Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Bill USA
Bill USA's Journal
Bill USA's Journal
May 10, 2013
So, Bill Clinton says that I’m right in the short run while Simpson-Bowles are right in the long run; he’s half right. But what’s interesting is to see the Peterson juggernaut still rolling along despite the enormous intellectual hit the cause has received.
And there are some truly disturbing things about the double standards still applied to Peterson-backed deficit scoldery.
Ezra Klein noted a while back that reporters don’t think the usual rules about even trying to seem neutral don’t apply when the deficit scolds are concerned, that
Something a bit similar is taking place when it comes to the role of colleges in nurturing the deficit scolds of tomorrow. Alec MacGillis reports on the lavish rewards for college students participating in It’s Up To Us, yet another tentacle of the deficit-scold octopus, this time mobilizing the young. If you read the front organization’s site, it seems to imply that universities — not just individual student organizations — are involved, and my understanding is that it looks that way at some of the schools too; in effect, political advocacy is being masked as general public service, because of course promoting Simpson-Bowles is the patriotic thing to do, right?
Austerity mania, it turns out, isn’t just a disaster on intellectual and policy grounds; it has also turned into an ethical morass.
The Fix the Debt Fix Is Still In - Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/08/the-fix-the-debt-fix-is-still-in/So, Bill Clinton says that I’m right in the short run while Simpson-Bowles are right in the long run; he’s half right. But what’s interesting is to see the Peterson juggernaut still rolling along despite the enormous intellectual hit the cause has received.
And there are some truly disturbing things about the double standards still applied to Peterson-backed deficit scoldery.
Ezra Klein noted a while back that reporters don’t think the usual rules about even trying to seem neutral don’t apply when the deficit scolds are concerned, that
On this one issue, reporters are permitted to openly cheer a particular set of highly controversial policy solutions.
Something a bit similar is taking place when it comes to the role of colleges in nurturing the deficit scolds of tomorrow. Alec MacGillis reports on the lavish rewards for college students participating in It’s Up To Us, yet another tentacle of the deficit-scold octopus, this time mobilizing the young. If you read the front organization’s site, it seems to imply that universities — not just individual student organizations — are involved, and my understanding is that it looks that way at some of the schools too; in effect, political advocacy is being masked as general public service, because of course promoting Simpson-Bowles is the patriotic thing to do, right?
Austerity mania, it turns out, isn’t just a disaster on intellectual and policy grounds; it has also turned into an ethical morass.
May 9, 2013
Pat Toomey: Background Checks Died Because GOP Didn't Want To Help Obama - HuffPo
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/01/pat-toomey-background-checks_n_3192690.html?1367420344
Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) revealed that some members of his party opposed expanding background checks for gun sales recently because they didn't want to "be seen helping the president."
Two weeks ago, only three Republican senators voted for the bipartisan background checks amendment sponsored by Toomey and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), despite overwhelming popular support for such a measure.
"In the end it didn’t pass because we're so politicized. There were some on my side who did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done, just because the president wanted to do it,” Toomey admitted on Tuesday in an interview with Digital First Media editors in the offices of the Times Herald newspaper in Norristown, Pa.
Sen Toomey - some GOPers voted against Back-ground checks just because Obama was FOR IT
Pat Toomey: Background Checks Died Because GOP Didn't Want To Help Obama - HuffPo
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/01/pat-toomey-background-checks_n_3192690.html?1367420344
Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) revealed that some members of his party opposed expanding background checks for gun sales recently because they didn't want to "be seen helping the president."
Two weeks ago, only three Republican senators voted for the bipartisan background checks amendment sponsored by Toomey and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), despite overwhelming popular support for such a measure.
"In the end it didn’t pass because we're so politicized. There were some on my side who did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done, just because the president wanted to do it,” Toomey admitted on Tuesday in an interview with Digital First Media editors in the offices of the Times Herald newspaper in Norristown, Pa.
May 9, 2013
Jon Stewart on the Great Benghazi Cover-Up (video) - AmericaBlog
(all emphases my own)
http://americablog.com/2013/05/jon-stewart-on-the-great-benghazi-cover-up-video.html
[font size="3"]Jon Stewart covers the Republican hearings on Benghazi – nine to date – and how none of them have yet to produce a smoking gun.
