May Jobs Report Prooves That Austerity Doesn't Work!

[mascale]

State and Local Government has been shedding jobs in excess of 500,000: All since Obama-Biden took office. What is the Romney Brand for America: Shed More Government Jobs in America, and Take all The Spending Away from Middle and Lower income neighborhoods in America!

The Liberals know that Overall Government Spending in the United States is at its lowest rate per capita since the end of the Korean War. Then the Romney Brand comes on board and says that is what is supposed to happen! Less Government Spending per Capita! Fewer Jobs Created! It does not get any better than this!

That is the Romney Brand of Hoarding by The Rich! That is the proposal of the Romney Brand! No More Spending in the lower and middle income market stores in the United States!

France is already appalled!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Sending The Romney Brand to the Back of the Bus, Sounds Like A Plan!)

 

[Star]

How can one describe a country $16 trillion in debt and with a $1.6 trillion yearly deficit as austere? This is more shere liberal insanity.

Austerity won't shrink debt, never has, never will -- austerity increases debt -- Paul Krugman put it this way;


✄snip>

"Our debt is mostly money we owe to each other; even more important, our income mostly comes from selling things to each other. Your spending is my income, and my spending is your income.

So what happens if everyone simultaneously slashes spending in an attempt to pay down debt? The answer is that everyone's income falls — my income falls because you're spending less, and your income falls because I'm spending less. And as our incomes plunge, our debt problem gets worse, not better.

This isn't a new insight. The great American economist Irving Fisher explained it all the way back in 1933, summarizing what he called "debt deflation" with the pithy slogan "the more the debtors pay, the more they owe." Recent events, above all the austerity death spiral in Europe, have dramatically illustrated the truth of Fisher's insight."

✄snip>

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Glad to see thinking people posting.

The fact of the matter is that the US is undergoing a virtual austerity program. Here's why:

1) At a federal level, the Republicans in congress will basically deny any increase in spending which might boost the economy, lest it detracts from their electoral chances. In some ways, it may even be positive for Mitt Romney to wins, as we know basically for a fact that he will be able to get republicans to pass the Keynesian measures needed to get the economy out of the hole - which he will do so that he can get re-elected.

2) At the local level, state and local governments are effecting deep cuts across the board; which necessarily lead to higher unemployment, which leads to lower incomes, and to lower consumer spending, leading businesses to cut jobs and payrolls, repeat. This is what austerity causes and what we're seeing in Europe.

In the US this is occurring virtually, but in Europe this is occurring for real - and it has been for several years now. The consequences are clear: massive increases in unemployment and poverty, an economic depression, and a worsening debt problem. I'm not sure why a message of policies that are proven to and certainly will make everything a LOT worse is so popular among some Americans, but unfortunately their hopes will be dashed if they elect Mitt Romney.

This is what will happen in the Romney administration: stimulus measures will be proposed and passed, attached to other republican goals, like lowering taxes on the rich permanently or privatizing Medicare. There'll be increases on spending on all sorts of things, infrastructure, subsidies, the military, unemployment benefit extensions - why? Because they get the economy going again, which Romney needs to do if he wants to be a two-term president. Romney's not an idiot - unlike some in his party, he understands that cutting government spending hurts the economy. This is fine when things are the economy is growing, but not when when there is weakness in demand.

 

[MeBelle]

Mostly, Little kids in California have long since known that the real path to riches and vacation second homes was through California Civil Service, and the California Public Education system. This would be said, "Cradle, To South of France, To Grave" state system employment.

<snip>

Now they finally get a 5% pay cut:

California Governor, Lawmakers Get Pay Cut 5% by Panel - Bloomberg

How does that help(?), no one asks. See wherein they make more than comparable employees in other states, and with mega-protections.

In other words, even in California then Civil Service meant, "and never work again, one day in your life!" Governor Brown even made a campaign promise: To not retire while in office! The deficit debacle would have easily become overwhelming even for the nearly 40 mil. in California.

