party can be soley blamed for our current economic conditions. In my opinion, radical economic ideology from both sides caused the mother of all recessions. We had a nasty mixture of liberals trying to manipulate the market while ignoring the idea of unintended consequences and we have conservatives (and some Democrats such as Clinton) with their radical no-regulation stance. Mix those two together and you have a dangerous economic mixture.

And let's not forget Alan Greenspan - the man who made himself out to be a genius but in hindsight led us on a disasterous path. Afterall, this is the guy who thought he could manipulate any market and at the same time thought that it wasn't even the role of the government to regulate outright fraud.

PBS Frontline...it will make you want to barf...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/

[jkjsooner]

Employers will not hire new people until the economy gets back on track....employers will not hire new people until furutre uncertaninties are clarified...

Want em to hire? Pass a budget. Show where taxes will be.

Are you saying that employers would rather lose a multimillion dollar contract because they defaulted on their commitments than hire a new employee?

Like I said, in a lot of cases employers have gone down an unsustainable path. Like everything that is unsustainable, it can work for a time but not forever.

[diegosooner]

Number of temp workers is up which is common in econ recovery -- always precedes increase in permanent workers.

[soonercruiser]

Number of temp workers is up which is common in econ recovery -- always precedes increase in permanent workers.

Temp emplyees were 5-% of the May hires!
Summer employees at MickyDees.

If jkjsooner is soooooo damn sure about plenty of work to hire new employees, he should put his $$ where his mouth is and start a business of his own.
But NOOOOOOOO - Just another typical whiney liberal employee!
:rolleyes:

[REDREX]

Temp emplyees were 5-% of the May hires!
Summer employees at MickyDees.

If jkjsooner is soooooo damn sure about plenty of work to hire new employees, he should put his $$ where his mouth is and start a business of his own.
But NOOOOOOOO - Just another typical whiney liberal employee!
:rolleyes:---If you don't like your job--Quit

[badger]

As a complete aside and to debbie downer another south oval thread, my heart goes out to anyone underemployed or unemployed seeking a job. Politics aside, there's people suffering out there trying to make ends meet without the income. :(

[soonercruiser]

As a complete aside and to debbie downer another south oval thread, my heart goes out to anyone underemployed or unemployed seeking a job. Politics aside, there's people suffering out there trying to make ends meet without the income. :(

Politics aside, I agree Badger. (son was out almost 2 years)

But still, deep down I hope that most of them voted for Obama.
But, with their luck, prolly not. :(