....during the Bush administration, there were 54 attacks on diplomatic targets, that killed 13 Americans, yet garnered only 3 hearings on embassy security, and zero outrage on Fox.
[font size="3"]But in response to the Obama administration's last three funding requests for the State Department (including for increased security measures) Republicans cut every one.....[/font]
Dana Milbank - WaPo
(all emphases my own)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-forget-about-big-bird/2012/10/09/5f9a411c-1258-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_story.html
[font size="+1"]For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion [font color="red"]for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program[/font] [/font][font size="3"]— well below the $2.15?billion requested by the Obama administration. [/font][font size="+1"]House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012.[/font] (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.[/font]
[font size="3"]
Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.[/font]
Secretary Clinton: House Republican budget cuts will endanger national security - 2/14/2011
(all emphases my own)
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday afternoon that the spending levels outlined by House Republicans late last week for the remainder of the fiscal year would endanger the country's national security.
GOP cut Obama administration's request 4 State Department's Worldwide Security program 2011, 2012 &
... 2013!Jon Stewart on the Great Benghazi Cover-Up (video) - AmericaBlog
(all emphases my own)
http://americablog.com/2013/05/jon-stewart-on-the-great-benghazi-cover-up-video.html
[font size="3"]Jon Stewart covers the Republican hearings on Benghazi – nine to date – and how none of them have yet to produce a smoking gun.
....during the Bush administration, there were 54 attacks on diplomatic targets, that killed 13 Americans, yet garnered only 3 hearings on embassy security, and zero outrage on Fox.
[font size="3"]But in response to the Obama administration's last three funding requests for the State Department (including for increased security measures) Republicans cut every one.....[/font]
Dana Milbank - WaPo
(all emphases my own)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-forget-about-big-bird/2012/10/09/5f9a411c-1258-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_story.html
[font size="+1"]For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion [font color="red"]for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program[/font] [/font][font size="3"]— well below the $2.15?billion requested by the Obama administration. [/font][font size="+1"]House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012.[/font] (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.[/font]
[font size="3"]
Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.[/font]
Secretary Clinton: House Republican budget cuts will endanger national security - 2/14/2011
(all emphases my own)
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday afternoon that the spending levels outlined by House Republicans late last week for the remainder of the fiscal year would endanger the country's national security.
May 7, 2013
better performance ... e.g better fuel efficiency.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/04/epatier3hof-20130403.html
As part of the proposed Tier 3 rulemaking on vehicle emissions and gasoline sulfur content released last week (earlier post), the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to allow vehicle manufacturers to request approval for an alternative certification fuel—such as a high-octane 30% ethanol by volume (E30) blend—for vehicles they might design or optimize for use on such a fuel.
Higher octane fuels can lead to higher compression ratios which in turn can lead to more efficient gasoline engines and reduced fuel consumption. With turbocharged gasoline engines, there is a double benefit: higher compression ratios and increased boost. (Earlier post.) Having approval for such a high octane certification fuel would, the EPA proposed in the Tier 3 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:
(more)
Squeezing More From Ethanol - NYT
(emphases my own)
Tucked inside the E.P.A.’s March announcement of a plan to cut the amount of sulfur allowed in gasoline was an audacious suggestion that sought to solve all three ethanol challenges at once. The proposal, for a fuel that is 30 percent ethanol, could reduce tailpipe emissions and improve fuel economy — and even encourage drivers to use more ethanol.
~~
The idea has widespread support among technical experts.
~~
~~
...various engine and fuel experts like the idea, because the E.P.A. is inviting the auto companies to take advantage of the good characteristics of ethanol, including an octane rating that is well over 100.
“That’s getting smarter,” said Margaret Wooldridge, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Michigan. The way ethanol is used now, she said, “if anybody does notice there’s any ethanol in the fuel, it’s always in a way that is negative.”
(more)
"The idea has widespread support among technical experts." ...REALLY?? YOu wouldn't have known there was any advantages to ethanol to listen and read almost everything said and printed about ethanol over the last ten years or so!
