Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I though you'd be celebrating instead of whining....
"Government job cuts led March's surge....""......accounting for nearly 75% of the total jobs shed"
Guess you don't want smaller government (or bother read the all of the details in the article).
Federal government jobs are up, it's the state and local jobs are suffering.
Federal jobs are inherently less efficient, being centralized and abstracted from small town USA, so I'm always happy if there's huge layoffs in the Federal sector, which is coming...
planning and doing are not the same. but i hear you, for sure a country cant run on credit forever.
this story has an ending--- at some point the waiter comes over to your table with the bill, no matter how much you order during the meal and no matter how happy he is about it, he and the owner are guna come over when it gets late to collect. in this case its genghis kahn.
deadbeat nation.
bill cosby for president
cash and carry is needed.
Haha!!! The left can't think of anything else for their failed predictions, so they have to fall back to "you want the country to suffer?" nonsense.
Oh, failed predictions eh?
That must be why:
1) Job losses in February were the lowest level in nearly four years. Hear THAT? - 4 YEARS!
2) March job cuts were down 55% from the same month a year ago, when 150,411 cuts were announced.
3) In the first quarter of 2010, a total of 181,183 job cuts were announced, the lowest first quarter total since 2000 and down 69% from the first quarter of 2009. Let me repeat that - and remember, this is from YOUR LINK: "In the first quarter of 2010, a total of 181,183 job cuts were announced, the lowest first quarter total since 2000". This means that the job losses announced THIS quarter are LOWER than those of the same quarter of EVERY SINGLE YEAR of Bush's 2 terms - LOWER than those of the same quarter or EVERY SINGLE YEAR of Bush's 2 terms.
The fact is, job losses take place EVERY SINGLE MONTH - even when the economy is booming. What's important is how many job losses there are in relation to how many jobs are created - and at this point we're on the verge of FINALLY (after losing net jobs for WELL over 2 years) creating more jobs each month than we lose.
And THAT is GOOD NEWS.
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 04-01-2010 at 11:30 AM..
1) Job losses in February were the lowest level in nearly four years. Hear THAT? - 4 YEARS!
2) March job cuts were down 55% from the same month a year ago, when 150,411 cuts were announced.
3) In the first quarter of 2010, a total of 181,183 job cuts were announced, the lowest first quarter total since 2000 and down 69% from the first quarter of 2009. Let me repeat that - and remember, this is from YOUR LINK: In the first quarter of 2010, a total of 181,183 job cuts were announced, the lowest first quarter total since 2000
The fact is, job losses take place EVERY SINGLE MONTH - even when the economy is booming. What's important is how many job losses there are in relation to how many jobs are created - and at this point we're on the verge of FINALLY (after losing net jobs for WELL over 2 years) creating more jobs each month than we lose.
And THAT is GOOD NEWS.
Ken
Ken
Ken Ken,
So, if you take out federal government jobs from the equation, how do the numbers look?
Haha!!! The left can't think of anything else for their failed predictions, so they have to fall back to "you want the country to suffer?" nonsense.
You respond with laughing, smiling faces, and thumbs up when discussing the dismal state of the US economy and high unemployment, and it's nonsense to suggest that you are taking pleasure in this??? Pray tell. Your hatred for Obama is greater than your concern for the economy of the USA. If you can at least admit that, we can have some meaningful discourse.
So, if you take out federal government jobs from the equation, how do the numbers look?
Well, considering that these were JOB LOSSES and that the bulk of those JOB LOSSES were Government jobs - probably pretty darned good.
DUH.
Again, I repeat:
In the first quarter of 2010, a total of 181,183 job cuts were announced, the lowest first quarter total since 2000 and down 69% from the first quarter of 2009. Let me repeat that - and remember, this is from YOUR LINK: "In the first quarter of 2010, a total of 181,183 job cuts were announced, the lowest first quarter total since 2000". This means that the job losses announced THIS quarter are LOWER than those of the same quarter of EVERY SINGLE YEAR of Bush's 2 terms - LOWER than those of the same quarter or EVERY SINGLE YEAR of Bush's 2 terms.
Ken
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"......accounting for nearly 75% of the total jobs shed"
You are a bigger racist than you are a patriot
