Obama Loses 472,000 Jobs Last Week, and 6 Million Jobs in a Year (Jobless Claims Data Analysis)

But, the most important issues of the last year have been healthcare reform, corporate bailouts and Obama's political agenda, remember ?

Now, what do you say to we just grant amnesty to all our illegal immigrants and see if that might just help an unemployed American find work ???

Fail.

Obama Loses 472,000 Jobs Last Week

Nope.

The number of people filing first-time claims for unemployment benefits climbed 13,000 in the latest week to 472,000, indicating continued weakness in the labor market."

Now this clip (if it's real. You provided no link) is rather confusing First it says jobless claims rose 13,000 in the week, but then says to 472,000. What's that number represent? What span of time? The month? The year?

There were certainly not 472,000 jobs lost last week, unless it was the Census temp jobs going away. The June job numbers don't come out until tomorrow (7/2/10)

Bureau of Labor Statistics - Economic News Release, June 4, 2010

Obama came into office with a negative number in Jobs is what cons don't get.

each president , yearly , has X amount of jobs to make . Bush didn't . If you make X amount of jobs but still fail to make what is needed ...then your behind yearly. Obama was already met with a negative jobs count.

The problem is "Missing Jobs," not "Lost Jobs."

Since January 2001, the economy should have added 7.9 million jobs according to the President's Council of Economic advisors. The prediction line shows what they believed in November 2001, when they thought Bush's tax cut policies would create enough jobs to put the job market back on track before the 2004 election.

The graph below, puts the top graph in more historical context to show that the economy adds jobs rapidly in normal times. As of April 2005 only 0.8 million had been added in 4.25 years (since Bush took office), while in the previous 20 years, which included the Reagan and Bush I recessions, and average of 2.1 million were added per year.

with graphs .. source ..BLS data and spreadsheet.

http://zfacts.com/p/531.html">

Aughts were a lost decade for U.S. economy, workers

there was ZERO net job creation under Bush . Do the math !!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/01/AR2010010101196.html">

Job growth under Bush was worst since WWII

Annual employment-growth rates for all 11 postwar presidents are listed below:
Total employment
1. Lyndon Johnson (1963-69), 3.74%
2. Jimmy Carter (1977-81), 3.11%
3. Bill Clinton (1993-2001), 2.42%
4. Harry Truman (1945-53), 2.38%
5. Richard Nixon (1969-74), 2.30%
6. John Kennedy (1961-63), 2.28%
7. Ronald Reagan (1981-89), 2.04%
8. Gerald Ford (1974-77), 0.95%
9. Dwight Eisenhower (1953-61), 0.87%
10. George H.W. Bush (1989-93), 0.59%
11. George W. Bush (2001-09), 0.28%

http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/stories/2009/01/19/daily7.html">

that means Obama inherited not only the economic crap but a sliding unemployment that Bush couldn't and didn't meet. swallow hard cons. alot of this pie is your doing.

now let's look at Obama's numbers without adding Bushs' losses .

http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-jobs-lost-in-the-bush-and-obama-administration-2010-2

Ron Brownstein published a paragraph this week that actually seemed hard to believe: "If the economy produces jobs over the next eight months at the same pace as it did over the past four months, the nation will have created more jobs in 2010 alone than it did over the entire eight years of George W. Bush's presidency."

Indeed, it went largely ignored at the time, but the Republican Bush/Cheney ticket sought a second term in 2004 despite the fact that it was the first administration in the modern era to go four years with a net job growth of zero. The campaign was largely about national security, so voters overlooked this painful detail.

And so it creates the dynamic that Brownstein describes. If job growth holds steady the rest of this year -- by no means a certainty, of course -- the U.S. economy will create a net gain of about 1.7 million jobs. From start to finish, the net gain under Bush was about 1 million.

The Obama presidency, of course, will have a long way to go before it can start talking about a net gain. It inherited an economy in freefall, and over 4 million jobs were lost in 2009 alone. Making up that kind of lost ground will take quite a long time, though the stimulus has obviously helped get us back on track.

But in some ways, that only helps make the Bush comparison worse -- he inherited an economy with a 4% unemployment rate, a huge surplus, and sunny skies ahead. Worse, Bush/Cheney and congressional Republicans got exactly what they wanted in terms of huge tax cuts, but the economic benefits they promised never materialized.

Oddly enough, these same Republicans think the economy will soar if we just return to Bush-era policies and repeat the same mistakes they already made. Why anyone who hasn't suffered trauma would find this credible remains a mystery.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_05/023819.php

Repairing The Job Machine
More jobs might be created this year than during George W. Bush's presidency.

First, the numbers: From February 2001, Bush's first full month in office, through January 2009, his last, total U.S. nonfarm employment grew from 132.5 million to 133.5 million, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That's an increase, obviously, of just 1 million. From January through April of this year, the economy created 573,000 jobs. Over a full year, that projects to 1.72 million jobs. Job-creation numbers are notoriously volatile, so the actual result could run above or below that estimate. But Obama administration economists are increasingly optimistic that job growth this year will exceed expectations. Few of them will be surprised if more jobs are created in 2010 than over Bush's two terms.

Now the principal footnote: To compare job growth in 2010 with Bush's record ignores the nearly 4 million jobs lost in Obama's first year, during the freefall that began in Bush's final months. That's like ignoring a meteor strike. Over time, voters are likely to judge Obama by his degree of success in eliminating that deficit and reducing unemployment. Still, if the economy this year produces more than 1 million jobs -- or, conceivably, more than 2 million -- that will give Democrats more ammunition to argue that their agenda has started to turn the tide.