EPA proposing E30 Ethanol blend to enable auto makers to produce higher compression engines for
better performance ... e.g better fuel efficiency.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/04/epatier3hof-20130403.html
As part of the proposed Tier 3 rulemaking on vehicle emissions and gasoline sulfur content released last week (earlier post), the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to allow vehicle manufacturers to request approval for an alternative certification fuel—such as a high-octane 30% ethanol by volume (E30) blend—for vehicles they might design or optimize for use on such a fuel.
Higher octane fuels can lead to higher compression ratios which in turn can lead to more efficient gasoline engines and reduced fuel consumption. With turbocharged gasoline engines, there is a double benefit: higher compression ratios and increased boost. (Earlier post.) Having approval for such a high octane certification fuel would, the EPA proposed in the Tier 3 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:
...help manufacturers that wish to raise compression ratios to improve vehicle efficiency, as a step toward complying with the 2017 and later light-duty greenhouse gas and CAFE standards (2017 LD GHG). This in turn could help provide a market incentive to increase ethanol use beyond E10 by overcoming the disincentive of lower fuel economy associated with increasing ethanol concentrations in fuel, and enhance the environmental performance of ethanol as a transportation fuel by using it to enable more fuel efficient engines.
(more)
Squeezing More From Ethanol - NYT
(emphases my own)
Tucked inside the E.P.A.’s March announcement of a plan to cut the amount of sulfur allowed in gasoline was an audacious suggestion that sought to solve all three ethanol challenges at once. The proposal, for a fuel that is 30 percent ethanol, could reduce tailpipe emissions and improve fuel economy — and even encourage drivers to use more ethanol.
~~
The idea has widespread support among technical experts.
~~
~~
...various engine and fuel experts like the idea, because the E.P.A. is inviting the auto companies to take advantage of the good characteristics of ethanol, including an octane rating that is well over 100.
“That’s getting smarter,” said Margaret Wooldridge, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Michigan. The way ethanol is used now, she said, “if anybody does notice there’s any ethanol in the fuel, it’s always in a way that is negative.”
(more)
"The idea has widespread support among technical experts." ...REALLY?? YOu wouldn't have known there was any advantages to ethanol to listen and read almost everything said and printed about ethanol over the last ten years or so!
May 5, 2013
The Excel Depression - Krugman's article re Rogoff and Reinhadt's fraudulent 'study'
... I first posted on GRs. But it belongs here with equal justification:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101661768
May 5, 2013
The Hollowing out of Government - Robert Reich
[font size="3"] Sabotaging Community Responsibility (i.e. Government) from within: the Republican M/O .. in the service of the Plutocrats.[/font]
http://www.nationofchange.org/hollowing-out-government-1367763364
[div class="excerpt" style="border: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.9615em; background-color:#ffffff; box-shadow: 0px 0px 46px #999999;"]
The West, Texas chemical and fertilizer plant where at least 15 were killed and more than 200 injured a few weeks ago hadn’t been fully inspected by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration since 1985. (A partial inspection in 2011 had resulted in $5,250 in fines.)
OSHA and its state partners have a total of 2,200 inspectors charged with ensuring the safety of over more than 8 million workplaces employing 130 million workers. That comes to about one inspector for every 59,000 American workers.
There’s no way it can do its job with so few resources, but OSHA has been systematically hollowed out for the years under Republican administrations and congresses that have despised the agency since its inception.
In effect, much of our nation’s worker safety laws and rules have been quietly repealed because there aren’t enough inspectors to enforce them.
That’s been the Republican strategy in general: When they can’t directly repeal laws they don’t like, they repeal them indirectly by hollowing them out — denying funds to fully implement them, and reducing funds to enforce them.
(more)
May 4, 2013
For the past few years, the U.S. political system has been inundated with calls for deficit reduction. Yet since January 2011, projected non-interest spending over fiscal 2013–2022 has been cut by $2.4 trillion and projected revenue has been raised by $617 billion, relative to the August 2010 policy baseline (Murray 2013).1 With interest savings, this will result in $3.6 trillion worth of deficit reduction if sequestration remains in effect. Despite these large policy-induced deficit reductions, there have been repeated calls insisting that more deficit reduction be achieved in the coming decade.
Ten-year deficit reduction targets have proliferated, and even the Obama administration has frequently highlighted the alleged need to undertake roughly $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction in the next 10 years (Wasson 2013).2 These targets convey the message that policymakers should enact policy changes adding up to specific amounts of deficit savings over 10 years, with the simple level of the target itself being the most important policy variable.
