Economy Adds 216,000 Jobs in March, Unemployment Drops to 8.8%

[QUOTE="BrianB0422"]Go Team Obama!jshaas

*High Five* Private Employers!

It is too hard to draw real world conclusions from these statistics. Anyone that really wants a job can find one even if it isn't entirely what they would like to be doing.

Hahaha I love it when they come out with this crap. I would like to see the detailed report on what type of jobs those are (temporary, seasonal, part-time?) or if most of the jobs are even applicable to those who are unemployed (Plastic Surgeon jobs and no one has a med degree). Additionally, the "drop" in unemployment is probably people like myself who had their benefits run out and are no longer eligible for them. Or those uneployed who eventually gave up looking for work after X years of unemployment. I gaurantee the next job numbers to come out will be an increase in unemployment as these reports have been like a roller coaster lately.

[QUOTE="jshaas"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

We're going to need years of this kind of activity for our economy to get back to full-strength.

We probably could have had these results a year earlier if the President didn't d*** around with the travesty of healthcare "reform".

comp_atkins

[QUOTE="jshaas"][QUOTE="BrianB0422"]Go Team Obama!Zaibach

but its thierfault when theopposite happens right?:roll:

Zaibach

Last time I checked people were citing actual examples of bad policy that---in their opinion---hinders growth, not generalizing like much of the liberals in this thread are.

Ah yes the rule of thumb for this year. Obama is not responsible for anything good that happens, but is accountable for everything bad that happens.

sSubZerOo

What is it with you guys and not being able to read? My first post clearly says THIS IS GOOD NEWS! That doesn't mean I'm going to forget all of the bad policy that has come through the past few years from his administration.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Ah yes the rule of thumb for this year. Obama is not responsible for anything good that happens, but is accountable for everything bad that happens.

airshocker

What is it with you guys and not being able to read? My first post clearly says THIS IS GOOD NEWS! That doesn't mean I'm going to forget all of the bad policy that has come through the past few years from his administration.

I think what Sub was trying to say is that the implication here (in the OP) was that Obama/the government has been partially responsible for the magnitude of the recession (in terms of rising unemployment), but that their policies had no impact on current (or recent/past) job growth.

There wasn't any direct argument against your claim (or against the idea that you believe) that job growth/unemployment falling is a good thing.

I hired 2 people. High five to me.

Well, that is good news I certainly hope it continues.

What's the jobless (underemployment) rate though? I don't care who is on unemployment and who isn't. It shouldn't be a numbers game. They should just tell us the number of people that don't have jobs, or at least don't have much of one. Last time I heard it was something like 20%ferrari2001

Could've fooled me. Considering I can't even get hired as a dishwasher around here without experience.

I'll believe it when I'm not asked for two or three previous dishwashing jobs worth of experience to wash dishes for minimum wage.

I think what Sub was trying to say is that the implication here (in the OP) was that Obama/the government has been partially responsible for the magnitude of the recession (in terms of rising unemployment), but that their policies had no impact on current (or recent/past) job growth.

There wasn't any direct argument against your claim (or against the idea that you believe) that job growth/unemployment falling is a good thing.

chessmaster1989

I don't expect overnight change in the economy. Hell, I don't even expect it to be better for the next decade. What I do expect is it to be the primary concern of the government. Not healthcare. I'm tired of the President promising things like reducing the corporate income tax rate, and then not doing anything about it. He was very keen on ramming healthcare reform through. Why not the same gusto for something like reforming the tax codes like he said he would do in his SOTU? Something that I think everyone in this thread can agree will only help us. Gee, it sure would be nice if GE could pay some f****** taxes, right?

That's my main beef with Obama.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

I think what Sub was trying to say is that the implication here (in the OP) was that Obama/the government has been partially responsible for the magnitude of the recession (in terms of rising unemployment), but that their policies had no impact on current (or recent/past) job growth.

There wasn't any direct argument against your claim (or against the idea that you believe) that job growth/unemployment falling is a good thing.

airshocker

I don't expect overnight change in the economy. Hell, I don't even expect it to be better for the next decade. What I do expect is it to be the primary concern of the government. Not healthcare. I'm tired of the President promising things like reducing the corporate income tax rate, and then not doing anything about it. He was very keen on ramming healthcare reform through. Why not the same gusto for something like reforming the tax codes like he said he would do in his SOTU? Something that I think everyone in this thread can agree will only help us. Gee, it sure would be nice if GE could pay some f****** taxes, right?

