A net loss of 1.772 million jobs in the last 3 months

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

598k in the last month, plus the previous months were revised downwards another 311k.

That is the worst 3 month record since the end of World War II.

Only 2.1 million jobs were created in the 8 years of the Bush administration, an average of only 1.05 million a term. The last 4 Democratic Presidential terms averaged 10.7 million jobs per term.

Bush sure left this country in a fine shape.

[Keystone Phil]

It's Nancy Pelosi's fault.

[MK]

598k in the last month, plus the previous months were revised downwards another 311k.

That is the worst 3 month record since the end of World War II.

Only 2.1 million jobs were created in the 8 years of the Bush administration, an average of only 1.05 million a term. The last 4 Democratic Presidential terms averaged 10.7 million jobs per term.

Bush sure left this country in a fine shape.

And the libreal democrats don't have an answer.   

What leaders we have huh?

[Smash255]

598k in the last month, plus the previous months were revised downwards another 311k.

That is the worst 3 month record since the end of World War II.

Only 2.1 million jobs were created in the 8 years of the Bush administration, an average of only 1.05 million a term. The last 4 Democratic Presidential terms averaged 10.7 million jobs per term.

Bush sure left this country in a fine shape.

And the libreal democrats don't have an answer.   

What leaders we have huh?

They do have an answer unfortunately some people think following the same Bush mantra of cutting taxes will create jobs...

[The Ex-Factor]

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

598k in the last month, plus the previous months were revised downwards another 311k.

That is the worst 3 month record since the end of World War II.

Only 2.1 million jobs were created in the 8 years of the Bush administration, an average of only 1.05 million a term. The last 4 Democratic Presidential terms averaged 10.7 million jobs per term.

Bush sure left this country in a fine shape.

And the libreal democrats don't have an answer.   

What leaders we have huh?

We want a Keynesian stimulus bill. Of course we have to settle for a bill designed to keep Republicans happy, it's 42% tax cuts, even though hardly any of them will have voted for it. It's time to stop compromising with them.

[Marokai Backbeat]

This is a bit of an off topic comment. But I get irritated with people who still claim this is a minor recession comparable to, say, the early 90's or something. And then every day I see a graph like that, a statistic about the underutilized, the unemployment rolls, businesses shutting down, etc.

Whatever, I guess. People can be ignorant.

[MK]

598k in the last month, plus the previous months were revised downwards another 311k.

That is the worst 3 month record since the end of World War II.

Only 2.1 million jobs were created in the 8 years of the Bush administration, an average of only 1.05 million a term. The last 4 Democratic Presidential terms averaged 10.7 million jobs per term.

Bush sure left this country in a fine shape.

And the libreal democrats don't have an answer.   

What leaders we have huh?

We want a Keynesian stimulus bill. Of course we have to settle for a bill designed to keep Republicans happy, it's 42% tax cuts, even though hardly any of them will have voted for it. It's time to stop compromising with them.

The Keynesian stimulus bill you got your way on.   Its 42% tax cuts and 58% spending.

How are we going to create jobs in a country where most males and females under 30 years of age have brought into the ideal that they can all become brain surgeons?   This country was founded on WORKERS and over the last 30 years we have slowly forgot about that.  Times are better as a industrial society.    Many have forgot how this country had its fun in the sun - economically speaking.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

598k in the last month, plus the previous months were revised downwards another 311k.

That is the worst 3 month record since the end of World War II.

Only 2.1 million jobs were created in the 8 years of the Bush administration, an average of only 1.05 million a term. The last 4 Democratic Presidential terms averaged 10.7 million jobs per term.

Bush sure left this country in a fine shape.

And the libreal democrats don't have an answer.   

What leaders we have huh?

We want a Keynesian stimulus bill. Of course we have to settle for a bill designed to keep Republicans happy, it's 42% tax cuts, even though hardly any of them will have voted for it. It's time to stop compromising with them.

The Keynesian stimulus bill you got your way on.   Its 42% tax cuts and 58% spending.

