Jump to content

Obama said that if we didn't pass the stimulus we would see 8% unemployment


Recommended Posts

467K jobs cut in June; jobless rate at 9.5 percent

WASHINGTON – Employers cut a larger-than-expected 467,000 jobs in June and the unemployment rate climbed to a 26-year high of 9.5 percent. Workers also saw weekly wages fall, suggesting Americans will have little appetite to spend and the economy's road to recovery will be bumpy.

The Labor Department report, released Thursday, showed that even as the recession flashes signs of easing, companies likely will want to keep a lid on costs and be wary of hiring until they feel certain the economy is on solid ground.

President Barack Obama, in an interview with The Associated Press, said he is "deeply concerned" about unemployment and conceded that too many families are worried about "whether they will be next" to suffer an economic blow. He also expressed disappointment over the weak employment figures, acknowledging that "what we are still seeing is too many jobs lost."

June's payroll reductions were deeper than the 363,000 that economists expected and average weekly earnings dropped to the lowest level in nearly a year.

However, the rise in the unemployment rate from 9.4 percent in May wasn't as sharp as the expected 9.6 percent. Still, many economists predict the jobless rate will hit 10 percent this year, and keep rising into next year, before falling back.

All told, 14.7 million people were unemployed in June.

If laid-off workers who have given up looking for new jobs or have settled for part-time work are included, the unemployment rate would have been 16.5 percent in June, the highest on records dating to 1994.

"We were on the road of things getting less bad in the jobs market, and that has been temporarily waylaid," said economist Ken Mayland, president of ClearView Economics. "But this doesn't change my view that the recession will end later this year. We're probably two months away."

On Wall Street, the employment news pulled stocks lower. The Dow Jones industrials lost about 175 points in afternoon trading, and broader indices also fell. Overseas markets dropped after a report showed unemployment in Europe rose to a 10-year high in May.

Since the recession began in December 2007, the economy has lost a net total of 6.5 million jobs.

As the downturn bites into sales and profits, companies have turned to layoffs and other cost-cutting measures to survive. Those include holding down workers' hours and freezing or cutting pay.

The average work week in June fell to 33 hours, the lowest on records dating to 1964.

"We are in some very hard and severe economic times," Labor Secretary Hilda Solis said in an interview. "The president and I are both not happy."

Still, Solis thought it was too early to consider a second government stimulus, saying more time is needed for the current one to take hold. "I do think the public needs to be patient," she said. "We know they are hurting."

Layoffs in May turned out to smaller, 322,000, versus the 345,000 first reported. But job cuts in April were a bit deeper — 519,000 versus 504,000, according to government data.

Even with higher pace of job cuts in June, the report indicates that the worst of the layoffs have passed. The deepest job cuts of the recession came in January, when 741,000 jobs vanished, the most in any month since 1949.

For the second quarter, job losses averaged 436,000 a month. That was down from a monthly average of 691,000 in the first quarter. Economists predict the economy will continue to lose jobs through the rest of this year, although they hope at a slower pace.

And there was some other encouraging job news Thursday.

In a separate report, the department said the number of newly laid-off workers filing applications for unemployment benefits fell last week to 614,000, in line with economists' predictions. The number of people continuing to draw benefits unexpectedly dropped to 6.7 million.

Meanwhile, the Commerce Department said orders placed with U.S. factories rose 1.2 percent in May, the most in 11 months. The increase also was better than economists expected.

Still, job losses last month were widespread.

Professional and business services slashed 118,000 jobs, more than double the 48,000 cut in May. Manufacturers cut 136,000, down from 156,000. Construction companies got rid of 79,000 jobs, up from 48,000 the previous month. Retailers eliminated 21,000, up from 17,600. Financial activities cut 27,000, following 30,000 in May. The government cut 52,000 jobs, up from 10,000 the previous month. Leisure and hospitality cut 18,000 jobs, erasing a gain of the same size in May.

One of the few industries adding jobs: education and health services, which added 34,000 positions last month and 47,000 in May.

Mayland and other economists said a good chunk of June's job losses likely were affected by shutdowns at General Motors Corp. and fallout from the troubled auto industry, which should let up later this summer. The government said employment at factories making autos and parts fell by 27,000 last month.

