Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Zero, zilch, nada (added: nil)

Zero, zilch, nada (added: nil)

That’s how many net new jobs were created last month in newly released unemployment numbers:

The Labor Department says total payrolls were unchanged in August, weakest report in almost a year. It’s the first time since February 1945 that the government has reported a net job change of zero. The unemployment rate
stayed at 9.1%.

A strike by 45,000 Verizon workers lowered the job totals. Those workers are back on the job.

Job gains in June and July were revised lower, to show 57,000 fewer jobs added. The downward revisions were all in government jobs. The average work week also declined and hourly earnings fell by 3 cents to $23.09.

Analysts had forecast that the economy added 93,000 jobs last month, down from 117,000 in July.

While the Verizon strike will be used as an excuse, the revision downward of June and July figures (unexpectedly) and the fact that the expected 93,000 new jobs unexpectedly did not appear, highlights that the employment situation is dire.

But I don’t think Obama is capable of grasping that his policies and plans to restructure society are at the root of the problem.  He wants more government, when less government is the answer.

Free the economy.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:

Comments

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | September 2, 2011 at 9:25 am

I read a piece by Victor Davis Hanson a few weeks ago in which he re-defined the stimulus. Our guys need to follow his lead. The essence of Keynesianism is that the government racks up debt and runs deficits to stimulate the economy to get it out of recession. Using that definition, the stimulus was not $787 billion. The “stimulus” has been the entire $4 trillion in debt that’s been created since Obama took office two and a half years ago. How’s that worked out for ya?

On another note, keep your eye out for another “viral worthy” Rick Santelli video. He went on another rant this morning about the debt that rivals the one that inspired the Tea Party.

He’s not called “zero” for nothing…oh, wait…

…reflects zero-sum ideology…

Considering that the natural growth of the labor pool is approx 90K/month. Most of the time the jobs added don’t even cover that. So last month(July) was a wash and this month we are negative 90K.

Yes, please, free the economy!

I think Obama probably understands that his policies hurt private job creation. I think what he and the Dems were counting on from the get-go was that the economy was just suffering from the usual sort of cyclical downturn, that they could use the resulting crisis as an excuse to plunder the treasury on behalf of liberal interest groups, and that they could then credit those policies for the upturn when the economy, DESPITE the shackles they had placed on it, inevitably bounced back in time for the 2012 elections.

If there was a miscalculation, it was in failing to account for the possibility that the economy wouldn’t recover (or recover fast enough), and therefore voters would in fact blame Obama’s policies for contributing to what amounts to a depression. Or perhaps they did account for this in their plans, but figured that the opportunity to plunder the treasury was too good to pass up even if helped make Obama a one-term president.

That’s where things stand now, as I see it. Obama no longer has a straight-faced argument that his policies haven’t hurt the economy, let alone that they delivered the results he promised. Nobody seems to think things will get significantly better in 2012. He’s starting to look like a lame duck already. I wonder if he’ll now start to hemorrhage support among the rabid left as those folks begin to realize that elections are no fun when your standard-bearer is the second-coming of Herbert Hoover or Jimmy Carter.

    turfmann in reply to Conrad. | September 2, 2011 at 11:27 am

    Except that you cannot reconcile your opinion with the actual statements of Obama – at least the ones that he would rather you not see and hear.

    A man who pronounces five days before his inauguration that his intent is to fundamentally transform the United States of America cannot be held to a standard that the economic policies that he and his progressive friends foisted upon us – in spite of the vehement opposition that we voices – were simply misguided.

    Rather, what we have is the result of the “spreading the wealth around a little” – all the while working hammer and tong at destroying the source of that wealth.

    He has his fundamental transformation. And absent something that would get his impeached tout suite, he will be our president for at least another year. A rogue president can do unimaginable and irreversible damage in that amount of time, especially one whose wife wasn’t proud of her nation before her husband burst on the scene.

      Conrad in reply to turfmann. | September 2, 2011 at 12:15 pm

      Where did I write that Obama’s policies were “simply misguided”? The point I was making was that Obama and his people saw an opportunity to plunder the treasury for the benefit of liberal interest groups (e.g., teachers, unions, government employees, corporate cronies, environmental whackjobs, etc.), understanding that this strategy and his other plans would probably make it more difficult, not less, for the economy to recover. That’s not merely “misguided”; it represents a deliberate attack on the private sector and on ordinary taxpayers who don’t stand to benefit from government largesse. As for Obama’s wanting to “fundamentally transform the United States,” it’s all a part of the same thing. The fundamental transformation consists of having the government assume de facto control over the economy through massive increases in regulation, a takeover of HC, nationalizing industries like auto manufacturing and student loans, bailouts and subsidies for politically connected industries, and throwing monkey wrenches into whatever viable industries still remain that are still driven by genuine entrepreneurship (e.g., oil exploration and recovery). It’s all geared toward putting the White House in a position to funnel the fruits of the economy into the pockets of Dem voting groups (current or prospective), at the expense of everyone else. It’s a wonder to me that we don’t more often hear the words “Barack Obama” and “Hugo Chavez” uttered in the same breath, because what Obama has been trying to do here looks exactly like what his amigo Chavez has been doing for years in Venezuela.

        turfmann in reply to Conrad. | September 2, 2011 at 3:22 pm

        Well, that’s a little different than what you laid out in your OP, but I agree with you.