That's my main beef with Obama.

rescession pfffft, mass unemployment pfffft,

Come to Australia and you wont even hear of it

where were these jobs added because its still pretty rotten around here.

Ok, but what kinds of jobs are these?wiifan001

This kind ...

:P

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

I think what Sub was trying to say is that the implication here (in the OP) was that Obama/the government has been partially responsible for the magnitude of the recession (in terms of rising unemployment), but that their policies had no impact on current (or recent/past) job growth.

There wasn't any direct argument against your claim (or against the idea that you believe) that job growth/unemployment falling is a good thing.

airshocker

I don't expect overnight change in the economy. Hell, I don't even expect it to be better for the next decade. What I do expect is it to be the primary concern of the government. Not healthcare. I'm tired of the President promising things like reducing the corporate income tax rate, and then not doing anything about it. He was very keen on ramming healthcare reform through. Why not the same gusto for something like reforming the tax codes like he said he would do in his SOTU? Something that I think everyone in this thread can agree will only help us. Gee, it sure would be nice if GE could pay some f****** taxes, right?

That's my main beef with Obama.

If you want to reduce the deficit, healthcare (and especially medicare) is an important place to start. You might not like what Obama did precisely, but to say healthcare isn't an extremely important issue is wrong. Now you could say that the government should play no role in healthcare (including medicare), but that would still require major government action to eliminate medicare.

I also don't think it's fair to say he rammed healthcare through. He made it clear from the beginning healthcare was one of his primary goals, and there were months for debate and for drafting the bill. The Senate passed the initial version of the legislation before Martha Coakley lost the Senate race, and the House passed it afterward. The extra bill was well within the rules of the Senate. I don't know by what standards you say he "rammed it through" when 60 Senators and 220-ish (I forget the exact number) representatives voted for it.

As to tax reform, yes, I agree it's disappointing that this hasn't been followed up upon yet. Hopefully we'll see it happen as I do think it's something both parties should agree on.

Also, just a quick thought, but if you think the primary concern of the government should be the economy, then why haven't I seen you expressing dissatisfaction with the fact that House Republicans have been spending very little time on economic issues?

If you want to reduce the deficit, healthcare (and especially medicare) is an important place to start. You might not like what Obama did precisely, but to say healthcare isn't an extremely important issue is wrong. Now you could say that the government should play no role in healthcare (including medicare), but that would still require major government action to eliminate medicare.

I also don't think it's fair to say he rammed healthcare through. He made it clear from the beginning healthcare was one of his primary goals, and there were months for debate and for drafting the bill. The Senate passed the initial version of the legislation before Martha Coakley lost the Senate race, and the House passed it afterward. The extra bill was well within the rules of the Senate. I don't know by what standards you say he "rammed it through" when 60 Senators and 220-ish (I forget the exact number) representatives voted for it.

As to tax reform, yes, I agree it's disappointing that this hasn't been followed up upon yet. Hopefully we'll see it happen as I do think it's something both parties should agree on.

Also, just a quick thought, but if you think the primary concern of the government should be the economy, then why haven't I seen you expressing dissatisfaction with the fact that House Republicans have been spending very little time on economic issues?

chessmaster1989

I've accepted that we need to run some deficits in order to get out of this recession. The House and Senate did ram the bill through against the public's wishes. Also, it's not important from an economic standpoint. Perhaps a social one, but as you well know, I don't give two s**** about social issues when our economy is still crumbling.

It's primary concern for right now, I meant. But while both parties are caught up in the budget debate, we'll have to wait. I'm not so naive as to think our legislators can handle more than one big problem at a time.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

I think what Sub was trying to say is that the implication here (in the OP) was that Obama/the government has been partially responsible for the magnitude of the recession (in terms of rising unemployment), but that their policies had no impact on current (or recent/past) job growth.

There wasn't any direct argument against your claim (or against the idea that you believe) that job growth/unemployment falling is a good thing.

I don't expect overnight change in the economy. Hell, I don't even expect it to be better for the next decade. What I do expect is it to be the primary concern of the government. Not healthcare. I'm tired of the President promising things like reducing the corporate income tax rate, and then not doing anything about it. He was very keen on ramming healthcare reform through. Why not the same gusto for something like reforming the tax codes like he said he would do in his SOTU? Something that I think everyone in this thread can agree will only help us. Gee, it sure would be nice if GE could pay some f****** taxes, right?