Payroll losses and the unemployment rate are derived from two separate statistical surveys. The jobless rate probably would have moved higher if not for people dropping out of the labor force.

With the weakness in the job market, workers saw wages drop in June.

Average weekly earnings fell from $613.34 in May, to $611.49 in June, the lowest level in nearly a year and the first drop since March. That raises fresh questions about consumers' willingness to spend in the months ahead.

The worst crises in the housing, credit and financial markets since the 1930s have plunged the country into the longest recession since World War II.

Many think the jobless rate could rise as high as 10.7 percent by the second quarter of next year before it starts to make a slow descent. Some think the rate will top out at 11 percent. The post-World War II high was 10.8 percent at the end of 1982, when the country had suffered through a severe recession.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke predicts the recession will end this year, with many economists forecasting that the economy will start to grow again as soon as the current July-September quarter.

But recoveries after financial crises tend to be slow, which is why economists predict it will take years for the job market to return to normal. Some predict the nation's unemployment rate won't drop to 5 percent until 2013.

An elevated unemployment rate could become a political liability for Obama when congressional elections are held next year. The last time the unemployment rate topped 10 percent, the party of the president — then Ronald Reagan's GOP — lost 26 House seats in midterm elections in 1982.

So far, many people are saving — rather than spending — the extra money in their paychecks from Obama's tax cut, blunting its help in bracing the economy. Much of the economic benefit of Obama's increased government spending on big public works projects won't kick in until 2010, analysts say.

The White House last week said federal money was being shoveled out of Washington quickly, but states aren't steering the cash to counties that need jobs the most.

Large job cuts have continued this week. Newspaper publisher Gannett Co. said it plans to cut 1,400 jobs in the next few weeks, about 3 percent of the work force, as it faces a prolonged slump in advertising revenue. Farm machinery company Deere & Co. said 800 salaried employees, or 3 percent of its salaried work force, took a voluntary buyout offer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's your point? That he passed something with the intent of averting disaster, and it didn't work as well or as quickly as he had hoped?

That is VOLUMES better than the previous administration, who simply delayed the inevitable collapse of an unsustainable economic scheme.

Obama is the fireman with the hose having a hard time manipulating it, while Bush was the entrepreneur selling matches to pyromaniacs in order to fund the firehouse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I've seen, Obama is not having trouble "controlling the firehose" ; its that he has decided to try and put a "fire" out by shooting Gas on it.

His pork-barrel spending laden "stimulus" plan has resulted in the unemployment rising to 9.5% and still going up.

Obama's "stimulus" bill has only made things worse, and not better.

If Cap & Trade passes, our country will loose many thousands more jobs.

No jobs = No Economy= we're ALL screwed.

I really wish Obama and the democrats would loose the "knee-jerk" reaction of blaming their shortcomings and failures on GWBush; that's not leadership, and its gettin very old, very fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I've seen, Obama is not having trouble "controlling the firehose" ; its that he has decided to try and put a "fire" out by shooting Gas on it.

BEST description of the bullshit going on atm, to put it in a one sentence nut shell. Yeah...that's how to stimulate the economy, spend MORE on shit that doesn't make jobs. Nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most of Obama's spending is a horrible idea, and I often wonder if it will result in my future starvation should the economy collapse.

Also, just for the record, in case anyone's assumes I'm some sort of rabid anti-Obama person, I do think he's better than Bush in "some" respects, as this article points out.

http://original.antiwar.com/eland/2009/06/...bushs-idealism/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, just for the record, in case anyone's assumes I'm some sort of rabid anti-Obama person, I do think he's better than Bush in "some" respects, as this article points out.

http://original.antiwar.com/eland/2009/06/...bushs-idealism/

I agree with this; if Obama's policies and ideas were actually doing what he claims they're doing, then I would be screamin from the rooftop in support of him. But clearly they're not, and still he's trying to pass them off as if they are working, which I think is quite ignorant and condescending and an insult to the American people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know...I still wonder who's not-so-genius idea it was to send jobs to another country, just to save a few bucks...