How are we going to create jobs in a country where most males and females under 30 years of age have brought into the ideal that they can all become brain surgeons?   This country was founded on WORKERS and over the last 30 years we have slowly forgot about that.  Times are better when we as a industrial society.    Many have forgot how this country had its fun in the sun - economically speaking.

Well, obviously you create some sort of jobs. There are plenty of people willing and able to work who can't get any job. Anyways, the Republicans aren't even 42% of the Senate, let alone were ever going to be more than a couple of a percent of the votes for this bill, so why should they get a damn thing? The Democrats usually gave Bush exactly what he wanted? That Iraq war resolution was 77-23. I'm pissed as hell at almost everyone in the Senate. The Republicans for destroying this country, and the Democrats for being a bunch of Republican enablers.

[Marokai Backbeat]

The problem lies in two areas.

1) Democrats are more ideologically diverse than the Republican Party. There are far more Conservative Democrats than Liberal Republicans, and it's because of this that it's harder to keep Democrats in line when it comes to voting on an issue. Republicans are fairly easy to rally because they usually fall in lock-step with one another for the better of the party, as opposed to the Blue Dogs who tend to waffle and waver. This leads to problem...

2) Republicans will filibuster unless Dems can get a large amount of votes in the Senate. If there was no filibuster Democrats would probably ram a much more liberal bill down the House and Senate, but Republicans are forcing the ideologically diverse Dems to not only keep the Moderates/Blue Dogs in line, but also recruit Republicans. (Plus Republicans are trying to delay and fcku up the Minnesota race endlessly to keep an extra vote out.)

On other issues there shouldn't be a problem (unless Republicans decide to filibuster everything like the assholes they are) getting something passed. Like the Fair Pay Act or SCHIP expansion.

[Democratic Hawk]

In terms of enabling the inept George W Bush, more Democrats certainly went along with the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (12 senators; 28 representatives), but it wasn't so much the case with the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (2 senators; 7 representatives)

Dave

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The problem lies in two areas.

1) Democrats are more ideologically diverse than the Republican Party. There are far more Conservative Democrats than Liberal Republicans, and it's because of this that it's harder to keep Democrats in line when it comes to voting on an issue. Republicans are fairly easy to rally because they usually fall in lock-step with one another for the better of the party, as opposed to the Blue Dogs who tend to waffle and waver. This leads to problem...

2) Republicans will filibuster unless Dems can get a large amount of votes in the Senate. If there was no filibuster Democrats would probably ram a much more liberal bill down the House and Senate, but Republicans are forcing the ideologically diverse Dems to not only keep the Moderates/Blue Dogs in line, but also recruit Republicans. (Plus Republicans are trying to delay and fcku up the Minnesota race endlessly to keep an extra vote out.)

On other issues there shouldn't be a problem (unless Republicans decide to filibuster everything like the assholes they are) getting something passed. Like the Fair Pay Act or SCHIP expansion.

It's pretty sad actually. How hard is it to keep the stimulus bill focused on what studies have shown is the most effective for job creation?

[Nym90]

It's Nancy Pelosi's fault.

And don't forget that Obama was elected 3 months ago. Obviously this is the market responding to his election.....

[Nym90]

The problem lies in two areas.

1) Democrats are more ideologically diverse than the Republican Party. There are far more Conservative Democrats than Liberal Republicans, and it's because of this that it's harder to keep Democrats in line when it comes to voting on an issue. Republicans are fairly easy to rally because they usually fall in lock-step with one another for the better of the party, as opposed to the Blue Dogs who tend to waffle and waver. This leads to problem...

2) Republicans will filibuster unless Dems can get a large amount of votes in the Senate. If there was no filibuster Democrats would probably ram a much more liberal bill down the House and Senate, but Republicans are forcing the ideologically diverse Dems to not only keep the Moderates/Blue Dogs in line, but also recruit Republicans. (Plus Republicans are trying to delay and fcku up the Minnesota race endlessly to keep an extra vote out.)