That's my main beef with Obama.

If you want to reduce the deficit, healthcare (and especially medicare) is an important place to start. You might not like what Obama did precisely, but to say healthcare isn't an extremely important issue is wrong. Now you could say that the government should play no role in healthcare (including medicare), but that would still require major government action to eliminate medicare.

I also don't think it's fair to say he rammed healthcare through. He made it clear from the beginning healthcare was one of his primary goals, and there were months for debate and for drafting the bill. The Senate passed the initial version of the legislation before Martha Coakley lost the Senate race, and the House passed it afterward. The extra bill was well within the rules of the Senate. I don't know by what standards you say he "rammed it through" when 60 Senators and 220-ish (I forget the exact number) representatives voted for it.

As to tax reform, yes, I agree it's disappointing that this hasn't been followed up upon yet. Hopefully we'll see it happen as I do think it's something both parties should agree on.

Also, just a quick thought, but if you think the primary concern of the government should be the economy, then why haven't I seen you expressing dissatisfaction with the fact that House Republicans have been spending very little time on economic issues?

Apprently you guys didnt know that there were 59 senators Democratic/Independent senators during the health care law, not 60.

Whist on the surface it looks good, and I hope for Americans sake it is, however you really need to dig deeper to get the true story. The best measurement by comparing the unemployment rate, participation rate, and aggregate hours. For example, February this year in Australia saw total employment levels drop by 10,000 from the previous month. However the amount of hours employed persons worked, on average in the month, increased from 138.47 in January to 140.37 in February.daqua_99

While I have never heard of this, the figure seems to be more precise than the underemployment figure.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

If you want to reduce the deficit, healthcare (and especially medicare) is an important place to start. You might not like what Obama did precisely, but to say healthcare isn't an extremely important issue is wrong. Now you could say that the government should play no role in healthcare (including medicare), but that would still require major government action to eliminate medicare.

I also don't think it's fair to say he rammed healthcare through. He made it clear from the beginning healthcare was one of his primary goals, and there were months for debate and for drafting the bill. The Senate passed the initial version of the legislation before Martha Coakley lost the Senate race, and the House passed it afterward. The extra bill was well within the rules of the Senate. I don't know by what standards you say he "rammed it through" when 60 Senators and 220-ish (I forget the exact number) representatives voted for it.

As to tax reform, yes, I agree it's disappointing that this hasn't been followed up upon yet. Hopefully we'll see it happen as I do think it's something both parties should agree on.

Also, just a quick thought, but if you think the primary concern of the government should be the economy, then why haven't I seen you expressing dissatisfaction with the fact that House Republicans have been spending very little time on economic issues?

airshocker

I've accepted that we need to run some deficits in order to get out of this recession. The House and Senate did ram the bill through against the public's wishes. Also, it's not important from an economic standpoint. Perhaps a social one, but as you well know, I don't give two s**** about social issues when our economy is still crumbling.

It's primary concern for right now, I meant. But while both parties are caught up in the budget debate, we'll have to wait. I'm not so naive as to think our legislators can handle more than one big problem at a time.

It's debatable whether the public support was behind the healthcare bill or not. While polling at the time suggested that people opposed the healthcare bill when it was referred to as "Obama's healthcare bill," when they were questioned about individual portions of the bill, virtually every major item had strong public support. So a legitimate argument could be made that people supported the bill, they just were misinformed about what was in it. For that misinformation, I blame both Democrats for doing an abysmal job at defending the bill, and certain Republican pundits and politicans for spreading lies about death panels and universal healthcare, neither of which was anywhere in the bill. Whether or not you support the bill is another issue, but I really don't think it fair to say it was "rammed through."

Although if you don't like the fact that it was "rammed through against the public's wishes," I am surprised to see you supporting the Wisconsin anti-collective bargaining law, which poll after poll have shown that the people of Wisconsin do not support. I would say that would be a fine example of "ramming it through against the public's wishes," would you not agree?

As for healthcare, as I said, it's clearly in part a fiscal issue, which means at the very least it ties in with economic issues like taxation (as relevant to raising the deficit). So it did (at least indirectly) have an economic goal behind addressing healthcare. Whether or not you agree that the healthcare bill will do what its supporters say it will is a different matter.