Worst rate in over 26 years. Where are those jobs, Barack? http://www.cnbc.com/id/33714693 U.S. employers cut a deeper-than-expected 190,000 jobs in October, government data showed on Friday, driving the unemployment rate to 10.2 percent, the highest in 26-1/2 years. The Labor Department said the unemployment rate was the highest since April 1983. It revised job losses for August and September to show 91,000 fewer jobs lost than previously reported. Analysts polled by Reuters had expected payrolls to drop by 175,000 and the jobless rate to edge up to 9.9 percent from 9.8 percent in September. The labor market is being watched for signs whether the economic recovery that started in the third quarter can be sustained without government support. The economy grew at a 3.5 percent annualized rate in the July-September period, probably ending the most painful U.S. recession in 70 years. Payrolls have declined for 22 consecutive months now, throwing 7.3 million people out of work since December 2007, when the recession started. However, the pace of layoffs has slowed sharply from early this year, when nearly three-quarters of a million jobs were lost in January. In October, job losses were across almost all sectors, with education and health services and professional and business services bucking the trend. Manufacturing employment fell 61,000 last month, while construction industries payrolls dropped 62,000. The service-providing sector cut 61,000 workers in October and goods-producing industries slashed 129,000 positions. Education and health services added 45,000 jobs, while government employment was flat.
That's right, he can't be blamed for anything! Just point the finger at someone else, because he has nothing to do with it! He's perfect! His policies have been perfect! His spending has been perfect! The guy can do NO wrong!
I don't think the unemployment is really Obama's "fault" but I would like to hear some democratic officials come out and admit they were full of it when they tried to ram through the stimulus overnight.
Don't think that you can blame Obama for the unemployment rate...just as you can't really blame bush for this mess starting... However, early returns look like the stimulus package has been very inefficient....although it has saved SOME jobs (which is good), it is nowhere near what the admin is saying. I HIGHLY doubt that we would be in any better shape economically if a Repub had won. The worst part of all of this is that we are still allowing the banks to pull the same shady crap that they did to get us into this mess
I'm going to wait at least a calender year before I go railing on him for not fixing a problem that took a decade, if not two, to create.
The problem is the stimulus wasn't big enough and they (the Whitehouse and Democrats in Congress) caved in too much to Blue Dogs and Republicans who were never going to vote for it anyway. There should have been more infrastructure projects and less tax cuts. Hopefully, the White House will start paying more attention to the economists who have been getting it right since before the melt down, like Krugman and Roubini. If they don't, this could get even more ugly economically and politically.
Hmmm...so far, according to the $180 billion spent...640,000 jobs have been saved...costing the taxpayers roughly $280,000 per job. Not a wise use of money if you ask me. feel free to correct me if I am wrong about those numbers
No one is saying is is SOLELY his fault, but he is just as much of the problem and has definitely contributed to the situation in allowing it to get worse. I realize that a majority of those that post in this BBS are blindly Obama followers and don't think he has done anything wrong, but this president as well as with the last president's spending ways is what is causing this mess to get worse and worse, and the scary thing is Obama doesn't want to stop. The bottom line, is at some point our leader has to take responsibility for what is going on in the economy and around the world,good or bad, and can't continue to pass that buck on someone else. You may have been dealt a bad hand, but it's up to you to make it better, not worse.
You are wrong. You're not counting jobs indirectly saved by the stimulus - which is what the point of the multiplier effect is. The government approves grant that creates 10 jobs. Then the 10 jobs consume goods and services that save 3 more jobs...etc etc etc. You're applying a linear measure to a non-linear phenomenon.
1. the president spending (which is actually Congress' job, anyway, but we'll overlook that detail) is causing unemployment? 2. you believe the economy is getting WORSE than it was before Obama took office? seriously?? 3. most of you free market purists would tell us the government can never and has never created jobs. but you're willing to put the blame on the president for unemployment?
I wonder why the Right-wing nut Conservatives aren't mad at Bush about this 10% unemployment rate??? I guess they don't know anythign about economics and that unemployment is a LAGGING indicator.
Didn't democrats slam Bush just months into his presidency for a lagging economy? Maybe with both parties it isn't about not knowing anything but more about not caring about anything but party politics?
If those #s are correct, all the more reason to craft the most efficient stimulus possible, which according to the economists who have been proven correct more often than not pre and post meltdown, should focus heavily on infrastructure spending and very little, if at all, on tax cuts. Are you opposed to stimulus spending on principle, or just the structure of the current stimulus? How would you like to see the federal response differ from what has been done up to now?