On other issues there shouldn't be a problem (unless Republicans decide to filibuster everything like the assholes they are) getting something passed. Like the Fair Pay Act or SCHIP expansion.

Again, I guess I just don't get why the filibuster is so scary. For one thing, they aren't really going to tie up the entire Senate for the next 2 years on this one bill; eventually they'd have to give in and stop filibustering, out of sheer fatigue if nothing else.

And even if they don't, let them be obstructionists and get the blame for going against the stated wishes of the people on the last Election Day. And yes, I held the same view on this 4 years ago, though obviously the Republicans had a much smaller majority both in the Presidential Election and in Congress then, so less of a "mandate" and so should've been expected to be doing more compromising than the Democrats are now.

So, maybe I'm missing something, as to why people just assume the majority party is the one who has to back down when there is a threat of a filibuster. I would assume the logic is that people figure the majority party will be blamed for any failure to "get things done", even if it's caused by the minority party, but I'd think that's not necessarily going to be true.

[Smash255]

The problem lies in two areas.

1) Democrats are more ideologically diverse than the Republican Party. There are far more Conservative Democrats than Liberal Republicans, and it's because of this that it's harder to keep Democrats in line when it comes to voting on an issue. Republicans are fairly easy to rally because they usually fall in lock-step with one another for the better of the party, as opposed to the Blue Dogs who tend to waffle and waver. This leads to problem...

2) Republicans will filibuster unless Dems can get a large amount of votes in the Senate. If there was no filibuster Democrats would probably ram a much more liberal bill down the House and Senate, but Republicans are forcing the ideologically diverse Dems to not only keep the Moderates/Blue Dogs in line, but also recruit Republicans. (Plus Republicans are trying to delay and fcku up the Minnesota race endlessly to keep an extra vote out.)

On other issues there shouldn't be a problem (unless Republicans decide to filibuster everything like the assholes they are) getting something passed. Like the Fair Pay Act or SCHIP expansion.

Again, I guess I just don't get why the filibuster is so scary. For one thing, they aren't really going to tie up the entire Senate for the next 2 years on this one bill; eventually they'd have to give in and stop filibustering, out of sheer fatigue if nothing else.

And even if they don't, let them be obstructionists and get the blame for going against the stated wishes of the people on the last Election Day. And yes, I held the same view on this 4 years ago, though obviously the Republicans had a much smaller majority both in the Presidential Election and in Congress then, so less of a "mandate" and so should've been expected to be doing more compromising than the Democrats are now.

So, maybe I'm missing something, as to why people just assume the majority party is the one who has to back down when there is a threat of a filibuster. I would assume the logic is that people figure the majority party will be blamed for any failure to "get things done", even if it's caused by the minority party, but I'd think that's not necessarily going to be true.

Its a bit of a catch 22 at this poiny.  On one hand I would love to see the Dems push hard for the Stimulus bill as originally constructed and basically force the GOP to crack eventually, however the economic situation has gotten so bad we really don't have time to sit around and wait for someone to crack.  On other issues, now that is a different story. 

[Marokai Backbeat]

But if we do act with something that is half-assed, we risk making everything worse or have very little impact, and the voters would hand the economy to the party that got us in this mess. What can we do?

[Smash255]

But if we do act with something that is half-assed, we risk making everything worse or have very little impact, and the voters would hand the economy to the party that got us in this mess. What can we do?

Exactly why I said it was a catch 22.  I would much rather the original bill, it would be better for our economy with the original bill and I wish we could stick it to the GOP & force it to be past.  Unfortunately the economic situation has gotten so out of control we don't have that option and this bill is better than not doing anything.  Harry Reid being weak doesn't help things, but time is simply not on our side here. 

[Democratic Hawk]

But if we do act with something that is half-assed, we risk making everything worse or have very little impact, and the voters would hand the economy to the party that got us in this mess. What can we do?