This report argues that these 10-year deficit reduction targets are bad economics and will likely lead to poor policy decisions. It begins by explaining why a better goal is to stabilize the debt ratio—public debt as a share of gross domestic product (GDP)—once the economy returns much closer to full employment. The paper then buttresses this argument by analyzing why 10-year deficit reduction targets would be so dangerous in present circumstances. It concludes by charting a better path toward fiscal sustainability over both the short term and long term.
Principal findings include:
<> Normally sensible fiscal policy rules—such as stabilizing the debt ratio during normal economic times—do not apply to the U.S. economy today, as the economy is abnormally weak and has been for more than five years.
<> The impact of deficit reduction on the economy—and thus on the debt ratio—is heavily influenced by the types of policies used to achieve these reductions. Particularly, spending cuts in this economic environment tend to increase the debt ratio, while tax increases are the only policies that reduce the debt ratio.
<> If aggressive 10-year deficit reduction targets lead policymakers to enact premature spending cuts, the cuts would likely weaken the economy to the point that the debt ratio actually increases.
<> A 10-year, overall deficit reduction target requires any upfront economic stimulus be paid for with larger deficit reductions later in the budget window. But deficit-financed stimulus in the near term actually does not make debt stabilization more difficult to achieve later in the budget window—and might actually make it easier.
<> In the long run, the best way to achieve debt stabilization in a manner that boosts, rather than reduces, future living standards is to invest in economic growth, restore tax fairness, and reform health care. These sorts of intelligent reforms are vastly preferable to meeting deficit reduction targets through an arbitrary mix of spending cuts and increased taxes.
(more)
Why setting a specific deficit reduction target would worsen the economic and fiscal situation
http://www.epi.org/publication/ib355-deficit-reduction-targets/For the past few years, the U.S. political system has been inundated with calls for deficit reduction. Yet since January 2011, projected non-interest spending over fiscal 2013–2022 has been cut by $2.4 trillion and projected revenue has been raised by $617 billion, relative to the August 2010 policy baseline (Murray 2013).1 With interest savings, this will result in $3.6 trillion worth of deficit reduction if sequestration remains in effect. Despite these large policy-induced deficit reductions, there have been repeated calls insisting that more deficit reduction be achieved in the coming decade.
Ten-year deficit reduction targets have proliferated, and even the Obama administration has frequently highlighted the alleged need to undertake roughly $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction in the next 10 years (Wasson 2013).2 These targets convey the message that policymakers should enact policy changes adding up to specific amounts of deficit savings over 10 years, with the simple level of the target itself being the most important policy variable.
This report argues that these 10-year deficit reduction targets are bad economics and will likely lead to poor policy decisions. It begins by explaining why a better goal is to stabilize the debt ratio—public debt as a share of gross domestic product (GDP)—once the economy returns much closer to full employment. The paper then buttresses this argument by analyzing why 10-year deficit reduction targets would be so dangerous in present circumstances. It concludes by charting a better path toward fiscal sustainability over both the short term and long term.
Principal findings include:
<> Normally sensible fiscal policy rules—such as stabilizing the debt ratio during normal economic times—do not apply to the U.S. economy today, as the economy is abnormally weak and has been for more than five years.
<> The impact of deficit reduction on the economy—and thus on the debt ratio—is heavily influenced by the types of policies used to achieve these reductions. Particularly, spending cuts in this economic environment tend to increase the debt ratio, while tax increases are the only policies that reduce the debt ratio.
<> If aggressive 10-year deficit reduction targets lead policymakers to enact premature spending cuts, the cuts would likely weaken the economy to the point that the debt ratio actually increases.
<> A 10-year, overall deficit reduction target requires any upfront economic stimulus be paid for with larger deficit reductions later in the budget window. But deficit-financed stimulus in the near term actually does not make debt stabilization more difficult to achieve later in the budget window—and might actually make it easier.
<> In the long run, the best way to achieve debt stabilization in a manner that boosts, rather than reduces, future living standards is to invest in economic growth, restore tax fairness, and reform health care. These sorts of intelligent reforms are vastly preferable to meeting deficit reduction targets through an arbitrary mix of spending cuts and increased taxes.