Bloomberg only tells part of the story.
"The governor proposed in May to reduce the workweek for many state employees from 40 to 38 hours as a way of cutting payroll by 5 percent. On Thursday, Brown seemed to take it in stride that his annual salary will shrink from $173,987 to $165,288."

Production will shrink, along with salary. WoW!

SacBee is misleading here:
"Although California provides the highest base pay for legislators of any state in the country, Commissioner Ruth Lopez Novodor said other states provide their lawmakers with pensions, which current California officials do not receive"
California Gov. Jerry Brown, lawmakers to take 5 percent pay cut - Wire Lifestyle - The Sacramento Bee
Legislators' Retirement System Retirement Benefits
Administered by CalPERS, the Legislators' Retirement System (LRS) was established in 1947 and covers members of the Legislature serving prior to November 7, 1990, elected Constitutional Officers, and Legislative Statutory Officers.
Legislators' Retirement System Retirement Benefits

This, while outdated,is closed to the truth:
Should Brown be elected governor, that rate would be calculated at the salary of the governor, which is about $198,000 a year.
At the end of his term as attorney general in January, he will have a total of 16 years in the state retirement system, although the pension rate tops out after eight years of service, Clifford said.

In addition, Brown has 9.2 years in the California Public Employees Retirement System, known as CalPERS, because he served eight years as mayor of Oakland and 1.2 years as a law clerk for the state Supreme Court in the 1960s, after he graduated from law school.
The bottom line: At his current service and salary levels, Brown's annual pensions if he retired from both systems would be $78,450 a year, Clifford said.
Read more: Jerry Brown's pensions add up to $78,450


So, this faux austerity, is exactly that.
It doesn't 'help' at all. CalPERS IS why it doesn't work.

 

[Oldstyle]

Robust job growth in first quarter, 2012, is now also to be a consistent pattern of lesser job growth in second quarter, 2012. The housing market, however, has stabilized, and consumers have increased their spending. Lagging transport job increases are suddenly increasing, going into Third Quarter 2012.

Government employment, from austerity, has been lagging for months: Which has not been stimulating, even government employees: Or something(?)! Commentators and Teachers fail to remind anyone that one third of the Federal Stimulus went to prevent job losses in that sector. The money did not go to priming the tax base, so that state and local government could be in the lead of job growth recovery, like is usual. Government austerity, state and local: Doesn't work well, for the economy, trying to recover.

Employment Situation Summary

Again, consumers are not listening to the GOP Mantra of "No More Spending, Especially In The Stores!" Their Mantra continues, now like Romney, "Screw the general market place! Send all the money only to the rich, just like Romney of the equity business!"

What came after the "Reagan Trajectory," which also did that: Was the increase of unemployment under Bush I, Term I, Kaputsky! In Massachusetts, Romney's record of job creation put that state at the bottom, 47th in the nation.

What does Austerity really stand for! "Really Stupid! Spend No More! Keep the non-white population out of the market-place! That will bring Widespread Wealth For Everyone, Just like the 11% unemployment, in the EuroZone.

Especially, broadcast commentators fail to note the comparsion, of the economies, and the policies at fault. Stupid people still hire from the universities, and the Ivy League, for example! The rest of the market place is not to be thought on board, or American!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
("Donner Party of 200! Boehner Party of 10 mil.! Your Delicious Snacks Await, at the tables you most want for all the people!" RNC knows all about eating. . .and Bush II, Terms I & II, prooved that they also know about drinking(?)!

What I find amusing is that you actually believe that austerity had already begun.

The latest jobs report shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone. State and local governments can't print money like the Feds. They've started laying off non-essential personnel because tax revenues just aren't there to support the status quo. The Feds on the other hand have only slowed down the hiring binge they went on since Obama took office.

 

[midcan5]

Republican intransigence is repeating economic history as history is lost on them. Only massive government spending on war ended the last great failure of republican policy, that and an extremely high tax rate.

1929
'Herbert Hoover becomes President.'

