Are democrats dumb enough to believe that 345,000 lost jobs is a GOOD thing?

Well Walmart is just evil. Everyone knows it. Those jerks hate people so much that they are now hiring another 22,000 employees. They should be ashamed of themselves for having the audacity to hire more employees in the midst of a recession.

They also provide benefits to part time employees. You're right, they are so evil!

I know people that work at Walmart who love it there! They get paid better and have better benefits than K-Mart and you CAN and DO move up through the ranks if you do your job to the best of your ability. College isn't for everyone, and it's great that there are places like Walmart where one can get a decent entry level job. They hire disabled, and elderly people routinely as well. The only problem I ever had with Walmart was the fact that they used to hire illegal aliens, but that apparently was through an outside agency and not Walmart itself.

"And if you knew anything about the economy, you would know that this number was 200,000 less unemployed than last month, and 350,000 less than the month before." Wow, so there really are people who are buying this crap. This number isn't LESS unemployed. It's MORE unemployed people. For it to be 200,000 LESS unemployed there would have to be NO job loss and 200,000 people getting NEW JOBS. Job loss is bad no matter how you try to use numbers to spin it. Just because there are less NEW unemployed people doesn't change the fact that there are still 345,000 people that are unemployed this month that had jobs last month. That's a BAD thing. Unlike you I'm not spinning anything. I'm telling you plain and simple that 345,000 people losing their jobs in ONE MONTH is a bad thing. If you are really gullible enough to let the Obama administration make you think that's good, just wait until you are number 345,001. Then tell me how well this stimulus is working. You're republican bashing is meaningless right now. Everyone knows when this crap started. It was Obama and the democrats that said this stimulus would provide IMMEDIATE relief and was so important that they didn't even dare to READ it before passing it. Now they're claiming that losing 345,000 jobs in one month is evidence it's working, i.e. CREATING 4 million new jobs.

0bama's Treasury head used to run the New York Fed. You know, the organization that controls the money on Wall Street? SND, What does the fact that Timothy Geithner work for the New York Fed have to do with anything? "And were you aware that the majority of Goldman Sachs political donations went to the DNC? Same goes for Fannie and Freddie and several others...." So why is it that George W. Bush decided to bail out companies that donated to the DNC? Maybe you can ask George this himself. Maybe Bush was more worried about the country then who gave money to who. But, it is Bush, and no one knows what was going through his head. "OH yeah, an unemployment rate at it's highest since 1983 is something to celebrate." For once you are correct SND, but as I said in my post it is better than it was for the last two months, so it is a step in the right direction. But it isn't something to celebrate.

"Wow, so there really are people who are buying this crap. This number isn't LESS unemployed. It's MORE unemployed people. For it to be 200,000 LESS unemployed there would have to be NO job loss and 200,000 people getting NEW JOBS." Taskr, I know that I have to spell things out for you, but I wish that you could keep up for once. Last month there were 539,000 new claims, and in March there were 699,000 new claims. Thus, the number of new claims is going down for the previous two months. These are facts Taskr (I know you aren't use to them, and avoid them at all cost, but they are what they are none the less), and you debate if it is good or not, but they are correct facts. Job loss is bad no matter how you try to use numbers to spin it. Just because there are less NEW unemployed people doesn't change the fact that there are still 345,000 people that are unemployed this month that had jobs last month. That's a BAD thing." You are correct Taskr, this is a very bad thing, and if Bush didn't destroy our economy then we wouldn't be in this mess. But, things happen, and we have to deal with them the best that we can. "If you are really gullible enough to let the Obama administration make you think that's good, just wait until you are number 345,001. Then tell me how well this stimulus is working." If you would have actually read my post you would have noticed that I said that people on Wall Street were defending these numbers. People like Larry Kudlow (Worked for Reagan), and Warren Buffettt (If I need to tell you who he is, then you can stop reading right now and move on) were saying the same thing that I am saying. Why don't you go after them as well Taskr. These are people with letters at the ends of their names, and make more money in a day then you will make in a year. Taskr, you can blame Obama all you want but the economy was in the toilet when he came into office, and it will take a while to get back out. It took Reagan 3 years to turn the country around, it took Clinton 3 years, and it took Bush Jr. 4. Obama is good, but it takes time to clean up the messes left by Trickle Down Economics. Ask George H. W. Bush.

They may try, but it won't work. Support is already waning. http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100279

Oh they can always blame conservatives and they will. In 4 years if things aren't better they will still say it's all Bush's fault and pull the "it'll get worse before it gets better" crap.

LOL, There is your stimulas dollars at work Taskr. I understand that you don't want to do this job Spalladino, but work like this means that a company stays running, people continue to get a pay check, and they continue to buy things for their family. There is a ton of road work being done because of the stimulas bill, and that WILL help the country out.

Fixing roads is one thing, but it's a waste of money when all they do is repave roads that are just fine debater. That's what I was telling Spall about the other day. In Tampa they repeatedly repave the same roads just because they have money to spend. The fact that the money is earmarked stops them from putting it where it needs to be and if they don't waste it on something they won't get the money next year.

Taskr, you are correct (you better copy and paste this, cause it doesn't happen often that we agree on something), some of these shovel ready jobs were BS jobs But that is the STATES fault, and Florida hasn't the brightest leaders in office down there in years. You can't blame the US government for what the states consider to be important road projects. The government just wants to get people back to work, and they leave this up to the states to decide what is important. In Ohio, the state sent out inspectors to see what the cities and townships what done, and if it didn't meet what their requirements were, they wouldn't give them money. You are correct that if they find out about these BS jobs, they will never get funding ever again, and with in years that road will be horrible and will never get repaved. But, again that is a state problem, maybe it is time for Florida to electing some smarter people.

I agree that it's not our job to send aid to other countries when we can't balance our own books at home. The job issue however is crucial to our economy since Americans with jobs are the ones paying income taxes. The problem is that Obama think expanding government will somehow increase revenue even though that just costs more money and doesn't increase revenue. Clearly he failed economics 101.

Well this really isn't about Bush. It's about Obama pretending that it's good that we lost 345,000 jobs in a month, but since you want to go there I will. Bush didn't LET American companies send jobs overseas. That's been going on for decades. It didn't start in the last 8 years. The tax benefits also started decades ago. It's a blatant lie when people tell you "Bush" gave them tax benefits for shipping jobs overseas. Another thing you fail to realize is that CONGRESS is where these policies are crafted, not the presidency. So you really need to place your blame on congress and their actions in the 70s and 80s. A lot of those people are still in congress today you know. Taxes really aren't the issue with that anyway. Businesses do business overseas based solely on the cost of labor. $1/hour is actually a fair bit more than some companies pay their employees. In some countries minimum wage is $35 a MONTH. People are buying things. The problem is that we import far more than we export so what we do buy doesn't necessarily benefit our country outside of the sales tax we pay.