Unemployment ticks up to 9.1%

[Modbert]

The sole reason most Liberals voted for Obama in the first place was his skin color! So now after two years on the job and he's been shown to be a massive failure and/or a clone of Bush, their only defense is to play the race card.

I just ignore the misdirection plays from tards like him.

You are a sad individual. It's pretty pathetic that this sort of rhetoric has become common place here. I don't see how any of you expect to have a fruitful discussion when you're poisoning the well. Seems to me you're just looking for reinforcement of your beliefs.

 

[Modbert]

well said; thats what Obama says too.....

If you wish to be simple minded by generalizing the situation down to R vs D then you deserve to be called part of the problem. Neither party is looking out for the working Joe and both of them have been spending like drunken sailors for a long time. If you wish to delude yourself in the belief that the Republicans are fiscal Conservatives and looking out for you then be my guest.

While you're doing so, perhaps you can tell me where all the Republicans plans for job creation that they ran on this last election are.

 

[Modbert]

What I would find surprising if I didn't come to expect it is people treating a 1-month trend as if it's been going on for a year.

There also seems to be the wide-spread belief in this thread that the Government is crowding out private sector spending. Of course, what is being ignored is for there to be crowding out there would of have to be spending on the part of the private sector. They're sitting on close to $2 trillion on their balance sheets.

What has happened is that these employers have found they can keep production levels high while keeping employment levels low.

For example:

A company has 10 workers. They produce at level X. Economy hits, company lays off 3 workers. This same company now has 7 workers, but it is still producing at level X. Why? Those other 7 workers pick up the fall in production from the 3 workers who were laid off. So now this company is producing at level X with 7 workers, why is it going to hire 3 more workers?

Of course, one could say that they would produce at a higher level but this may not necessarily be the case. Especially when the cost of adding a new employee may outweigh the benefits of that employee. Furthermore, this fails to take into account that in many cases these 7 workers producing at level X are not in the same country anymore but rather in a developing nation where wages are so low that people in developed countries like the United States could not possibly compete and stay afloat.

Boehner

But if you don't take my word for it about 'crowding out':

Boehner’s statement in his Wall Street speech that government spending “is crowding out private investment and threatening the availability of capital” runs counter to the behavior of credit markets.

Capital Spending

“Look at interest rates. Look at capital spending,” said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist of IHS Inc., a research firm based in Englewood, Colorado. “It’s very hard to come to a conclusion that there’s any kind of crowding out.”

The cost of borrowing is low by historical standards. Yields on 10-year Treasury notes were 3.21 percent and yields on 2-year Treasury notes were 0.59 percent at 5 p.m. in New York yesterday, according to Bloomberg Data. Average spreads on investment-grade corporate bonds have narrowed from 1.64 a year ago to 1.39 on May 9, according to Barclays Capital.

The TED spread, the difference between what banks and the U.S. government pay to borrow for three months, fell 2.2 basis points since May 9, the biggest drop since April 5. A narrowing spread means banks are more willing to lend. The 23.87-point spread is just below the two-year average.

Business investment in equipment and software was up 15.3 percent last year and 11.6 percent at an annual rate in the first quarter of this year, according to the U.S. Commerce Department.

Of course, who is arguing that crowding out is occurring? Alan Greenspan. After everything that has gone on, the fact that anyone is willing to listen to that man appalls me on several levels.

Of course, this is the type of honesty we're dealing with:

The speaker also repeated an assertion made by House Republicans that their plan to privatize Medicare will give future recipients “the same kinds of options that members of Congress currently have.”

The CBO projected in an April 5 report that under the Republican plan, by 2030 the government would pay 32 percent of the health-care costs of a typical 65-year-old. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s benefit handbook says the government pays as much as 75 percent of the health-care costs of federal workers, including members of Congress.

 

[Wiseacre]

well said; thats what Obama says too.....

If you wish to be simple minded by generalizing the situation down to R vs D then you deserve to be called part of the problem. Neither party is looking out for the working Joe and both of them have been spending like drunken sailors for a long time. If you wish to delude yourself in the belief that the Republicans are fiscal Conservatives and looking out for you then be my guest.

While you're doing so, perhaps you can tell me where all the Republicans plans for job creation that they ran on this last election are.

You must have missed it: they passed the Ryan budget and they voted down the clean debt ceiling bill and they also voted to repeal ObamaCare.

 

[Trajan]

well said; thats what Obama says too.....

If you wish to be simple minded by generalizing the situation down to R vs D then you deserve to be called part of the problem. Neither party is looking out for the working Joe and both of them have been spending like drunken sailors for a long time. If you wish to delude yourself in the belief that the Republicans are fiscal Conservatives and looking out for you then be my guest.