"Annual per-capita income is $750. More than half of all Americans are living below a minimum subsistence level.
Backlog of business inventories grows three times larger than the year before.
Recession begins in August, two months before the stock market crash. During this two month period, production will decline at an annual rate of 20 percent, wholesale prices at 7.5 percent, and personal income at 5 percent.
Stock market crash begins October 24. Investors call October 29 Black Tuesday. Losses for the month will total $16 billion, an astronomical sum in those days.

1930
By February, the Federal Reserve has cut the prime interest rate from 6 to 4 percent. Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon announces that the Fed will stand by as the market works itself out: 'Liquidate labor, liquidate real estate... values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wreck from less-competent people'.
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff passes on June 17. With imports forming only 6 percent of the GNP, the 40 percent tariffs work out to an effective tax of only 2.4 percent per citizen. Even this is compensated for by the fact that American businesses are no longer investing in Europe, but keeping their money stateside. The consensus of modern economists is that the tariff made only a minor contribution to the Great Depression in the U.S., but a major one in Europe.
Supreme Court rules that the monopoly U.S. Steel does not violate anti-trust laws as long as competition exists, no matter how negligible.
The GNP falls 9.4 percent from the year before. The unemployment rate climbs from 3.2 to 8.7 percent.

1931
No major legislation is passed addressing the Depression.
The GNP falls another 8.5 percent; unemployment rises to 15.9 percent.

1932
This and the next year are the worst years of the Great Depression. For 1932, GNP falls a record 13.4 percent; unemployment rises to 23.6 percent.
Industrial stocks have lost 80 percent of their value since 1930.
10,000 banks have failed since 1929, or 40 percent of the 1929 total.

[..]

1933
Roosevelt inaugurated; begins 'First 100 Days'; of intensive legislative activity.

[..]

1936
Top tax rate raised to 79 percent.
Economic recovery continues: GNP grows a record 14.1 percent; unemployment falls to 16.9 percent.

1937
The Supreme Court declares the National Labor Relations Board to be unconstitutional.
Roosevelt seeks to enlarge and therefore liberalize the Supreme Court. This attempt not only fails, but outrages the public.
Economists attribute economic growth so far to heavy government spending that is somewhat deficit. Roosevelt, however, fears an unbalanced budget and cuts spending for 1937. That summer, the nation plunges into another recession. Despite this, the yearly GNP rises 5.0 percent, and unemployment falls to 14.3 percent."

Timeline of the Great Depression

 

[editec]

Yes, austerity is exactly the wrong policy to cope with this economy.

There's no shortage of money, but there's clearly a shortage of goodwill in this nation.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Hair of the dog, brah!!! Pump some more money in to the economy. Nothing cures an inflation hangover like more inflation!

Oh, please, do tell... What inflation are you talking about?

Monetary inflation. Price inflation is a symptom of money supply increase, or monetary inflation. Not the other way around.

 

[Oldstyle]

Yes, austerity is exactly the wrong policy to cope with this economy.

There's no shortage of money, but there's clearly a shortage of goodwill in this nation.

A call for fiscal sanity...which is what "austerity" really is...is nothing more than recognizing that we can't continue down the path we are on now without becoming insolvent. Understanding that doesn't mean that someone is lacking "goodwill"...it simply means that they don't have their head buried in the sand. The only reason we don't have a "shortage of money" is that our Federal Government is allowed to print more of it.

 

[jasonnfree]

Going on what I read on move on.org the job growth shows job growth bush vs obama. More growth under obama. Way more. Almost no job growth under bush. A lot of the bad news on jobs is due to lay offs of public sector jobs. This seems to me that the republicans won't help the average americans, but I listen to both sides. The move on graph is from bureau of labor statistics. I can't post the url because I haven't made enough posts yet.

 

[jasonnfree]

The success of ww2 ending the depression is a show of the reality of government spending being a positive for stimulating an economy. The war effort ended in a lot of the products of production ending in destruction. Imagine a stimulus in public works, infrastructure, green energy that could also build nations rather than destroy.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

MoveON.org?



