Open Chat... All Day, Every Day! Express Your Views, Debate, and Challenge the Views of Others!

In order to keep up with the nature of free, spirited debate, I wanted to place the chat feature at the top of the homepage. This ensures people can come here and share their views on anything they wish and not have it be related to any specific discussion. Here, people can share ideas, links, and views "unmoderated" and an their own pace. To me, this makes The Elephant in the Room blog truly a place for debate.

Friday, August 3, 2012

The July 2012 Jobs Report

Here is the July 2012 employment situation report from the BLS:

Key Highlights:

- The unemployment rate rose to 8.3%. Non-farm employers added only 163,000 new jobs. 80,000 jobs were added in June. For 2012, the economy has averaged about 151,000 new jobs per month. Through the same time period in 2011, 153,000 new jobs per month were added.

- The number of unemployed persons rose to 12.8 million.

- The civilian labor force participation rate also dropped to 63.7%.

Share your thoughts, feelings, and analysis below.


  1. You know what this means?

    With 163K new jobs being added and the unemployment rate still going UP, many people started re-looking for a job with a HOPE they would find one but found that nothing CHANGED.

  2. It appears to be more proof that the only thing propping up this economy is government spending. A Mitt Romney presidency would end that and, I am becoming more and more convinced, would likely send this country spiraling out of control into an all out depression.

    1. Completely a terrible argument. Obama has been terrible with respect to jobs, and there is nothing showing Romney would do what you have claimed. You can keep trying though, your useless assumptions might start making sense if you turned the MSNBC down.

    2. Right, I forgot how Romney doesn't want to reduce government and government spending. Damn, anonymous, you got me. Thanks for the MSNBC tip, as soon as I turned Fox News on I saw the point you didn't make. But I'll promise to keep trying and to keep on making useless assumptions if you promise to keep attacking people without basis and without a counter point or the creativity to provide a new that allows you to be differentiated from the number of folks who anonymously post.

  3. @Anonymous - 'useless assumptions'? Really? How is Obama's PROVEN atrocious 'handling' of our economy, his failed 'stimuli', his constant bashing of successful business, his constant class and race-bating, his attempted destruction of our homegrown energy resources, his blatant cronyism - in ANY way assumed? How about his siccing his DO-INjustice on our OWN states? His siccing his IRS/Dept. of Labor on our OWN TAXPAYING citizens?

    I think I'll 'uselessly assume' that a PROVEN successful businessman, who's EARNED a living, who's MADE payroll, who's GOAL is to REIN IN the out-of-control monstrosity that Obama has spawned and cultivated with such zeal and in all probability, MORE QUALIFIED to run our great country than a community organizer (read: racist rabble-rouser) with NO leadership experience.

  4. A while ago I wrote about the Piss for Welfare plan Florida and Michigan both implemented and the courts killed. I wrote about how it could lead to other unconstitutional acts by government. The article below is an example of that and, were it not for the hated by most ACLU, the government would indeed be continuing to fund this program. I get that most of you don't like the welfare system, however, when you open the door of giving up rights, you better be prepared to give up a whole lot more than you bargained for!

    What makes them think they're better off making that determination than someone's parents? Thank goodness we'll never get to see what happens the first time they set up such a conference for a girl who's put on some weight and is not pregnant!|utmccn=(referral)|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/_news/2012/08/04/13117232-iran-test-fires-missile-with-new-guidance-system&__utmv=14933801.|8=Earned%20By=msnbc%7Ccover=1^12=Landing%20Content=Mixed=1^^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Earned%20to%20Mixed=1&__utmk=117037062#.UCK1EfaPW1g

  5. I was going to hold off and save this for a daily news update once LME is back, but worried I'll forget or lose the link. I know that a popular idea/theme here is that tax cuts actually increase revenue/spur the economy, often citing the Bush Tax cuts and the corresponding (coincidental or not) increase in government revenue in spite of that.

    But, Bush's own treasury department actually published a comprehensive study on the long and short-term effects of the tax cuts, and concluded that their effect on revenue and the economy were miniscule at the very best. And furthermore, tax cuts fall significantly short of actually paying for themselves (an oft-repeated myth) over any period of time. More here: