9.1%

[Baldy]

Employment growth slows sharply in May

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Employers hired far fewer workers than expected in May and the jobless rate rose to 9.1 percent as high energy prices and the effects of Japan's earthquake bogged down the economy.

Nonfarm payrolls increased 54,000 last month, the weakest reading since September, the Labor Department said on Friday. Private employment rose just 83,000, the least since last June, while government payrolls dropped 29,000.

Economists had expected payrolls to rise 150,000 and private hiring to increase 175,000 in May. The government revised employment figures for March and April to show 39,000 fewer jobs created than previously estimated.

The job creation slowdown confirmed the economic weakness already flagged by other data from consumer spending to manufacturing. It could stoke fears about the depth and duration of a slowdown that started early in the year."

Waiting to hear the excuses from the cs.com, "but he got Bin Laden" spin machine on this one...

[kalm]

Employment growth slows sharply in May

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Employers hired far fewer workers than expected in May and the jobless rate rose to 9.1 percent as high energy prices and the effects of Japan's earthquake bogged down the economy.

Nonfarm payrolls increased 54,000 last month, the weakest reading since September, the Labor Department said on Friday. Private employment rose just 83,000, the least since last June, while government payrolls dropped 29,000.

Economists had expected payrolls to rise 150,000 and private hiring to increase 175,000 in May. The government revised employment figures for March and April to show 39,000 fewer jobs created than previously estimated.

The job creation slowdown confirmed the economic weakness already flagged by other data from consumer spending to manufacturing. It could stoke fears about the depth and duration of a slowdown that started early in the year."

Waiting to hear the excuses from the cs.com, "but he got Bin Laden" spin machine on this one...

Well it did take 30 years of (cut)tax and spend/lack of regulatory oversight reaganomics to get us into this mess and Obama is pretty much following the same program so what do you expect?

At least he got Bin Laden though.

[GannonFan]

Employment growth slows sharply in May

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Employers hired far fewer workers than expected in May and the jobless rate rose to 9.1 percent as high energy prices and the effects of Japan's earthquake bogged down the economy.

Nonfarm payrolls increased 54,000 last month, the weakest reading since September, the Labor Department said on Friday. Private employment rose just 83,000, the least since last June, while government payrolls dropped 29,000.

Economists had expected payrolls to rise 150,000 and private hiring to increase 175,000 in May. The government revised employment figures for March and April to show 39,000 fewer jobs created than previously estimated.

The job creation slowdown confirmed the economic weakness already flagged by other data from consumer spending to manufacturing. It could stoke fears about the depth and duration of a slowdown that started early in the year."

Waiting to hear the excuses from the cs.com, "but he got Bin Laden" spin machine on this one...

Well it did take 30 years of (cut)tax and spend/lack of regulatory oversight reaganomics to get us into this mess and Obama is pretty much following the same program so what do you expect?

At least he got Bin Laden though.

Blaming this on Reagan.

Seriously, this isn't something that's been 30 years in the making - more like 10 years in the making, and it's been exacerbated by poor Presidents and even poorer Congresses, and both parties have plenty to do with both. And sitting around and bemoaning the past doesn't get us any closer to answers, but unfortunately, there's still too much of "oh, it's the other party's fault that we're even in the mess" rather than concrete plans to get us out of this mess. The "let's throw some money at this and just wait for it to turn around because it always turns around" plan hasn't worked. I voted for Obama and there's plenty of reasons to vote for him again, but if he can't put together a coherent, viable economic policy, something that he's failed to do in 2.5 years, then he's going to be in for an uncommonly tough fight as an incumbent next year. Hopefully this past quarter is just a bump in the road, but it's not been a strong recovery even before this latest snag - it's time to get something done.

[kalm]

Well it did take 30 years of (cut)tax and spend/lack of regulatory oversight reaganomics to get us into this mess and Obama is pretty much following the same program so what do you expect?

At least he got Bin Laden though.

Blaming this on Reagan.

Seriously, this isn't something that's been 30 years in the making - more like 10 years in the making, and it's been exacerbated by poor Presidents and even poorer Congresses, and both parties have plenty to do with both. And sitting around and bemoaning the past doesn't get us any closer to answers, but unfortunately, there's still too much of "oh, it's the other party's fault that we're even in the mess" rather than concrete plans to get us out of this mess. The "let's throw some money at this and just wait for it to turn around because it always turns around" plan hasn't worked. I voted for Obama and there's plenty of reasons to vote for him again, but if he can't put together a coherent, viable economic policy, something that he's failed to do in 2.5 years, then he's going to be in for an uncommonly tough fight as an incumbent next year. Hopefully this past quarter is just a bump in the road, but it's not been a strong recovery even before this latest snag - it's time to get something done.

I'm blaming it on reaganomics which is a very powerful and attractive philosophy that in large part is still being followed to this day, by both parties. Sticking your head in the sand and not wanting to explore how we got here while always looking forward doesn't work either.

[GannonFan]

Blaming this on Reagan.