...& again, I wonder who thought it was in any way shape or form a good idea to keep doing it as jobs were disappearing...if it were an endangered species, SOMEBODY would have bitched up a serious bitch storm...but, I guess the American-Worker is not a special enough animal...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey,when everyone in this country is out of work,well I guess we will all

start committing crimes to survive,thats what the government wants.

no jobs=crime,no unemployment benefits =crime,btw every line of work can be outsourced

check out Lou Dobb's on You Tube.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, with a sixty vote majority in the senate, I can guarantee that a climate, energy, and green industry jobs bill will be passed this year.

I can also guarantee that everyone expecting the world to end when that happens will feel really silly come this time next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama's stated goal is to put the coal industry out of business (thats 70% of our domestic energy output). He plans on doing it by making them go broke. Before they go broke, they will transfer the extra costs that Obama heaps on them onto us. Obama himself predicted that our energy costs will at least double under his plan. With his demonstrated ability to understate the bad side of things...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama's stated goal is to put the coal industry out of business (thats 70% of our domestic energy output). He plans on doing it by making them go broke. Before they go broke, they will transfer the extra costs that Obama heaps on them onto us. Obama himself predicted that our energy costs will at least double under his plan. With his demonstrated ability to understate the bad side of things...

Add that cost with the rise of natural gas and gas rising again for automobiles when the price of crude has only gone up a little per barrel. Seemed the last time it was $70 a barrel, gas was only $2.25 or so a gal. When it first hit $70 this year, it was $3.00. Glad it has come down since then since the fuel was cut from the fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coal is evil. It is a cancer that keeps Appalachian communities in poverty while their mountains are stolen from them, at their own hands. It spews poison into the air. It... only has sixty years of domestic supply at current consumption.

It is poisonous, it destroys economic development, and it is the definition of unsustainable.

The "it will destroy the economy" argument is hot air. If we don't do anything, the economy is destroyed any way. Any moron can see that "clean coal" is not just a lie, but a spit in the face of rational thought.

In short... coal is done. The old way of doing business does not work. And Obama has the votes to try something new.

Whether or not it works is immaterial. His opponents lost the ability to manipulate policy when they went on an eight year bender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the fact that his plan by his own admission will make lighting and heating/cooling a luxury that many wont be able to afford doesn't bother you? You don't care that we will loose 70% of our domestic energy without anything to replace it? The millions of jobs his plan will eliminate doesn't bother you? He won, has the votes and hey the Republicans spent too much money... somehow that combined with your hatred of Coal justifies destroying our domestic energy infrastructure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the fact that his plan by his own admission will make lighting and heating/cooling a luxury that many wont be able to afford doesn't bother you? You don't care that we will loose 70% of our domestic energy without anything to replace it? The millions of jobs his plan will eliminate doesn't bother you? He won, has the votes and hey the Republicans spent too much money... somehow that combined with your hatred of Coal justifies destroying our domestic energy infrastructure.

Don't forget, Obama has spent more money and run up more debt then ANY president EVER. Yes he spent more money then ANY Republican EVER has, but I suppose that is "immaterial" too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the fact that his plan by his own admission will make lighting and heating/cooling a luxury that many wont be able to afford doesn't bother you? You don't care that we will loose 70% of our domestic energy without anything to replace it? The millions of jobs his plan will eliminate doesn't bother you? He won, has the votes and hey the Republicans spent too much money... somehow that combined with your hatred of Coal justifies destroying our domestic energy infrastructure.

Yes, it doesn't bother me, because I can't believe a word you say, ever...

EVER

Without having to check to see if it is utter bullshit.

Cite your sources. First off, that whole "seventy per cent of domestic energy from coal without anything to replace it" thing is utterly false on its face.

Do you know how much wind is in North Dakota? Do you know how much sun is in the Sonora Desert? Do you know how much renewable biomass is in our national forests? Do you know how much natural gas is off of our coasts in the form of methane hydrates? Do you honestly know anything other than what is told to you by your buddies in the oil and natural gas industry?

Whether or not you do is immaterial at this point. You vomit up this utter doom and gloom scenario, a scenario that would be struck down by the courts out of hand if what you were saying was even remotely true, and expect to not be called on it.

I'm going to call you on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it doesn't bother me, because I can't believe a word you say, ever...

EVER

Without having to check to see if it is utter bullshit.

Cite your sources. First off, that whole "seventy per cent of domestic energy from coal without anything to replace it" thing is utterly false on its face.