The real point of looking again at Bush's record is to underscore how few jobs the economy was creating even before the 2008 collapse. Bush's tally of 1 million jobs was much less than the economy had generated during any other two-term stretch since World War II: Dwight Eisenhower produced nearly 4 million, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson (together) almost 16 million, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford (together) 11 million, Ronald Reagan 16 million, and Bill Clinton more than 22 million.

Bush's total, of course, was suppressed by the slowdown he inherited from Clinton and the full-scale meltdown during his last year. But even during the recovery in between, job growth lagged. In only eight of Bush's 96 months did the economy create as many jobs as the 290,000 it did last month. Clinton exceeded that level 33 times. Reagan exceeded it 24. In all, the economy gained about 1.2 million jobs annually during the six years of recovery under Bush. It averaged about twice that during the expansion from March 1991 to February 2001.

This record suggests two conclusions. One is that there's no evidence to support the argument from congressional Republicans that tax cuts offer a silver bullet for expanding employment. Job growth boomed after Reagan cut taxes, but expanded even faster after Clinton raised them, and then faltered despite two massive tax cuts under Bush. If tax rates are the critical factor in that record, the relationship is well disguised.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nj_20100515_5237.php?mrefid=site_search

Employment Situation Summary

Transmission of material in this release is embargoed USDL-10-0886
until 8:30 a.m. (EDT) Friday, July 2, 2010
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

http://www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm

the mexican boarder ?has been out of control since Bush 03. Having family in the military stationed in TX and living in El Paso, and told while bush was in office that the war they would be fighting would be at the boarder !

so it's clueless of you to think Obama is clueless.

Aughts were a lost decade for U.S. economy, workers
For most of the past 70 years, the U.S. economy has grown at a steady clip, generating perpetually higher incomes and wealth for American households. But since 2000, the story is starkly different.

The past decade was the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times, a sharp reversal from a long period of prosperity that is leading economists and policymakers to fundamentally rethink the underpinnings of the nation's growth.

It was, according to a wide range of data, a lost decade for American workers. The decade began in a moment of triumphalism -- there was a current of thought among economists in 1999 that recessions were a thing of the past. By the end, there were two, bookends to a debt-driven expansion that was neither robust nor sustainable.

There has been zero net job creation since December 1999. No previous decade going back to the 1940s had job growth of less than 20 percent. Economic output rose at its slowest rate of any decade since the 1930s as well.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/01/AR2010010101196_2.html

A Lost Decade for Jobs

Posted by: Michael Mandel on June 23

Between May 1999 and May 2009, employment in the private sector sector only rose by 1.1%, by far the lowest 10-year increase in the post-depression period.

It's impossible to overstate how bad this is. Basically speaking, the private sector job machine has almost completely stalled over the past ten years. Over the past 10 years, the private sector has generated roughly 1.1 million additional jobs, or about 100K per year. The public sector created about 2.4 million jobs.

But even that gives the private sector too much credit. Remember that the private sector includes health care, social assistance, and education, all areas which receive a lot of government support.
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2009/06/a_lost_decade_f.html

Job recovery hits a wall
http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/02/news/economy/jobs_june/index.htm?postversion=2010070211

Each president needs to make x amount of jobs per year to keep up with demand. Bush couldn't .... and there is no way Obama will be able too with what he was handed with. It doesn't matter who was elected they wouldn't have been able to make up for the jobs lost numbers Bush racked up ... not in 4 years and probably not in 8. all the while they are falling behind in the x amount of jobs they need to make.

Why when looking at a problem do people waste time playing

1. the blame game,

2. the why isn't he doing anything about it? phase,

3. why don't we just cave in and give the people who are taking advantage of all this infighting and economic struggle, and not helping it, but purposefully making it worse, what they want, then they will stop being bullies and we can all play nice in the sand box.

Why not try playing the

1. I am strong, confident, stand on my own two feet beautiful. I don't have to be an American if I don't want to be, but there is something to the way those Americans think. They fend for themselves. If one of them was stranded, they would be able to survive until they united with their group again. I like the idea of being able to really choose if I want pink, white, blue, green, black, and yellow. Or maybe I really do want them all. And guess what? Americans say if you want them all, and you are willing to work for them all, then you can have them all. And no one has the right to take or steal them from you, once they are yours. Not your family, not your enemies, not your government. No one.

2. My government is not going to do anything to make this worse or better for either side, so what can I do in my community to make it better? Deep down we all want to live in peace and happiness with tolerance and respect of persons embraced. My government has promised over and over to give me these things, but they only give me what they believe I deserve. My government has it all, why can't I have it all? I want my home to be happy, I want to walk down the streets without worrying about being watched, or wondering what form of insanity I may encounter. I deserve these things as much as the next person. But I am the only one who can give these things to myself. If I want the things around me to change, I have to change the things in my life. It really is all about me. And it really is all about you, too.

3. Giving into the demand's of others is not the true pursuit of happiness. This only serves to place a glass ceiling above your head, that the person holding the glass can push down onto your face, suffocating all real breath leaving and entering your body. Knowing who you are, and treating yourself with respect is the best example a person can receive in how to treat you. Others will treat you, the way you treat yourself. In the case of bullies, you just need to stand your ground. Bullies are really more insecure than their victims. They see something in their victims' that they either like and do not have, or that they have and do not like. In any event, bullying is more personal to the perpetrator. No one has the right to threaten, intimidate, or manipulate another human being to get what they want. The true change that everyone is craving comes from within....it is a spiritual change. That is something you cannot steal.