The House just passed the Budget for 2011 ... The final vote was 260-167, with 59 Republicans opposing the package.

By now we have all heard Obama's first big 2012 campaign speech, and the GOP response to it. But it was supposed to be a serious show of leadership in getting this country's sinking economy out of the quicksand, not provide the GOP ticket running against him in the 2012 general election for POTUS with sound-bites to use in their anti-Obama campaign ads.

So, how bad is it, really?

The share of the population that is working fell to its lowest level last year since women started entering the workforce in large numbers three decades ago...

Only 45.4% of Americans had jobs in 2010, the lowest rate since 1983 and down from a peak of 49.3% in 2000. Last year, just 66.8% of men had jobs, the lowest on record.

The bad economy, an aging population and a plateau in women working are contributing to changes that pose serious challenges for financing the nation’s social programs. [...]

They (Obama and democrats) swear the only way to bring in taxes is to target with a merciless crosshair "the rich" (which seems to be on a sliding scale of defining "rich" with these people). So then WHY is it, as stated above, a crisis for financing the nation's social programs if the regular Joe-Six-pack working numbers are falling so low? As a matter of fact, we already have a boatload, and then so many more, on multiple extention(s) unemployment, and the number of people applying is still going up ...

WASHINGTON – More people applied for unemployment benefits last week, the first increase in three weeks. Still, the broader trend points to a slowly healing jobs market.

The government says applications for unemployment benefits rose 27,000 to a seasonally adjusted 412,000 for the week ended April 9. That left applications at their highest point since mid-February.

Applications near 375,000 are consistent with a sustained increase in hiring. Applications peaked during the recession at 659,000.

The four-week average of applications, a less volatile measure, rose to 395,750. However, applications have dropped about 6 percent over the past two months. At the same time, businesses have stepped up hiring. [...]

However, a more sobering reason for the drop is that the number of people who are either working or seeking a job is surprisingly low for this stage of the recovery. People without jobs who aren't looking for one aren't counted as unemployed. Once they start looking again, they're classified as unemployed, and the unemployment rate can go back up. [...]

(Reuters) - New U.S. claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose last week, bouncing back above the key 400,000 level, a government report showed on Thursday.

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits rose 27,000 to a seasonally adjusted 412,000, the Labor Department said.

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast claims slipping to 380,000. The prior weeks figure was revised up to 385,000 from the previously reported 382,000.

The four-week moving average of unemployment claims -- a better measure of underlying trends - climbed 5,500 to 395,750.

The rise in claims interrupted a downward trend that had kept them below the 400,000 threshold for four weeks. That level is normally associated with steady job growth. [...]

No wonder Obama and the democrats are looking to open the jugulars of "the rich" in this country. You can't get blood from the stone-cold unemployed. But isn't that where they want us? Isn't it easier and less messy to drag us into a completely dependent socialist state by making people unemployed and poor than charging into their neighborhoods and forcing them at gunpoint?

Not to worry, however, the one key place Obama and the democrats are serious about cutting back government spending on is our military ...

The mention of defense-related spending was brief and came late in President Barack Obama’s Wednesday speech on deficit reduction, but the low-key treatment may have obscured the potentially far-reaching implications of his call to reduce security-related expenditures by $400 billion over the next 12 years.

The language Obama used was vague and confusing to both reporters and policy analysts, but lawmakers and defense officials warned that cuts of that magnitude were virtually certain to cause a dramatic reduction in U.S. military’s global footprint, size and capabilities. [...]

Realize that also means cuts in military numbers. Besides, who in their right mind would want to step through the recruiting office door, or even re-up when they begin hacking into pay and benefits?

As I said, not to worry. As we gut our military other countries are building-up theirs ... Russia, Iran, China ... I'm sure anyone of them would be more than willing to rush to our aid and defense (as we have for the rest of the world over the last 200 years) should we find ourselves under attack in a weakened state of affairs. I mean, that Libya thing is going so well ...

(HT: Sweetness & Light)