While you're doing so, perhaps you can tell me where all the Republicans plans for job creation that they ran on this last election are.

wwhhoooaaa, hold up there kemosabe....all of sudden you've become Mr. Moderate? Your redemptive powers would make Bryd blush.

and stop putting words in my mouth, you seem to have imagined a great deal from a throw away comment.....

perhaps when you get serious and stop trying to obfuscate, you can tell me where the Democratic plans for;

a) the 2012 budget
b) the debt ceiling
c) deficit reduction

those have been around a lot longer than the rep. control of ONE house. And like them or not, they have 2 plans and one platform.

 

[Modbert]

You must have missed it: they passed the Ryan budget and they voted down the clean debt ceiling bill and they also voted to repeal ObamaCare. All of which would have been good for job creation except of course the dem-controlled Senate didn't support nay of 'em and Obama would've vetoed them anyway.

The same Ryan budget that doesn't even touch military spending. If I remember correctly, we would not have a surplus until somewhere between 2063 and 2080. Of course, this doesn't take into account numerous things. What it will do is take a knife to Medicare.

The GOP is willing to send the economy off the cliff by not raising the debt ceiling despite warnings from Moody among others.

Repealing "ObamaCare" would be good for job creation? Link?

 

[Trajan]

What I would find surprising if I didn't come to expect it is people treating a 1-month trend as if it's been going on for a year.

you know, I don't even know what to say, except; every major indicator is heading south, I have already had this debate so....no sense in saying it all again;

Adding 75k net jobs at 9.0% unemployment and an average 3.0% is not a recovery, no offense but you apparently have swallowed the media spin.

Toro and I had a debate back in early Jan. I told him I would keep my council and wait; I wanted to see 3 months of recovery, and- we got a 1.8% Q1 gdp and 300K net jobs ( if that)….if you DON'T want to see where this is going, don't, but please don't peddle this recovery bump in the road pooh pooh..okay? We never had a recovery worth of the name, we had a modest expansion if that and its all been vaporzied.

global inventories are high, consumer conf. is low, housing is in a bona fide double dip...... add to that we had our 'summer of recovery' last tear...right? Right?

and as far as critique goes, well, you own that one amigo, the media and the Democratic Party set the bar; IF at 6% unemployment and a gdp of 3.5% with a net job creation per month of 75K to 100k a month was cause for apocalyptic vitriol in say 2004 then what are we supposed to say now?

 

[Modbert]

wwhhoooaaa, hold up their kemosabe....all of sudden you've become Mr. Moderate? Your redemptive powers would make Bryd blush.

and stop putting words in my mouth, you seem to have imagined a great deal from a throw away comment.....

perhaps when you get serious and stop trying to obfuscate, you can tell me where the Democratic plans for;

a) the 2012 budget
b) the debt ceiling
c) deficit reduction

those have been around a lot longer than the rep. control of ONE house. And like them or not, they have 2 plans and one platform.

Mr. Moderate? No. You seem to be equating political party with political ideology.

As for the Democratic plans, you know as well as I do what they are.

As for the Republican control of one house, you seem to be downplaying how much power they have. The fact of the matter is that anything that has to be passed has to go through the House.

Also, just because they have two plans and one platform doesn't mean we need to enact either plan or think of them as good. As much as you seem to think the GOP is serious about cutting the deficit, in reality they're not. They are however serious about cutting Medicare.

Neither party has taken the debt seriously and because of that we are in our current position.

 

[Trajan]

You must have missed it: they passed the Ryan budget and they voted down the clean debt ceiling bill and they also voted to repeal ObamaCare. All of which would have been good for job creation except of course the dem-controlled Senate didn't support nay of 'em and Obama would've vetoed them anyway.

The same Ryan budget that doesn't even touch military spending. If I remember correctly, we would not have a surplus until somewhere between 2063 and 2080. Of course, this doesn't take into account numerous things. What it will do is take a knife to Medicare.

The GOP is willing to send the economy off the cliff by not raising the debt ceiling despite warnings from Moody among others.

Repealing "ObamaCare" would be good for job creation? Link?

you don't like the plan so, you are now arguing in mitigation, ergo- you have failed.

and for the 10th time, you too apparently don't wish to digest facts you'd rather not realize- gates himself has attested to 350 billion in cuts and more on the way, zero growth for the DOD over the next 5 years as well. In addition Obama himself though he has NO PLAN said in april he wants another 400 billion in DOD cuts......