(more)
May 4, 2013
For the past few years, the U.S. political system has been inundated with calls for deficit reduction. Yet since January 2011, projected non-interest spending over fiscal 2013–2022 has been cut by $2.4 trillion and projected revenue has been raised by $617 billion, relative to the August 2010 policy baseline (Murray 2013).1 With interest savings, this will result in $3.6 trillion worth of deficit reduction if sequestration remains in effect. Despite these large policy-induced deficit reductions, there have been repeated calls insisting that more deficit reduction be achieved in the coming decade.
Ten-year deficit reduction targets have proliferated, and even the Obama administration has frequently highlighted the alleged need to undertake roughly $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction in the next 10 years (Wasson 2013).2 These targets convey the message that policymakers should enact policy changes adding up to specific amounts of deficit savings over 10 years, with the simple level of the target itself being the most important policy variable.
This report argues that these 10-year deficit reduction targets are bad economics and will likely lead to poor policy decisions. It begins by explaining why a better goal is to stabilize the debt ratio—public debt as a share of gross domestic product (GDP)—once the economy returns much closer to full employment. The paper then buttresses this argument by analyzing why 10-year deficit reduction targets would be so dangerous in present circumstances. It concludes by charting a better path toward fiscal sustainability over both the short term and long term.
Principal findings include:
<> Normally sensible fiscal policy rules—such as stabilizing the debt ratio during normal economic times—do not apply to the U.S. economy today, as the economy is abnormally weak and has been for more than five years.
<> The impact of deficit reduction on the economy—and thus on the debt ratio—is heavily influenced by the types of policies used to achieve these reductions. Particularly, spending cuts in this economic environment tend to increase the debt ratio, while tax increases are the only policies that reduce the debt ratio.
<> If aggressive 10-year deficit reduction targets lead policymakers to enact premature spending cuts, the cuts would likely weaken the economy to the point that the debt ratio actually increases.
<> A 10-year, overall deficit reduction target requires any upfront economic stimulus be paid for with larger deficit reductions later in the budget window. But deficit-financed stimulus in the near term actually does not make debt stabilization more difficult to achieve later in the budget window—and might actually make it easier.
<> In the long run, the best way to achieve debt stabilization in a manner that boosts, rather than reduces, future living standards is to invest in economic growth, restore tax fairness, and reform health care. These sorts of intelligent reforms are vastly preferable to meeting deficit reduction targets through an arbitrary mix of spending cuts and increased taxes.
(more)
Why setting a specific deficit reduction target would worsen the economic and fiscal situation
http://www.epi.org/publication/ib355-deficit-reduction-targets/For the past few years, the U.S. political system has been inundated with calls for deficit reduction. Yet since January 2011, projected non-interest spending over fiscal 2013–2022 has been cut by $2.4 trillion and projected revenue has been raised by $617 billion, relative to the August 2010 policy baseline (Murray 2013).1 With interest savings, this will result in $3.6 trillion worth of deficit reduction if sequestration remains in effect. Despite these large policy-induced deficit reductions, there have been repeated calls insisting that more deficit reduction be achieved in the coming decade.
Ten-year deficit reduction targets have proliferated, and even the Obama administration has frequently highlighted the alleged need to undertake roughly $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction in the next 10 years (Wasson 2013).2 These targets convey the message that policymakers should enact policy changes adding up to specific amounts of deficit savings over 10 years, with the simple level of the target itself being the most important policy variable.
This report argues that these 10-year deficit reduction targets are bad economics and will likely lead to poor policy decisions. It begins by explaining why a better goal is to stabilize the debt ratio—public debt as a share of gross domestic product (GDP)—once the economy returns much closer to full employment. The paper then buttresses this argument by analyzing why 10-year deficit reduction targets would be so dangerous in present circumstances. It concludes by charting a better path toward fiscal sustainability over both the short term and long term.
Principal findings include:
<> Normally sensible fiscal policy rules—such as stabilizing the debt ratio during normal economic times—do not apply to the U.S. economy today, as the economy is abnormally weak and has been for more than five years.
<> The impact of deficit reduction on the economy—and thus on the debt ratio—is heavily influenced by the types of policies used to achieve these reductions. Particularly, spending cuts in this economic environment tend to increase the debt ratio, while tax increases are the only policies that reduce the debt ratio.