Of course they say Obama is right, Bush is wrong and that growth under Obama is betetr.

 

[Oldstyle]

Going on what I read on move on.org the job growth shows job growth bush vs obama. More growth under obama. Way more. Almost no job growth under bush. A lot of the bad news on jobs is due to lay offs of public sector jobs. This seems to me that the republicans won't help the average americans, but I listen to both sides. The move on graph is from bureau of labor statistics. I can't post the url because I haven't made enough posts yet.

Ah, yes...job "growth" under Bush vs. job "growth" under Obama! One man's numbers are dragged down by the severe economic recession for the last two years of his administration while the other's are helped by the usual bounce back that we see after every recession. The problem that Obama has going forward, Jason...is that his current job growth is basically flat lined. HIs policies haven't done anything to stimulate the economy and now that the trillion dollar "stimulus" money is running out, all those public sector jobs that he artificially propped up are now being lost because the private sector isn't generating enough revenue to keep them. Barry's only solution is to ask for more money so he can keep on growing the size of government...money that either has to come out of the private sector in the form of increased taxes or that we borrow from China.

 

[Oldstyle]

The success of ww2 ending the depression is a show of the reality of government spending being a positive for stimulating an economy. The war effort ended in a lot of the products of production ending in destruction. Imagine a stimulus in public works, infrastructure, green energy that could also build nations rather than destroy.

With all due respect, Jason...I don't have to "imagine" such a stimulus...we just had one. The only problem is...massive government spending on public works, infrastructure and green energy turned into massive waste of the taxpayers money and did very little to "build" the nation while putting us deeper into unsustainable debt.

 

[mascale]

Infrastructure spending of the Obama-Biden-Pelosi-Stimulus: Was only about $150.0 bil., not the $1.0 tril., or nearly, amount. Only about $64.0 bil. went to roads and so on.

Infrastructure spending: False expectations | The Economist

Recall that the Bush-Cheney mantra was that "Ronald Reagan prooved deficits don't matter." Mostly, their money was sent to rich war materials, manufacturers. They in turn made nothing in sufficient amounts to send to the troops in the field. Low income persons were unable to keep up with the mortgage payments. The Big Financial Houses came tumbling on down! All of that is the business experience, of the Romney Brand! The Stimulus by-passed the concept of a tax base, and sent the money to "save" the bureaucrat and teacher jobs instead!

So that was the Romney, Business-oriented Brand. That was the way to Panic, Creating the Romney Brand of Confidence in the business community. The Panic sell-off was on! Probably the Romneys have a name for it, "Cocoa-Puffs(?)!" Likely Mrs. Romney is nowhere reported to have said, "Let them eat Cocoa-Puffs!" Mitt is more likely already on record: As already having said that, a number of times(?)!

Vice President Biden called attention to the need of the troops to forage in the field: Just to stay alive. Here is one fellow that President Obama can call on to acknowledge, that "I don't support the law at all!" Joe and Jesus had the same problem, but no one comments on Crucifix Art, "Jesus comments unfavorably on the the Law of Moses!" Maybe any day, now: There can be made that comment!

The Refundable Income Tax Credit, "Make-Work-Pay," did reward the market place in the manner of Matthew 20:1-16. The money was paid regardless if the person had worked all the year, or not. In the original, the denarius was paid regardless if the person had worked all the day or not.

Quickly, of course, the Republicans took that away. Families of that party to not support Christian methods, from the Gospels. The word, "abortion," for example: Does not appear in the Gospels. Republicans believe in abortion, however, more than they believe in Matthew 20:1-16. So they took Matthew 20:16, away from America: Intending that forever.

Then there is the Holy Father's own Christian Hitler Youth: Possibly intending that forever! Funny men in Red Robes met at the Vatican, Sistene Chapel: To deliver on that very concept. Now there is the Holy Father in place. The Vatican is no stanger to touting the Romney Brand! Grown Adults, actually: Were involved, all Male!