It appears by your comment ala Moodys, we should just raise the debt. ceiling and not reduce a thing? is that your position? ergo you agree with harry and nancy; no entitlement reductions/modifications, not one step back, cowboy poetry for all... You think that would impress Moodys? Dude seriously....you have got to be kidding.

 

[Trajan]

wwhhoooaaa, hold up their kemosabe....all of sudden you've become Mr. Moderate? Your redemptive powers would make Bryd blush.

and stop putting words in my mouth, you seem to have imagined a great deal from a throw away comment.....

perhaps when you get serious and stop trying to obfuscate, you can tell me where the Democratic plans for;

a) the 2012 budget
b) the debt ceiling
c) deficit reduction

those have been around a lot longer than the rep. control of ONE house. And like them or not, they have 2 plans and one platform.

As for the Democratic plans, you know as well as I do what they are.

I am a simple schmuck sitting here in grammie's basement in my pajamas....show them to me...please.

As for the Republican control of one house, you seem to be downplaying how much power they have. The fact of the matter is that anything that has to be passed has to go through the House.

that addresses nothing Modbert.

Also, just because they have two plans and one platform doesn't mean we need to enact either plan or think of them as good. As much as you seem to think the GOP is serious about cutting the deficit, in reality they're not. They are however serious about cutting Medicare.

you are arguing in mitigation again......

Neither party has taken the debt seriously

THAT is your OPINION, not substantiated by fact...

and because of that we are in our current position.

.....we just spent 2 months negotiating over a measly 30 billion in cuts so as to stop the ongoing resolutions having to finance the 2011 budget WHICH the democrats never enacted in 2010 as was their duty. Who's serious?

 

[Steve Hanson]

"The May jobs report offers startling evidence that the...............

There it is again, instead of "unexpected", we have "startling". This is no surprise as to why we continue to tank but to the media admin water carriers, the creation of alarming adjectives is a must as they pray and hope that the general populace will latch on to the deceptions.

Yep, we didn't elecet people to learn on the job. we want them bringing something to the table

 

[pinqy]

Initial claims for unemployment are down in most months, however, the residence time on unemployment just seems to roll along. With two years of unemployment available, one might suppose that those who filed their initial claims two years age are still collecting.

It's up and down...extended claims and emergency claims are down as well, but there's no real way to tell if a reduction in continuing claims is from people finding jobs or from exhausting benefits.

Since we know that the created jobs do not equal the number that that is required to just hold steady, we also know that the unemployed continue to increase.

Hold what steady? Employment to population? While a drop in the emp-pop ratio is not a good thing, it's not necessarily bad either. This is why the Unemployment rate is more useful...it tells us how hard it is to get a job if you try. Emp-pop ratio doesn't tell us WHY fewer people are working. More people going to school or staying home to look after the kids or retiring will all lower the emp-pop ratio but do not mean anything about the labor market except perhaps indirectly.

And more unemployed is actually good IF it's people returning to the labor force (which it is). In 2010, the UE rate was dropping from a high of 10.1%, but that was bad because the drop in the rate was due to people who stopped looking rather than people getting jobs. Both Employment and Unemployment were going down. That can result in a lower UE rate, but it's not good.

Currently, the UE rate is going up because both Employment and Unemployment are going up. That's a good(ish) thing and should mean that we'll soon see an increase in employment to population as more of the people looking get jobs.

 

[Modbert]

you don't like the plan so, you are now arguing in mitigation, ergo- you have failed.

and for the 10th time, you too apparently don't wish to digest facts you'd rather not realize- gates himself has attested to 350 billion in cuts and more on the way, zero growth for the DOD over the next 5 years as well. In addition Obama himself though he has NO PLAN said in april he wants another 400 billion in DOD cuts......

It appears by your comment ala Moodys, we should just raise the debt. ceiling and not reduce a thing? is that your position? ergo you agree with harry and nancy; no entitlement reductions/modifications, not one step back, cowboy poetry for all... You think that would impress Moodys? Dude seriously....you have got to be kidding.

You complain about me supposedly coming to conclusions about what you said and yet you do the same in your own post. I never said we shouldn't reduce a thing, and we both know that. Your last paragraph is nothing but dishonesty on your part and you know it.

It appears to me you're not willing to have a honest and open discussion about this since you seem bent on doing nothing but insulting me.

Of course, going back to Gates for a moment. This is the type of "budget cuts" that is going on:

Robert Gates details Pentagon cuts to Congress - Philip Ewing - POLITICO.com

Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, briefed reporters at the Pentagon Thursday afternoon after they met in the morning with the leaders of the congressional defense committees, known as “The Big 8.” Gates detailed the outcome of an internal Pentagon review that had yielded some $150 billion in savings over the next five years, much of which will be reinvested in other programs for the military services, as well as a total of about $78 billion in the reduction of its overall budget, starting with nominal growth this year and diminishing to no new money by fiscal 2015.

