and if you've noticed the trend, every time Obama shows up on a Friday to tout some "unexpected" good numbers on the economy..they get revised down starting on the following Monday....unemployment is lower because more people have given up, some temporary jobs were created and they reduced the number of available jobs that existed in figuring their math....presto chango...Change you can believe in?.....I've listened to scores of economists pontificate now and it's going to get much, much worse....heard a WSJ Financial Head describe Obama's handling of the economy and job creation as "some kind of Junior Achievement Project, he has no idea what he's doing".....yup:uhuh:

I thought Biden was really smart and provided the Foreign Policy experience that Obama lacked? Wasn't that what we were told during the Hopey Change Campaign?....maybe the biggest charade in history next to Global Warming....

I was driving through Middletown yesterday and noticed about 100 feet of new sidewalk at an intersection....just behind the sidewalk was a huge sign stating American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ....Putting America Back To Work....I laughed....

The only jobs that have been created are putting up those....American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ....Putting America Back To Work....signs

Employment is still trending up, manufacturing output is up, overtime is up etc... I know my sector is starting to hire again, thawing frozen salaries and reinstating incentive plans.

I'm not expecting the economy to go nuts, but we've had two consecutive quarters of positive GDP in a row and some good other indicators.

-spence

Yet still we see job losses month to month... Scott had it right...the stimulas bill added not one job.

The current 9.7% unemployment is more due to a new way of calculating the umemployed rate then people going back to work. Sorry to burst your bubble but things are going to get worse.

Economists expected job losses to continue well into 2010. Many also believe that the stimulus has certainly helped to curb this decline...by creating jobs.

Even the CBO says the stimulus has created jobs.

-spence

All those deads Kurds were killed by strong skunk spray years ago. Had to have been a big friekin skunk.

Patrick says 4000 jobs were made or saved in Mass. by the stimulas. Just so happens 2700 were jobs in the public sector and they were jobs of people he hired that held signs for him

Saved jobs maybe, teachers, firefighters, policemen, DPW workers. Not a bad thing but not added jobs.

Added jobs? 64000 government workers on permanent taxpayer payroll. Big friggin misuse of money we had to borrow. Maybe you think thats a good thing but it pisses me off.

Semantics, semantics........saving a job is NOT creating a job. The workforce is ever expanding and new jobs have to be created to absorb the increasing population (including illegals) and put the 10% (likely much higher) unemployed back to work.

Saved and added is the same thing if you can stop a job that's being cut from being cut.

Ultimately it's about the net.

And like I said, it's not just about government jobs...the private sector is starting to move, including manufacturing employment.

Again, I don't think 2010 is going to be easy, but we're definitely off the bottom.

-spence

Alot of folks are hoping your right Spence. me included. I have a feeling Obama has set us up for a much worse future then what you are predicting. I have not seen anything from this administration but mistakes, miscalculations and lies.

The net is that there's more money to go back into the economy and less of a drain on the social net.

That's what really matters.

-spence

I don't believe for one minute that keeping people off the "social net" has ever been part of the stimulas bill's plan.
Every move the Dems make is quite to the contrary

There is a lot less drain on the unemployment bene's: people have been out-of-work so long the allowed UI paycheck has expired and these people are no longer counted........

hey Spence, wasn't Biden the guy that you were originally supporting for president in the primaries? :rotf2:

That's a different issue.

The problem is that not all industries expand and/or contract at the same rate. In one sector there could very well be real job creation while others are still cutting.

Looking at a static picture of the net is deceptive because it's really a picture of the past. Hence a need to look at the trends to see where things might be going.

Certainly there are many experts who see continued cuts, but there's also hiring and job retention going on...otherwise we would be at 14% or 15% instead of just under 10%.

The real issue is, can the private sector sustain this on its own after Stimulus money runs dry? If you're of the opinion that the Stimulus has done nothing to create jobs, then I'd think the picture would look even better!

-spence

yeah, just keep reading your teleprompter...like Obama ...no clue what you are actually saying....hence...corpse-man :rotf2:

The real unemployment rate is closer to 17%.
They have yet to spend half of the stimulas $$$$. That they are holding onto for election purposes.

I was wrong Spence.

Great-paying-government-jobs.html: Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance

They're not.

-spence

they are...:uhuh:

Unemployment Rates Drops Despite Unexpected Job Losses
MarketMinute.com Market UpdatesPublished: 02/05/10 08:49 AM

Despite an unexpected loss of 20,000 jobs in January, the unemployement rate dropped to 9.7%, the lowest level in five months. The markets opened lower with the Dow falling 49 points to 9952 while Nasdaq lost 7 points to 2117.

if you are correct(Economists expected job losses to continue well into 2010) this should say "expected" job losses

Your comment was that job "losses" were always labeled as "unexpected" which is not true.

-spence

:haaaaa.......you are the last person on the planet that ought correct someone for a sweeping generality

I just Googled "expected job losses"....the only use of that prase is within "greater than expected job losses"

Obamanomics 101:uhuh:

I'm on your side on this. My posts on WMDs in the past have supported the side that says they existed. In this case I was just having a bit of word play with JohnnyD. He has accused GW of "fabricating" the WMDs. Originally, this thread started with Biden being a dope. Then it got to Obama mispronouncing corps. Then JD implied that it was worse to make up words than it is to mispronounce them, referring to GW. I thought he meant the "fabrication" thing, so I answered with the irony of GW searching for something he "Knew," ("fabricated") didn't exist. The point being that he did believe they existed. I was a bit reluctant to answer you, since it is a bit off-topic, but I see the thread has evolved away from Biden's dopiness to economic recovery or lack of it--which is all conjecture. It was going to recover, as it always has, if left alone. The original economic debate was over saving the banking system. That was done, whether it needed it or not, under Bush. The Stimulus that occured under Obama seems to have been unnecessary for recovery, the debate being whether it speeds it up or slows it down. I'm on the side that it's Government overkill, hyper-meddling, and a retardant. Similar to what many economists say about FDR's policies actually lengthening the depression rather than solving it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35259851...n_the_economy/

But most of the 8.4 million workers sidelined by the recession will likely need to wait more than six months to get back to work. The economy needs to create 100,000 to 125,000 jobs a month just to keep up with the growth of the population.

“I don't think we're close yet to even a stable rate at this point,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com. “We have yet to see any hiring. Until we get real, positive, substantive job growth, it's hard to conclude this is a self-sustaining economy."

Even if job growth returns to the pace of the boom years in the middle of the last decade, it would take years to create the millions of new jobs needed to bring employment back to pre-recession levels.

Totally agree with you. How many days is the pres. suppose to take for vacation?

I don't know Paul how many days the job entitles him too. He has taken approx 30 days in his first year which is fine with me.
It's his constant traveling and political speeches all over the place that makes me wonder how he can find time to work and lead our country.
We have some extra-ordinary problems that exist and except for a lot of words
and promises, little if anything is being done to lead the country out of them.

So far imho, the job he's doing seems to be "below his pay grade."