The administration will have to make good with what they've got. Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic Policy Research, reckons senators have just slashed the creation of 500,000 jobs from the stimulus; yet, the failed reactionary party can't even meet the Democrats half-way given the stimulus is 58% spending; 42% tax cuts

Meanwhile, polls suggest voters think tax cuts are more effective a stimulus than spending. Have they had their heads buried in the sand these past eight years or what? If 2.1m jobs, over eight years, is the best $1.6 trillion in tax cuts (and that's merely the price for the 2001 cuts) can deliver, why bother?

Aye, it sickens me that the failed reactionary party that got the economy in this mess appears to be winning the spin-war

Dave

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

But if we do act with something that is half-assed, we risk making everything worse or have very little impact, and the voters would hand the economy to the party that got us in this mess. What can we do?

The administration will have to make good with what they've got. Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic Policy Research, reckons senators have just slashed the creation of 500,000 jobs from the stimulus; yet, the failed reactionary party can't even meet the Democrats half-way given the stimulus is 58% spending; 42% tax cuts

Meanwhile, polls suggest voters think tax cuts are more effective a stimulus than spending. Have they had their heads buried in the sand these past eight years or what? If 2.1m jobs, over eight years, is the best $1.6 trillion in tax cuts (and that's merely the price for the 2001 cuts) can deliver, why bother?

Aye, it sickens me that the failed reactionary party that got the economy in this mess appears to be winning the spin-war

Dave

This is the Democrats fault. They never did an effective job of standing up to Bush's tax cuts, or almost any of his other agenda. I'm particularly talking about the Bush tax cut of 2003, which passed 2 months after Bush got his war on in Iraq for no good reason. Yet the Democrats still couldn't bring together any effective opposition, just like every other time in the Bush administration, and unlike the way the Republicans have been treating Obama.

Anyways, as for that tax cut, it was passed as an economic stimulus, since as we know, when we have a President George Bush, the economy perpetually stinks. What sort of amazing economic stimulus proposals were in the bill? A tax cut for the rich that wouldn't take effect for another 6 years. That is epic fail, and the Democrats failed to call him out on that bullsh**t, and we are still paying for their failure. Of course the Republicans are evil, but the Democrats aren't really any better here.

Economists showed that every dollar spent on tax cuts for the wealthy would increase the GDP by 9 cents. Every dollar spent on extending unemployment benefits would increase the GDP by $1.73 per dollar. At the same time, Arnold was enacting spending cuts in California that hurt the GDP by $4-$8 per dollar they saved. Of course, it's the Democrats who are "economic girlie-men". I don't know what is a bigger failure, Republican economic policies, or the Democratic opposition.

[Democratic Hawk]

But if we do act with something that is half-assed, we risk making everything worse or have very little impact, and the voters would hand the economy to the party that got us in this mess. What can we do?

The administration will have to make good with what they've got. Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic Policy Research, reckons senators have just slashed the creation of 500,000 jobs from the stimulus; yet, the failed reactionary party can't even meet the Democrats half-way given the stimulus is 58% spending; 42% tax cuts

Meanwhile, polls suggest voters think tax cuts are more effective a stimulus than spending. Have they had their heads buried in the sand these past eight years or what? If 2.1m jobs, over eight years, is the best $1.6 trillion in tax cuts (and that's merely the price for the 2001 cuts) can deliver, why bother?

Aye, it sickens me that the failed reactionary party that got the economy in this mess appears to be winning the spin-war

Dave

This is the Democrats fault. They never did an effective job of standing up to Bush's tax cuts, or almost any of his other agenda. I'm particularly talking about the Bush tax cut of 2003, which passed 2 months after Bush got his war on in Iraq for no good reason. Yet the Democrats still couldn't bring together any effective opposition, just like every other time in the Bush administration, and unlike the way the Republicans have been treating Obama.

Anyways, as for that tax cut, it was passed as an economic stimulus, since as we know, when we have a President George Bush, the economy perpetually stinks. What sort of amazing economic stimulus proposals were in the bill? A tax cut for the rich that wouldn't take effect for another 6 years. That is epic fail, and the Democrats failed to call him out on that bullsh**t, and we are still paying for their failure. Of course the Republicans are evil, but the Democrats aren't really any better here.