Facing a ballooning federal deficit, Gates was moving quickly to manage inevitable defense cuts to preserve as many investment dollars as possible. In May, he gave a speech at the Eisenhower Library in Kansas, urging the military services to find $100 billion in efficiencies over five years and that they could invest in higher priorities. Later, he asked the Defense Department for an additional $50 billion.

The military budget is going to keep going up until at least 2015. In reality, all it is just smaller increases in the military budget than originally intended and reinvesting other money elsewhere.

Furthermore, even when Gates has attempted to cut the budget, the GOP and some Democrats have tried to stop him. Back when they were debating the budget as you previously mentioned, the Senate Democrats offered up defense cuts that were immediately rejected at the door by the GOP.

The reality of the situation is there hasn't been a serious Democratic proposal that I have seen that pertains to the budget. However, that also does not mean that the Ryan budget is automatically great. Of course, what is also ignored is that the vast majority of the money that would be "saved" under the Ryan plan ($4.3 trillion) is offset by the tax cuts that for the most part would end up going to the rich ($4.2 trillion).

The U.S treasury already collected the lowest percentage of income taxes since 1950 and that cannot be attributed solely to just people earning less. All the tax cuts that are currently implemented play a large role in that. The reality of the situation is in order to get our house in order so to speak, there will have to be spending cuts and tax increases. The two largest problems right now of course being that it's not feasible for many people to be paying tax increases without sinking and that's it political suicide at this point to be even proposing such a thing.

 

[Trajan]

you don't like the plan so, you are now arguing in mitigation, ergo- you have failed.

and for the 10th time, you too apparently don't wish to digest facts you'd rather not realize- gates himself has attested to 350 billion in cuts and more on the way, zero growth for the DOD over the next 5 years as well. In addition Obama himself though he has NO PLAN said in april he wants another 400 billion in DOD cuts......

It appears by your comment ala Moodys, we should just raise the debt. ceiling and not reduce a thing? is that your position? ergo you agree with harry and nancy; no entitlement reductions/modifications, not one step back, cowboy poetry for all... You think that would impress Moodys? Dude seriously....you have got to be kidding.

You complain about me supposedly coming to conclusions about what you said and yet you do the same in your own post.

I never said we shouldn't reduce a thing, and we both know that. Your last paragraph is nothing but dishonesty on your part and you know it.

you apparently cannot fathom terms like "it appears", or " is that your position?"....uh huh....now whos being insulting?


based on article from politico? :rolleyes....

and your article is from January....here ya go, try mine, I can provide several others too if necessary but this is a sideline...



But on coming into office, the Obama Administration put the Pentagon on a fiscal diet—even as it foisted new European-sized entitlements on America, starting with $2.6 trillion for ObamaCare. The White House proposed a $553 billion defense budget for 2012, $13 billion below what it projected last year. Through 2016, the Pentagon will see virtually zero growth in spending and will have to whittle down the Army and Marine Corps by 47,000 troops. The White House originally wanted deeper savings of up to $150 billion.

Mr. Gates deserves credit for fighting off the worst White House instincts, but his biggest defeat was not getting a share of the stimulus. Instead he has cut or killed some $350 billion worth of weapon programs. He told his four service chiefs last August to find $100 billion in savings. The White House pocketed that and asked for another $78 billion. Last year, Mr. Gates said that the Pentagon needs 2%-3% real budget growth merely to sustain what it's doing now, but it could make do with 1%. The White House gave him 0%.

In the Gates term, resources were focused on the demands of today's wars over hypothetical conflicts of tomorrow. This approach made sense at the start of his tenure in 2007, when the U.S. was in a hard fight in Iraq. Yet this has distracted from budgeting to address the rise of China and perhaps of regional powers like a nuclear Iran that will shape the security future. The decision to stop producing the F-22 fighter and to kill several promising missile defense programs may come back to haunt the U.S.

more at-
Review & Outlook: The Gates Farewell Warning - WSJ.com



and they don't even include the cancellation of 2 new Gerald Ford class aircraft carriers and one undecided.

It appears to me you're not willing to have a honest and open discussion about this since you seem bent on doing nothing but insulting me.

I insulted you?where please?

and honest? I am not the one whos ignoring inconvenient topic points.


you are rat-holing the discussion:

here, lets reset;

Democratic plans for;

a) the 2012 budget
b) the debt ceiling
c) deficit reduction