Do you know how much wind is in North Dakota? Do you know how much sun is in the Sonora Desert? Do you know how much renewable biomass is in our national forests? Do you know how much natural gas is off of our coasts in the form of methane hydrates? Do you honestly know anything other than what is told to you by your buddies in the oil and natural gas industry?

Whether or not you do is immaterial at this point. You vomit up this utter doom and gloom scenario, a scenario that would be struck down by the courts out of hand if what you were saying was even remotely true, and expect to not be called on it.

I'm going to call you on it.

You are right, I pulled 70 percent out of the air. It's 50%.

What I've said is that we would put a cap-and-trade system in place that is more -- that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anybody else's out there, 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.
Obama to the San Francisco Chronicle in Jan.

I know all about Alternative energy sources. I also know that every time someone tries to build a wind or solar farm large enough to mean anything the hippies on the left shut it down.

Methane Hydrates? I assume you missed my posts about this. I am all for figuring out a safe way to gather this from the ocean floor without a massive release. We have none at the moment and all research on a safe way to gather it is years if not decades away from testing let alone real use. I also know how much there is, 100 years worth of energy off South Carolina alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it doesn't bother me, because I can't believe a word you say, ever...

EVER

Without having to check to see if it is utter bullshit.

Cite your sources. First off, that whole "seventy per cent of domestic energy from coal without anything to replace it" thing is utterly false on its face.

Do you know how much wind is in North Dakota? Do you know how much sun is in the Sonora Desert? Do you know how much renewable biomass is in our national forests? Do you know how much natural gas is off of our coasts in the form of methane hydrates? Do you honestly know anything other than what is told to you by your buddies in the oil and natural gas industry?

Whether or not you do is immaterial at this point. You vomit up this utter doom and gloom scenario, a scenario that would be struck down by the courts out of hand if what you were saying was even remotely true, and expect to not be called on it.

I'm going to call you on it.

I understand that you and Gaf have had it out on some of the other threads, and you may believe what it is you wrote about him, but your insult of his character can be with-held from the public forum. Deflect his posts with proofs of your own, and try to shy away from direct insults.

If you don't agree with something he says, just plainly state with your own research and facts why it is you believe his information to be less forthright.

Thanks,

hh

Edited by hunhee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that you and Gaf have had it out on some of the other threads, and you may believe what it is you wrote about him, but your insult of his character can be with-held from the public forum. Deflect his posts with proofs of your own, and try to shy away from direct insults.

If you don't agree with something he says, just plainly state with your own research and facts why it is you believe his information to be less forthright.

Thanks,

hh

+1

Not at anyone in particular:

If you have a problem with the play nice rules , unfortuantely they are not going to change. Many things might, but the expectations of civility will not.

If the discussion is too hard to continue without the anger and vitriol, then the choices are: Report it if you think it is breaking the DGN rules, PM a mod, or just leave it alone. Posting insults is well known to be unwanted on DGN. ...and if anyone has a problem with the above, that's fine. But two wrongs do not make a right.

We want everyone on the board to stay and discuss. But, if that can't be done without keeping the drama to a minimum (regardless of "who started it") then this is not the place for such types of discussion. There are huge swaths of the internet that do not expect civility, plenty of places to go vent irritation / frustration / drama. DGN does expect civility while much of the rest of the net does not.

None of this should need be stated as it was agreed to by all the first day everyone signed up on the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, fine. I tend to let my poor opinion of Gaf's character override my ability to communicate in a kind and convincing manner.

Ripping Gaf a new asshole just makes me the asshole.

So... let's go with facts. According to the Energy Information Administration, which can be found at www.eia.doe.gov we have an expected 262 billion short tons of recoverable coal reserves inside the United States.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/reserves/reserves.html

That is 262,000,000,000 tons.

In 2008, we burned 1,121,714,000 tons of coal.

Wait a tic. I said that we only have sixty years of domestic coal. According to 2008 consumption levels, we have 233 years of coal!

Nobody remembers to factor in growth.

Let's take a modest two per cent annual growth of coal consumption.

1,122,000,000 *1.02 = 1,144,440,000

262,000,000,000 / 1,144,440,000 = 228 years.

1,144,440,000 * 1.02 = 1,167,328,800

262,000,000,000 / 1,167,328,800 = 224 years.