<> If aggressive 10-year deficit reduction targets lead policymakers to enact premature spending cuts, the cuts would likely weaken the economy to the point that the debt ratio actually increases.
<> A 10-year, overall deficit reduction target requires any upfront economic stimulus be paid for with larger deficit reductions later in the budget window. But deficit-financed stimulus in the near term actually does not make debt stabilization more difficult to achieve later in the budget window—and might actually make it easier.
<> In the long run, the best way to achieve debt stabilization in a manner that boosts, rather than reduces, future living standards is to invest in economic growth, restore tax fairness, and reform health care. These sorts of intelligent reforms are vastly preferable to meeting deficit reduction targets through an arbitrary mix of spending cuts and increased taxes.
(more)
May 3, 2013
WASHINGTON — The U.S. economy showed last month why it remains the envy of industrialized nations: In the face of tax increases and federal spending cuts, employers added a solid 165,000 jobs in April — and far more in February and March than anyone thought.
The job growth in April drove down the unemployment rate to a four-year low of 7.5 percent and sent a reassuring sign that the U.S. job market is improving. Coming after a poor jobs report for March, the figures the government issued Friday helped ease fears that U.S. hiring might be slumping this spring for a fourth straight year.
The Labor Department revised up its estimate of job gains in February and March by a combined 114,000. It now says employers added 332,000 jobs in February and 138,000 in March. The economy has created an average of 208,000 jobs a month from November through April — above the 138,000 added in the previous six months.
“This is a good report,” said John Silvia, chief economist at Wells Fargo. “There’s a lot of strength... It’s good for the economy. It’s good for people’s income.”
(motr)
there will be gnashing of teeth and rending of garments in GOP lounges: Unemployment rate at 7.5%
The Unemployment rate for April dropped to 7.5%, a four year low.... there will be much gnashing of teeth and rending of garments in Republican salons across D.C. Oh my, what to do? what to do? They've succeeded in forcing cuts to Government programs just when economic stimulus is needed to climb out of their Trickle Down Deregulation disaster. They've gotten cuts to Government programs by threatening a government shutdown, Government default of our debt and threatening to end extended unemployment insurance benefits - without MORE cuts to social programs. They've thus managed to scare businessmen into being afraid to hire back full-time permanent workers (not knowing how far the Republicans will go to sabotage any Obama/Democrat crafted recovery) and instead businesses have relied heavily on contract workers and heavy use of over-time which helps keep the unemployment rate higher.
What's a good Republican insurgent to do!? The economy is growing inspite of all their recovery killing efforts. Well, I guess they'll have to be satisfied with the fact that they have slowed the recovery down by a few years - creating this current Republican Economic Dystopia of lethargic recovery to their TRICKLE DOWN DISASTER. Maybe they can be satisfied with the fact that in addition to restricting growth and keeping the unemployment rate high, the concentration of wealth in the hands of the wealthiest few percent has become even worse during this Republican Dystopia. So at least they can count on more Super-PAC contributions .. and independent campaign ads (i.e. Big Lies) in the future!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/april-jobs-report-will-show-whether-employers-remain-cautious-about-stepping-up-hiring/2013/05/03/c84315aa-b3a6-11e2-9fb1-62de9581c946_story.html
WASHINGTON — The U.S. economy showed last month why it remains the envy of industrialized nations: In the face of tax increases and federal spending cuts, employers added a solid 165,000 jobs in April — and far more in February and March than anyone thought.
The job growth in April drove down the unemployment rate to a four-year low of 7.5 percent and sent a reassuring sign that the U.S. job market is improving. Coming after a poor jobs report for March, the figures the government issued Friday helped ease fears that U.S. hiring might be slumping this spring for a fourth straight year.
The Labor Department revised up its estimate of job gains in February and March by a combined 114,000. It now says employers added 332,000 jobs in February and 138,000 in March. The economy has created an average of 208,000 jobs a month from November through April — above the 138,000 added in the previous six months.
“This is a good report,” said John Silvia, chief economist at Wells Fargo. “There’s a lot of strength... It’s good for the economy. It’s good for people’s income.”
(motr)
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Mar 3, 2010, 05:25 PMNumber of posts: 6,436