Seriously, this isn't something that's been 30 years in the making - more like 10 years in the making, and it's been exacerbated by poor Presidents and even poorer Congresses, and both parties have plenty to do with both. And sitting around and bemoaning the past doesn't get us any closer to answers, but unfortunately, there's still too much of "oh, it's the other party's fault that we're even in the mess" rather than concrete plans to get us out of this mess. The "let's throw some money at this and just wait for it to turn around because it always turns around" plan hasn't worked. I voted for Obama and there's plenty of reasons to vote for him again, but if he can't put together a coherent, viable economic policy, something that he's failed to do in 2.5 years, then he's going to be in for an uncommonly tough fight as an incumbent next year. Hopefully this past quarter is just a bump in the road, but it's not been a strong recovery even before this latest snag - it's time to get something done.

I'm blaming it on reaganomics which is a very powerful and attractive philosophy that in large part is still being followed to this day, by both parties. Sticking your head in the sand and not wanting to explore how we got here while always looking forward doesn't work either.

Exploring isn't the same as demagaugory, which is what you are doing. And looking forward isn't the same as trying to win a political game (i.e. win elections), again like what you are doing. Where's the substance, where's the ideas, where's the actual proposals of what to do, and the real debate to go with it? That's what we need, not the same old same old you're trotting out. There's a reason why the country has been jumping back and forth rather quickly between Democrats in one election and then Republicans in the next - neither party is getting it done and have become hyperfocused (more than usual) on the spin. We're not looking forward and that's one of the problems.

[kalm]

I'm blaming it on reaganomics which is a very powerful and attractive philosophy that in large part is still being followed to this day, by both parties. Sticking your head in the sand and not wanting to explore how we got here while always looking forward doesn't work either.

Exploring isn't the same as demagaugory, which is what you are doing. And looking forward isn't the same as trying to win a political game (i.e. win elections), again like what you are doing. Where's the substance, where's the ideas, where's the actual proposals of what to do, and the real debate to go with it? That's what we need, not the same old same old you're trotting out. There's a reason why the country has been jumping back and forth rather quickly between Democrats in one election and then Republicans in the next - neither party is getting it done and have become hyperfocused (more than usual) on the spin. We're not looking forward and that's one of the problems.

First, of all, I'm not running for office, and I've probably been more critical of Obama than you. I'm probably going to vote for Ron Paul for christ's sake. (I know that upsets your independant sensibilities so I'm sorry)

Second, there are lots of substantive and very fine ideas on how to fix things (trade policies, support and funding of innovation through public and private R&D, spending cuts, etc.) but unless the current power structure and election process get fixed you're just going to continue to see both parties pretty much act the same when it comes to economics.

[Baldy]

Employment growth slows sharply in May

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Employers hired far fewer workers than expected in May and the jobless rate rose to 9.1 percent as high energy prices and the effects of Japan's earthquake bogged down the economy.

Nonfarm payrolls increased 54,000 last month, the weakest reading since September, the Labor Department said on Friday. Private employment rose just 83,000, the least since last June, while government payrolls dropped 29,000.

Economists had expected payrolls to rise 150,000 and private hiring to increase 175,000 in May. The government revised employment figures for March and April to show 39,000 fewer jobs created than previously estimated.

The job creation slowdown confirmed the economic weakness already flagged by other data from consumer spending to manufacturing. It could stoke fears about the depth and duration of a slowdown that started early in the year."

Waiting to hear the excuses from the cs.com, "but he got Bin Laden" spin machine on this one...

Well it did take 30 years of (cut)tax and spend/lack of regulatory oversight reaganomics to get us into this mess and Obama is pretty much following the same program so what do you expect?

At least he got Bin Laden though.

Right on queue, and just as wrong as always.

Trying to see the parallels with Reagan's tax cutting pro business agenda with Bush I and Clinton's tax raising agenda. Couple that with Obama's quantitative easing and pro big government/anti-business agenda...yeah boy, he's just like Reagan.

[AZGrizFan]

I voted for Obama and there's plenty of reasons to vote for him again...

Not to get sidetracked...but...SERIOUSLY? Can you name a few?

[Ivytalk]

The real rate is even higher, considering all the jobless people who have dropped out of the labor market altogether. There was a topical story in our News-Urinal just this week.

[GannonFan]

I voted for Obama and there's plenty of reasons to vote for him again...

Not to get sidetracked...but...SERIOUSLY? Can you name a few?

Well, the most important being that there isn't anyone on the other side worth voting for yet, so he's the default (pun intended) option. Economically, though, he's been mediocre at best, and that could be the thing that sinks him. The Clinton campaign said it best - "it's the economy, stupid". Unfortunately, Obama's been taking the same hands off approach on this as he did with the year-long runup of the health care reform - I wouldn't have thought that using the same playbook from then would've been a good idea.

[SDHornet]

I voted for Obama and there's plenty of reasons to vote for him again...

Not to get sidetracked...but...SERIOUSLY? Can you name a few?

I think that is where the OBL thing comes into play.

[AZGrizFan]

Not to get sidetracked...but...SERIOUSLY? Can you name a few?