Economists showed that every dollar spent on tax cuts for the wealthy would increase the GDP by 9 cents. Every dollar spent on extending unemployment benefits would increase the GDP by $1.73 per dollar. At the same time, Arnold was enacting spending cuts in California that hurt the GDP by $4-$8 per dollar they saved. Of course, it's the Democrats who are "economic girlie-men". I don't know what is a bigger failure, Republican economic policies, or the Democratic opposition.

In terms of enabling the inept George W Bush, down the road to wreck and ruin, more Democrats certainly went along with the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (12 senators; 28 representatives), but it wasn't so much the case with the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (2 senators; 7 representatives); but, as you say, opposition wasn't very effective

Dave

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

But if we do act with something that is half-assed, we risk making everything worse or have very little impact, and the voters would hand the economy to the party that got us in this mess. What can we do?

The administration will have to make good with what they've got. Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic Policy Research, reckons senators have just slashed the creation of 500,000 jobs from the stimulus; yet, the failed reactionary party can't even meet the Democrats half-way given the stimulus is 58% spending; 42% tax cuts

Meanwhile, polls suggest voters think tax cuts are more effective a stimulus than spending. Have they had their heads buried in the sand these past eight years or what? If 2.1m jobs, over eight years, is the best $1.6 trillion in tax cuts (and that's merely the price for the 2001 cuts) can deliver, why bother?

Aye, it sickens me that the failed reactionary party that got the economy in this mess appears to be winning the spin-war

Dave

This is the Democrats fault. They never did an effective job of standing up to Bush's tax cuts, or almost any of his other agenda. I'm particularly talking about the Bush tax cut of 2003, which passed 2 months after Bush got his war on in Iraq for no good reason. Yet the Democrats still couldn't bring together any effective opposition, just like every other time in the Bush administration, and unlike the way the Republicans have been treating Obama.

Anyways, as for that tax cut, it was passed as an economic stimulus, since as we know, when we have a President George Bush, the economy perpetually stinks. What sort of amazing economic stimulus proposals were in the bill? A tax cut for the rich that wouldn't take effect for another 6 years. That is epic fail, and the Democrats failed to call him out on that bullsh**t, and we are still paying for their failure. Of course the Republicans are evil, but the Democrats aren't really any better here.

Economists showed that every dollar spent on tax cuts for the wealthy would increase the GDP by 9 cents. Every dollar spent on extending unemployment benefits would increase the GDP by $1.73 per dollar. At the same time, Arnold was enacting spending cuts in California that hurt the GDP by $4-$8 per dollar they saved. Of course, it's the Democrats who are "economic girlie-men". I don't know what is a bigger failure, Republican economic policies, or the Democratic opposition.

In terms of enabling the inept George W Bush, down the road to wreck and ruin, more Democrats certainly went along with the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (12 senators; 28 representatives), but it wasn't so much the case with the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (2 senators; 7 representatives); but, as you say, opposition wasn't very effective

Dave

Not to mention that appearantly the 2003 tax cut didn't need 60 votes.

[A18]

Three recessions... the first of which occurred a little less than 20 years ago. Compared in terms of raw numbers, rather than percentage of the peak.

Are you really this prone to confirmation bias?

I agree that the situation is grim—due, in large measure, to government-induced panic and uncertainty. But that chart is incredibly silly.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Three recessions... the first of which occurred a little less than 20 years ago. Compared in terms of raw numbers, rather than percentage of the peak.

Are you really this prone to confirmation bias?

I agree that the situation is grim—due, in large measure, to government-induced panic and uncertainty. But that chart is incredibly silly.

There are actually only 2.1 million jobs today than at the start of the Bush administration. Sadly, that 2001 recession was followed by a jobless recovery. The 1990 recession didn't have as many jobs lost, so percentage wise it should still be milder than the 2001 recession.