Obama-Biden-Pelosi-Reid were not involved. Specifially, Pelosi even is a "she," and therefore not involved in any precious theology that anyone can think of. Anyone notices that women are not allowed in the Catholic clergy hierarchy: Just like the Romney Brand, more supportive of the "Cocoa-Puffs Solutions(?)!"

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many young warriors take many squaws, but leave old Jewish Woman to Run for California Senate instead, who is also from Stanford University(?)!"

 

[jasonnfree]

? meaning what? they're quoting a statistic by bureau of labor statistics.

MoveON.org?



Of course they say Obama is right, Bush is wrong and that growth under Obama is betetr.

 

[jasonnfree]

The stimulus wasn't a large enough amount if we're comparing it to ww2. It wasn't the amount spent on Iraq war. And that cost will go on for decades considering wounded veteran care among other costs. We haven't spent as much on green energy as red china does either. Their government involvement in solars panels made them the leader in green energy. Our unsustainable debt problem is partly due to being afraid to raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations to the level that they used to pay before 1980.

The success of ww2 ending the depression is a show of the reality of government spending being a positive for stimulating an economy. The war effort ended in a lot of the products of production ending in destruction. Imagine a stimulus in public works, infrastructure, green energy that could also build nations rather than destroy.

With all due respect, Jason...I don't have to "imagine" such a stimulus...we just had one. The only problem is...massive government spending on public works, infrastructure and green energy turned into massive waste of the taxpayers money and did very little to "build" the nation while putting us deeper into unsustainable debt.

 

[Oldstyle]

The stimulus wasn't a large enough amount if we're comparing it to ww2. It wasn't the amount spent on Iraq war. And that cost will go on for decades considering wounded veteran care among other costs. We haven't spent as much on green energy as red china does either. Their government involvement in solars panels made them the leader in green energy. Our unsustainable debt problem is partly due to being afraid to raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations to the level that they used to pay before 1980.

The success of ww2 ending the depression is a show of the reality of government spending being a positive for stimulating an economy. The war effort ended in a lot of the products of production ending in destruction. Imagine a stimulus in public works, infrastructure, green energy that could also build nations rather than destroy.

With all due respect, Jason...I don't have to "imagine" such a stimulus...we just had one. The only problem is...massive government spending on public works, infrastructure and green energy turned into massive waste of the taxpayers money and did very little to "build" the nation while putting us deeper into unsustainable debt.

Think about what you just posted, Jason. WHY is there fear about raising taxes? When the Democrats had super majorities they could have easily raised them but instead they extended the Bush tax cuts. Why would they do that? The answer is quite simple really...to anyone who wasn't sleeping through their college econ classes, that is. Raising taxes in a weak economy is a Keynesian "no no", something that even Obama economist Christina Romer admitted when she said it wasn't a good time to raise taxes on ANYONE.
So why then are the Democrats calling for tax increases now? Is the economy still not weak? Quite obviously it is...we're grinding away at about a 1.5 increase in GDP with nothing on the horizon to change that. So if the economy is still weak...and Keynesian economic theory (which progressives love so much...) says that taxes should only be raised in a strong economy...then why are President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi all calling for tax increases?

The answer to that question is politics, Jason. Barry, Harry and Nancy know that there is ZERO chance of a tax increase making it through the GOP controlled House...therefore they can propose a tax on "millionaires" which they think is a populist message that they can sell in an election year...all the while being confident that tax will never be put in place to further slow the economy...something which they would then have to answer for. It's cynical politics at it's worst...a game that's being played while millions of Americans remain out of work in desperate need of a job.

 

[mascale]

The Obama-Biden Stimulus was not about Keynesian Public Works. One Substitute was the Refundable "Make-Work-Pay" federal income tax credit. That was priming of the pump to save existing market-jobs, which might then generate new business spending. Other tax relief was also created.

Then only $150.0 bil. went to Keynesian Public Works. The "Shovel Ready Projects," were not that ready. So then the teachers and the bureaucrats who caused all the crisis in the first place: Got to keep all the money. Rather than a tax base being created, a great dearth of market support was created, supportive of an intellectual elite, instead.