Well, the most important being that there isn't anyone on the other side worth voting for yet, so he's the default (pun intended) option. Economically, though, he's been mediocre at best, and that could be the thing that sinks him. The Clinton campaign said it best - "it's the economy, stupid". Unfortunately, Obama's been taking the same hands off approach on this as he did with the year-long runup of the health care reform - I wouldn't have thought that using the same playbook from then would've been a good idea.

Got it. So, you can't name any reasons.

[AZGrizFan]

Not to get sidetracked...but...SERIOUSLY? Can you name a few?

I think that is where the OBL thing comes into play.

Yeah, using an intelligence system and interrogation methods set up by Bush and railed against by Obama during the '08 campaign.

[SDHornet]

I think that is where the OBL thing comes into play.

Yeah, using an intelligence system and interrogation methods set up by Bush and railed against by Obama during the '08 campaign.

Yup. Regardless I fully expect him to use that come election time and rightfully so.

[GannonFan]

Well, the most important being that there isn't anyone on the other side worth voting for yet, so he's the default (pun intended) option. Economically, though, he's been mediocre at best, and that could be the thing that sinks him. The Clinton campaign said it best - "it's the economy, stupid". Unfortunately, Obama's been taking the same hands off approach on this as he did with the year-long runup of the health care reform - I wouldn't have thought that using the same playbook from then would've been a good idea.

Got it. So, you can't name any reasons.

I can name plenty of reasons, pretty much the same number of officially declared Republican candidates. "He's not Romney". There's one. "He's not Gingrich". There's two. I think you see the pattern.

[GannonFan]

Yeah, using an intelligence system and interrogation methods set up by Bush and railed against by Obama during the '08 campaign.

Yup. Regardless I fully expect him to use that come election time and rightfully so.

OBL doesn't and won't mean a thing. It's all about the economy. If things get better, Obama's a shoe-in to win. If things just stay the same or actually get worse, it could be '92 all over again, just with the parties changing places.

[AZGrizFan]

Got it. So, you can't name any reasons.

I can name plenty of reasons, pretty much the same number of officially declared Republican candidates. "He's not Romney". There's one. "He's not Gingrich". There's two. I think you see the pattern.

Which will be interesting, given that their campaigns will roughly mirror that philosophy:

I'm not Obama....

At this point I'd vote for a tree stump over Obama. And given his performance to date I'd think you would too.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Yup. Regardless I fully expect him to use that come election time and rightfully so.

OBL doesn't and won't mean a thing. It's all about the economy. If things get better, Obama's a shoe-in to win. If things just stay the same or actually get worse, it could be '92 all over again, just with the parties changing places.

The GOP better find a candidate who can connect with voters... so far, ain't nobody in their cupboard nearly dynamic enough. The best they've got who fits that particular mold is Palin - whose negatives are WAY to high already to pull that off.

[travelinman67]

At this point I'd vote for a tree stump over Obama. And given his performance to date I'd think you would too.

Tree hugger.

[CitadelGrad]

OBL doesn't and won't mean a thing. It's all about the economy. If things get better, Obama's a shoe-in to win. If things just stay the same or actually get worse, it could be '92 all over again, just with the parties changing places.

The GOP better find a candidate who can connect with voters... so far, ain't nobody in their cupboard nearly dynamic enough. The best they've got who fits that particular mold is Palin - whose negatives are WAY to high already to pull that off.

Obama did a great job "connecting with voters" during his campaign. Unfortunately, we've found that his only talents are oratorical. I don't need a candidate who connects with me. I need a candidate who is more interested in being a president than being a perpetual candidate.

[AZGrizFan]

At this point I'd vote for a tree stump over Obama. And given his performance to date I'd think you would too.

Tree hugger.

[Wedgebuster]

I got more work now than three people need, and four years ago I was struggling. The local paper is full of job ads, some of them high paying jobs with oil companies.

Looks to me like there's a bunch of uneducated, rednecked conk heads sitting around bad mouthing their country wanting their trickle down, and refusing to work for any rate hiding in that 9.1%, perhaps as many as half.

[AZGrizFan]

I got more work now than three people need, and four years ago I was struggling. The local paper is full of job ads, some of them high paying jobs with oil companies.

Looks to me like there's a bunch of uneducated, rednecked conk heads sitting around bad mouthing their country wanting their trickle down, and refusing to work for any rate hiding in that 9.1%, perhaps as many as half.

yeah, that's it.

[Bronco]

I got more work now than three people need, and four years ago I was struggling. The local paper is full of job ads, some of them high paying jobs with oil companies.

Looks to me like there's a bunch of uneducated, rednecked conk heads sitting around bad mouthing their country wanting their trickle down, and refusing to work for any rate hiding in that 9.1%, perhaps as many as half.

yeah, that's it.

That is not funny it's sad.
more out of touch than the President...AND THAT'S HARD TO DO

[Baldy]

I got more work now than three people need, and four years ago I was struggling. The local paper is full of job ads, some of them high paying jobs with oil companies.

Looks to me like there's a bunch of uneducated, rednecked conk heads sitting around bad mouthing their country wanting their trickle down, and refusing to work for any rate hiding in that 9.1%, perhaps as many as half.

Shit, Wedgie done figured it out and foiled our dastardly plan.