Unemployment back up above 9%; new job numbers down

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43259001/ns/politics/

Assuming this is buried underneath talk of Dr. Jack and John Edwards. If you have any other bad news to share, this would be a great Friday dump day for it. Shame it's not a holiday weekend.

The unemployment figures shouldn't come as a shock -- least I don't think so. Weren't we told that umemployment might rise a little once the job market started heating up?

Still not great news, especially for those who either are or may soon be looking for new work.

 

I was just going to post this, with the question:

It's clear the economy's nascent recovery, which for the most part was sparked by the Stimulus and other government actions (like cash-for-junkers, housing purchase tax breaks, etc) is wilting.

So, all you little Greenspans out there in SJ world, what do you suggest we do to get the economy back on track?

I'm not sure, but I'm guessing defaulting on our debt, slashing government spending and laying off thousands of government workers, and continuing with tax breaks for oil companies and not taxing billionaire Wall Street oligarchs is one suggestion we'll be hearing from our friends on the right.

 

Yeah, three ways to look at it. Either people are refiling because they're back to looking for work, or it's the start of the second dip, or it's a blip.

Anecdotally, we've had five people leave my shop in the last two weeks cause they've found other jobs.

 

Yet corporate profits were up again in the first quarter of 2011, reaching their (nominally) highest levels ever.

 

"There was no nascent recovery. The "stimulus" wasn't stimulative. It was spending, not stimulus. Wasteful spending. And it threw us into more debt. It accomplished zero other than getting S&P to issue a warning that our debt could be downgraded."

Accomplished zero?

Really?

No teenagers received jobs for two summers via work programs set up by the Stimulus (programs that are not around this summer)? It's been proven over and over again for every dollar spent in a jobs program for teens, 4 more dollars come back to the community.

And no bridges were built? Roads widened? The list goes on and on...

http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx

So I can only assume all these programs listed above are non-existent in Ragu's world?

 

Corporations are doing fine. They just aren't hiring.

Laying off hundreds of thousands of public employees and holding the country hostage over Quixotic Medicare cuts doesn't help.

 

Shock Doctrine.

It will take a cataclysmic (1930s-level) financial meltdown to get rid -- completely -- of all social spending.

That's what they're going for.

Getting rid of Medicare in the Ryan plan is just the first step. They want to get rid of it all.

 

Except stadium spending.

 

Nahh, that goes straight into the pockets of billionaires, so that's in no danger of going away.

It's those pesky poor people using my tax monee to buy shit like food and clothing that we've got to put an end to. I want my countree back.

 

Ragu, if the government had done nothing in 2007-2008, unemployment would now be at least double what it is now, and we'd be in the Greatest Depression, not just the muck we've got now. Once again, let's not reverse cause and effect. The gap between income and outflow on the balance sheets of U.S. governments of all sorts has grown primarily because of three things. 1. The drop in revenue due to the recession and financial crisis (for state and local governments, this is about all of it). 2. Increased demand for programs like unemployment insurance, food stamps, etc. due to the recession. 3. 2001 tax cuts (for U.S. budget).
As they're learning in Europe, fiscal austerity in bad times makes deficits worse, not better.

 

The debt we are in now is less of a burden than the one Reagan ran up . . . simply because of interest rates.

Just like a $250,000 mortgage costs less today ($458,000) than a $100,000 mortgage in 1982 ($542,550).