You can see where this is headed.

Here, maybe this graphic of U.S. population growth will help to better illustrate why I am a firm believer in America only having sixty years worth of coal...

population-density-us2.jpg

So, saying that we have two hundred years worth of coal is false on its face.

Now, let's take the wind in North Dakota.

http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_potential.html

There is a theoretical 1.21 billion kilowatt hours a year of wind energy in North Dakota alone. That could supply one-fourth of the current electrical requirements of the United States. That's nothing to sniff at.

All right. The Sonora Desert. Since it covers parts of both America and Mexico, I am going to substitute the Mojave, which is completely inside the borders of the US.

The Mojave is roughly 57,000 square kilometers. That is 22,000 square miles.

Now there are photovoltaic panels in the lab that are 40 per cent efficient. We won't use those for this calculation. We will use the more realistic 21 per cent efficient square meter solar panels that are being produced right now. A twenty one percent efficient square meter solar panel can produce 210 watts at full sunlight.

Fifty seven thousand square kilometers is 57 million square meters. 57 million times 210 watts is 11,970,000 kilowatts. 11,970,000 kilowatts times three hours of direct sunlight times 365.25 days equals 13,116,127,500 kilowatt hours a year. Granted, it would require covering the entire Mojave desert under solar panels. That being said, if 57 million square meters of solar panels were installed on the homes and buildings of America, we could be that closer to solving the problem. Who would make tose solar panels? Who would install them?

We could. Those are real jobs.

Biomass.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/technol...ial_for_Biomass

We could get 14 per cent of our energy needs from biomass.

Look, the point I am trying to make here is that Obama knows what the hell he is doing, and that is inestimably better than the last eight years of our lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You forgot to factor in People.

It's People that have stopped the Wind and Solar farms.

People far more to the left than I am.

You seem to forget that I am all for all forms of alternative energy. Where we seem to differ is that I don't believe the Government has the Right nor power to force the People to do anything against their will. No matter how good the long term affects are of what the Government wants to impose upon us. You seem to be cool with living under a Tyrant.

Czar Obama does know what he is doing. Which is sad because he either doesn't care about the wide scale misery he is trying to create or he is doing it on purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are a constitutional republic with strong traditions of democracy, Gaf. I can assure you the the government has the right to lead people to places where they think they don't want to go.

If I took Joe average, and explained to him that coal spews mercury, kills Appalachian miners, and will run out in his child's lifetime... he would be rightly concerned. If I then explained to him that we had options, but that these options were being blocked by coal industry interests AND green meanies... he would be pissed off.

If I then explained that the solution would be to let a moron run roughshod over the institution of the American presidency for eight years so that enough people would be so entirely sick of his party's bullshit that America would elect a black man with a Muslim name that has admitted to doing cocaine... he would not fucking believe me.

However, that's where we are at. Obama has the votes, and he is going to get something done. Whether or not it works perfectly the first time out does not fucking matter in the least. Where he is pushing us is where we want to go.

We just don't know it yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are a constitutional republic with strong traditions of democracy, Gaf. I can assure you the the government has the right to lead people to places where they think they don't want to go.

No, it does not have that Right. The Government has NO Rights. The 2nd Amendment exists just for when the government thinks it does have the Right to do that.

Obama and his Chicago machine politics have seized more power and seized more control that Bush ever did. His cronyism makes Bush's seem minor. He is loosing support every day. Yes, his personal approval ratings are very high but approval of his decisions and policy's drops lower every day. He wont get another term.

Obama has the votes, and he is going to get something done. Whether or not it works perfectly the first time out does not fucking matter in the least. Where he is pushing us is where we want to go.

We just don't know it yet.

It's not working at all.

Unless "working" means shifting more power from the People to the Government...

Unless "working" means shifting more wealth from the People to a chosen few on Wall Street...

Unless "working" means either running our Manufacturing base out of business or shifting control of it to Obama...

Unless "working" means tent cities and more people living on the street...

Unless "working" means the complete devaluation of the Dollar...

Unless "working" means our Representatives and Senators ignore the will of the People and vote how thier party tells them too...

It's not working at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Forum Statistics

    38.9k
    Total Topics
    820.2k
    Total Posts
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 146 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.