The so called " Jobs Plan" from the White House

The President previously spent $900 Billion in Stimulus money to help the economy and it didn't produce any real results, so explain to me how spending on a "jobs plan" the White House estimates at $447 billion will be any different ???

The new plan calls for construction jobs, teachers, police, etc to get more $$$ which all went for naught last time, so how will this not be a stupendous failure like last time??

This is more of the same from the White House and not an answer to how regular Americans will see "real jobs" as we progress forward....

Shame on those who believe that the "Jobs Plan" will make a single bit of difference in the economy other than deepening the debt we find ourselves in. To help Americans, we need real jobs, not ones ginned up in an effort to get the President re-elected, something he DOES NOT deserve as he has been an utter failure, as predicted. He was the wrong person for the job then, and he is the wrong person for the job now.

The only thing the "Jobs Plan" from the President is trying to create is a 2nd term for himself.

Profits Rise, but Unemployed Ranks Don’t Shrink

And the HITS just keep on coming.....

The numbers tell the tale....the economy has shedded jobs and regardless of what the present Adminstration says, things have NOT gotten any better after trillions of dollars spent in "pet projects" for the DEMS and all their buddies. The recent numbers stated that the economy added 54000 jobs last month - over half of that increase was from one company, McDonalds.

The net effect of the stimulus is ZERO.....the number of people employed is flat which basically means if you fell out of work, you went on unemployment but then went off unemployment and weren't counted any more.... Unemployment is at 9.1% and not going anywhere but slightly up...

This is especially true for those who are in the 50+ age range....why pay for the experience and knowledge of a worker who has been doing the job for 20 years if you can bring in a few youngsters for half as much??

This doesn't seem to upset the President as he feels he is worthy of a 2nd term....the millions of people who lost homes and jobs over the last two+ years might feel differently along with all the families who have to pay for oil & gas at almost double what is was when the feckless idiot took on the Presidency...

Look at the basic state of the economy and make your own call....If the Head executive of your company ran your company as the President operates, how long before he would be sent packing???

" Profits Rise, but Unemployed Ranks Don’t Shrink " - Say no more as that headline says it all.


Number of the Week: Profits Rise, but Unemployed Ranks Don’t Shrink
By Mark Whitehouse - Wall Street Journal

58.4%: Percentage of U.S. population employed

Nearly two years into the economic recovery, the U.S. has made troublingly little headway in putting people back to work. If the animal spirits needed to create jobs don’t return, the country could soon be facing a renewed crisis.

Even as private businesses have added hundreds of thousands of jobs, the percentage of the population gainfully employed has hardly budged. As of May, it stood at 58.4%, a percentage point lower than at the bottom of the recession in mid-2009. That compares to a peak of 62.7% in December 2007.

The discrepancy reflects a number of problematic trends. The average rate of job creation in recent months isn’t much more that what’s needed to offset population growth. A lot of people have given up on finding jobs, and so aren’t included in the official count of the unemployed. The aging of the population also means more old folks out of the work force.

This isn’t a problem only for people without jobs. The smaller the share of the population employed, the smaller the economy’s potential to lift living standards through productivity gains. Indeed, productivity — companies’ ability to keep squeezing more production out of each hour worked — is transformed from the prime driver of prosperity into a force keeping people out of work. Profits rise, but the ranks of the unemployed don’t shrink.

If companies don’t start hiring more and soon, how do we get out of this? The economist’s traditional toolkit has little to offer beyond the advice of John Maynard Keynes: Use government spending to get people back to work. Despite the political opposition to stimulus, we could be back at a point where it’s worth trying — but it wouldn’t be advisable until or unless the government comes up with a plan to get its long-term finances in order.

The work of another dead economist, David Ricardo, suggests tax breaks won’t help much. In a world where people know the government will ultimately have to raise taxes to pay its debts, they aren’t likely to spend much of the windfall. Here, too, getting the government’s long-term debt under control is a prerequisite.

Here’s hoping we’ll have the political will to do what it takes.

This is NOT GOOD - U.S. Won’t Recover Lost Jobs Until March 2020

OK, this is the kind of news that makes me go, Whisky Tango Foxtrot??

Think about the idea that it will take TEN YEARS for our economy to recover all the jobs we lost in the last recession - TEN YEARS - that's 120 months.

For the poor guy who is laid off or others looking for jobs, this is catastrophic. The news that the banks were "robo-forclosing" and that one woman who was at a Bank who was responsible for processing foreclosures signed over 6000 in one month (a logistical impossibility unless you didn't care to read them), this shows the true depths to which things have sunk. The Banks ginned up the system, took money for recoevry and played the system...not that all who had mortgages should have ever been given one but a lot of good people lost their homes...many through no fault other than they got laid off.

When your neighbor loses his job, it's a recession - When you lose your job, it's a depression. When we see that it will take TEN YEARS for the economy to fully recover, we all say the economy is FUBAR

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Won’t Recover Lost Jobs Until March 2020 At Current Pace
By Ed Carson - Investors Business Daily
Fri., Oct. 08, 2010

The U.S. economy lost 95,000 jobs in September, far worse than expectations for no change in employment. More Census-related temp jobs ended, as expected, but state and local governments slashed staff far more than predicted.

So far in 2010, the U.S. has added just 613,000 jobs — for a monthly average of 68,111.

Employment bottomed in December 2009 at 129.588 million — two years after peaking at 137.951 million. At this year’s pace, the U.S. won’t recoup all those 8.36 million lost jobs* until March 2020 — 147 months after the December 2007 high.

That would obliterate the old post-World War II record of 47 months set in the wake of the 2001 recession.

The current jobs slump also is the deepest of any in the post-war era, with payrolls down as much as 6.1%. They are still 5.6% below their December 2007 level.

With state and local governments likely to shed workers for at least the next year or two as budget woes continue, the hiring burden will fall entirely on the private sector.

Private employers did add 64,000 workers last month, but that was a little less than consensus forecasts and far below what’s needed.

The U.S. needs to create 125,000-150,000 jobs each month just to absorb new workers and prevent unemployment from rising. So returning to the old peak employment a decade later would hardly suggest a healthy labor market.

(Unemployment held at 9.6% last month as the separate household employment survey reported an increase in jobs. But the underemployment rate rose 0.4 point to 17.1%, matching the 2010 high.)

The bottom line: It’s quite possible that the next recession will hit before the U.S. returns to old employment highs.

*The Labor Department said employers may have cut 366,000 jobs more than previously reported in the year through March 2010. A final estimate will be issued in February. That suggests job losses were deeper than expected in 2009 and/or early 2010 hiring was weaker than previously expected. Both would suggest an even-longer return to full employment