Mostly, pre-Revolution France supported an artistocracy of elites--both in country and in Paris. A Great Dearth of market support was created, supportive of a famous intellectual elite, instead. Post-Revolution France would even have to rely on the Napoleonic Wars. France finally couldn't even stave off the banded-together, petty German States. Famously it couldn't stave off the Nazi's. The Nazi's, in contrast, were doing Public Works, and War Materials: And were becoming widely business-admired in the process.

So the original support of the aristocratically entitled can be said to have been replaced, in the Stimulus, with the state and local government entitled. No one would call that Nazi. Anyone would call that, "Ivy League." Following the Romney Brand of Hoarding, "Austerity" among the rich: Anyone can hear at the Ivy League, "Let Them Eat Cocoa-Puffs, They'rrre Great!"

A $150.0 bil. tax base was not going to solve the problem, even with with Make-Work-Pay Tax Credit in place. So What the Romney Brand is For, is now more or less what was already done. The only apparent difference is that the Romney Brand would send all the bureaucrats and teachers to the Guilliotine.

Mainly poetically, that does make sense(?), except maybe to poets: Or to California Civil Service, or to University of California, or the California State University System. . .and then it's on the the community colleges, and then on to grades K-12! YeeeHawwww!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(White Eyes of Vermont: Do one too many bull-rides, even! Find maybe later. . . many crushed nuts. . .in stands(?)! Oooooh! Hmmmmm!)

 

[jasonnfree]

The bush tax cuts didn't contribute to job growth under bush. They were set to expire in 2010 but obama caved in and extended them. So letting them expire wouldn't actually be a tax increase, would it?
Most democrats were against obama doing this. Obama the president turned out different than we expected. Look at his all of his appointments. Mostly from wall street and corporate america. Since you mention christine roemer, remember, she recommended a much larger economic stimulus than obama settled for thanks to laurence summers. And the point of my two posts is government spending can stimulate an economy and taking taxes back to where they were prior to bush could help.

And I agree, obama calling for higher taxes is just talk. He knows he won't get what he wants from this congress but it sounds good.

The stimulus wasn't a large enough amount if we're comparing it to ww2. It wasn't the amount spent on Iraq war. And that cost will go on for decades considering wounded veteran care among other costs. We haven't spent as much on green energy as red china does either. Their government involvement in solars panels made them the leader in green energy. Our unsustainable debt problem is partly due to being afraid to raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations to the level that they used to pay before 1980.

With all due respect, Jason...I don't have to "imagine" such a stimulus...we just had one. The only problem is...massive government spending on public works, infrastructure and green energy turned into massive waste of the taxpayers money and did very little to "build" the nation while putting us deeper into unsustainable debt.

Think about what you just posted, Jason. WHY is there fear about raising taxes? When the Democrats had super majorities they could have easily raised them but instead they extended the Bush tax cuts. Why would they do that? The answer is quite simple really...to anyone who wasn't sleeping through their college econ classes, that is. Raising taxes in a weak economy is a Keynesian "no no", something that even Obama economist Christina Romer admitted when she said it wasn't a good time to raise taxes on ANYONE.
So why then are the Democrats calling for tax increases now? Is the economy still not weak? Quite obviously it is...we're grinding away at about a 1.5 increase in GDP with nothing on the horizon to change that. So if the economy is still weak...and Keynesian economic theory (which progressives love so much...) says that taxes should only be raised in a strong economy...then why are President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi all calling for tax increases?

The answer to that question is politics, Jason. Barry, Harry and Nancy know that there is ZERO chance of a tax increase making it through the GOP controlled House...therefore they can propose a tax on "millionaires" which they think is a populist message that they can sell in an election year...all the while being confident that tax will never be put in place to further slow the economy...something which they would then have to answer for. It's cynical politics at it's worst...a game that's being played while millions of Americans remain out of work in desperate need of a job.