        I don’t think that he’s a bumbling idiot, I think he’s a malevolent force.

          Conrad in reply to turfmann. | September 2, 2011 at 5:27 pm

          With all due respect, if you’re going to take issue with a comment I’ve posted, do me the courtesy of first reading that comment carefully. I never characterized Obama as either “simply misguided” or as a just a “bumbling idiot.” It was clear from both comments I posted that I think Obama is, to use your words, a “malevolent force.”

          For the record, I’ve never taken the view, popular among some conservatives, that Obama is stupid. I would agree he’s probably not significantly more intelligent than the average member of Congress or cabinet official, but the notion that he’s downright dumb strikes me as unrealistic. (I’ve read where one of his law school classmates, a conservative guy who is apparently no fan of the president, said that Obama was, in fact, a pretty smart guy in law school. Jokes aside, I don’t see any evidence of a deficiency of intelligence. I think what we’re seeing from the administration is pretty clearly a deliberate program seeking to wrest control over the economy away from the private sector, for the purposes of empowerment, rewarding “friends,” punishing “enemies,” and ensuring the perpetuation of liberal policies more or less forever.

          turfmann in reply to turfmann. | September 2, 2011 at 9:21 pm

          Conrad | September 2, 2011 at 5:27 pm
          With all due respect,

          Our conversation has run out of “replies”

          Well, Conrad, perhaps you should be a little more clear in your condemnation of our little president.

          Or a little more blunt.

          You and I seem to be fellow travelers, not adversaries.

          Not really seeing any differences in our opinion, I raise a glass to you my friend.

Don’t forget the raise in minimum wage. It continues to do its damage. Entry-level, service-type jobs are scarcer because it’s more expensive to hire and train people, especially since for many it’s their first job. Minimum wage ramped up very quickly from $5.15/hr. to $7.25/hr. That’s a 40% increase.

Not a big deal if you employ accountants, engineers, or programmers, since they’re nowhere near that pay scale. But it is a big deal if you’re trying to run a restaurant, find baggers for your grocery store, or hiring stockers for your retail outlet.

Add the other pressures that the fed has created that make it difficult to turn a profit and it’s pretty easy to see why businesses are hesitant to add workers, purchase new equipment, upgrade facilities, or do anything other than squirrel away their meager surplus for a much rainier day.

    kentwm in reply to windbag. | September 2, 2011 at 11:20 am

    This is what is happening at my company. I have had several meetings over the past few months to outline new projects for the 4th Quarter of this year… all centered around automation. The need for administrative and support personnel in our sales department will decrease as a result and of course the salesmen will become more productive. So we will spend a few more $$ this year to eleminate the need for more employees next year.

What’s the average of AA+ and 0? Four years.

Right you are, MaggotAtBroadAndWall | September 2, 2011 at 10:56 am

Here is the starter:

Santelli’s Rant on Govt. $ Printing

Fri 02 Sep 11 | 08:30 AM ET

“The darn spectacle was getting up to these trillion dollars worth of debt and then thinking some action to try to address that is the spectacle is exactly half but backwards just as the interpretation if the government dumps a lot of money in the economy, they’ll look like they’re doing something,” says CNBC’s Rick Santelli.

Ø . . .

“Leading from his behind.”

LukeHandCool (who wants to know how you spread wealth around when you’re destroying it).

Fewer jobs produced in the economy than originally forecast?

How unexpected …

BREAKING!

Juneau: Alaska Woman Punches Bear in Snout to Save Dog

also

Indianola: Alaska Woman Punches TOTUS in Snout to Save Nation

*__*

BREAKING!

Juneau: Alaska Woman Punches Bear in Snout to Save Dog

also

Indianola: Alaska Woman Punches TOTUS in Snout to Save Nation

*__*

http://nation.foxnews.com/pets

Does anyone realize how much work it will be to clean up after Obama? So many things he has done need to be undone. Many are regulations which, presumably, a new President can undo on his own, although sometimes lawsuits make this difficult. But there are at least three major pieces of legislation that need to be repealed (one passed under Bush): Obamacare first and foremost, then Frank-Dodd, then Sarbanes-Oxley (passed before Obama). Then pro-growth measures need to be passed by the Congress including revamping of entitlements, drastic cuts in expenditures, and revamping the tax system. There are probably many other things, but those come to mind easily.

Can all of this get done at all, let alone quickly?

[…] Technically it’s an August boobery but it is reported on in September so it qualifies as boobery in the new month – yup, we’re talking job numbers. Zero job growth. To make the boobery worse, the June/July jobs created numbers have been downgraded by 58,000 jobs so forget about the Verizon s… […]

This just in: “Carney, and New York Times blame Hurricane Irene and Tea Party extremists for lack of job recovery.”
…well, they haven’t really; yet. But wait for it.
I expect a burst of economic activity in 2013: but only if President Zero becomes a former president.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend