The Loss Of Government Jobs Is Holding Back The Economy

[Toddsterpatriot]

Reagan added government jobs during his recession. He also kept funding open to the states, since Washington can borrow at low interest rates. By contrast, Obama was forced to cut government jobs and cut-off the states, forcing them to layoff cops, teachers and fire fighters. Reagan understood that if you cut jobs, you are removing consumers from the economy - which would result in more job loss. Reagan was also a huge Keynesian when it came to the expansion of credit to consumers. Look at household debt starting in the 80s and it will blow your mind. Bush lost two major sectors on his watch - housing and finance. Can you imagine what would have happened to the Republican Party if Obama fixed it? They had to cut off anything that would have helped the economy, including tools that were made available to Reagan.

He also kept funding open to the states, since Washington can borrow at low interest rates.

Really? What low rates could Reagan borrow at to give to the states?

By contrast, Obama was forced to cut government jobs and cut-off the states

The $800 billion stimulus was to cut government jobs?

Can you imagine what would have happened to the Republican Party if Obama fixed it?

He borrowed more in 4 years than Bush did in 8.
That still didn't "fix it"? LOL!
Maybe massive government spending doesn't work after all?

 

[thereisnospoon]

By Bryce Covert

The jobs report out this morning was full of good news: unemployment fell to 7.5 percent as the economy added 165,000 jobs, while big upward revisions to the past two months’ jobs numbers were added. The private sector carried those figures, adding 176,000 jobs in April. Yet the number was dragged down by the loss of 11,000 public sector jobs.

This has been a steadily recurring trend with each monthly jobs report: even when the private sector adds a solid number of jobs, the overall figure is pulled down by losses in the public sector. 741,000 jobs have been lost in the government sector since the beginning of the recovery period in June 2009, with 89,000 gone since this time last year.

Overall, the government has shed 718,000 net jobs since President Obama took office. While often accused of bloating the government, the trends show exactly the opposite: Obama has overseen a sharp decline in public sector payrolls as compared to his predecessor President George W. Bush, as can be seen in this chart from Calculated Risk:

More: The Loss Of Government Jobs Is Holding Back The Economy

Calculated Risk: Public and Private Sector Payroll Jobs: Bush and Obama

Starving the Beast - NYTimes.com

The Unemployment Rate Would Be A Full Point Lower Without Public Sector Job Losses

It doesn't take an economics genius to know this is a real drag on the economy and recovery.

Less government is GOOD..
Of course this bullshit comes from liberal blogs. Libs support statism and central planning.

 

[The Rabbi]

Reagan added government jobs during his recession. He also kept funding open to the states, since Washington can borrow at low interest rates. By contrast, Obama was forced to cut government jobs and cut-off the states, forcing them to layoff cops, teachers and fire fighters. Reagan understood that if you cut jobs, you are removing consumers from the economy - which would result in more job loss. Reagan was also a huge Keynesian when it came to the expansion of credit to consumers. Look at household debt starting in the 80s and it will blow your mind. Bush lost two major sectors on his watch - housing and finance. Can you imagine what would have happened to the Republican Party if Obama fixed it? They had to cut off anything that would have helped the economy, including tools that were made available to Reagan.

He also kept funding open to the states, since Washington can borrow at low interest rates.

Really? What low rates could Reagan borrow at to give to the states?

By contrast, Obama was forced to cut government jobs and cut-off the states

The $800 billion stimulus was to cut government jobs?

Can you imagine what would have happened to the Republican Party if Obama fixed it?

He borrowed more in 4 years than Bush did in 8.
That still didn't "fix it"? LOL!
Maybe massive government spending doesn't work after all?

Pointing out a few simple facts utterly destroys liberals.

 

[thereisnospoon]

By Bryce Covert

The jobs report out this morning was full of good news: unemployment fell to 7.5 percent as the economy added 165,000 jobs, while big upward revisions to the past two months’ jobs numbers were added. The private sector carried those figures, adding 176,000 jobs in April. Yet the number was dragged down by the loss of 11,000 public sector jobs.

This has been a steadily recurring trend with each monthly jobs report: even when the private sector adds a solid number of jobs, the overall figure is pulled down by losses in the public sector. 741,000 jobs have been lost in the government sector since the beginning of the recovery period in June 2009, with 89,000 gone since this time last year.

Overall, the government has shed 718,000 net jobs since President Obama took office. While often accused of bloating the government, the trends show exactly the opposite: Obama has overseen a sharp decline in public sector payrolls as compared to his predecessor President George W. Bush, as can be seen in this chart from Calculated Risk:

More: The Loss Of Government Jobs Is Holding Back The Economy

Calculated Risk: Public and Private Sector Payroll Jobs: Bush and Obama

Starving the Beast - NYTimes.com

The Unemployment Rate Would Be A Full Point Lower Without Public Sector Job Losses

It doesn't take an economics genius to know this is a real drag on the economy and recovery.

BTW, those 'job creation' numbers are bullshit. Of course the statistics leave out the number of jobs 'lost' as well as the number of people who have left the labor pool because they have given up looking for work.
The fact is U-6 unemployment rose last quarter to 13.9%...

 

[SFC Ollie]

So we take taxpayer dollars to create public sector jobs that don't produce anything so people that produce have less money to spend.And this is a good thing?

The problem is, slick....that the people who ACTUALLY DO the producing aren't getting paid diddly squat. That lowers the tax base in a huge way...and THAT'S why we can't "afford" them....but hey....keep voting for the clowns who sent the jobs away and blame the disaffected for their own poverty... meanwhile the Conglomerate pulls a bait and switch on you and you're to damned dumb and stubborn to realize it.

Who do you REALLY think that our tax dollars are subsidizing? The working poor, who....according to right wing propaganda are just too lazy to get a better job, or the businesses that pay those shitty wages that they KNOW aren't sustainable....once again....because they KNOW that we aren't going to let them be hungry and homeless.

So...the next time your at Walmart, when you pay your bill....mentally add the cost of food stamps, Medicaid, and subsidized housing to your bill and remember what a great deal your getting.

Same when you fill up next time at the gas station. Add all those tax breaks, oil subsidies, farm subsidies ( ethanol), and the cost of keeping those OPEC countries stable....economists have estimated that our true cost of a gallon of gas is about $14....another great deal, huh?

But do go on about how we can't "afford" teachers, cops, firefighters, highway workers etc....

I dont go to Walmart, they have crappy products, poor service and low pay employees. WHY do you go there?

Truth is that Walmart offers brand name American Made products. Not their fault you don't want to pay for them. And their employees for the most part are rather satisfied with their wages...... Ask anyone of them who has been there for 10 years or longer...Yes people actually work at walmart for longer than 6 months......And most of them do make a living wage....But i don't expect you to believe it....

 

[whitehall]

Who do you think pays government employees? When is the pinhead left going to get it through their thick skulls that government jobs do not grow the economy?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Why is the OP a fail? Government (public sector) job losses are government (public sector) job losses. Obama has tried to stimulate the public sector but Congress keeps blocking him.

Growth in the public sector is a drag on the economy. Increased government spending removes cash from the producers in the private sector.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Reagan added government jobs during his recession. He also kept funding open to the states, since Washington can borrow at low interest rates. By contrast, Obama was forced to cut government jobs and cut-off the states, forcing them to layoff cops, teachers and fire fighters. Reagan understood that if you cut jobs, you are removing consumers from the economy - which would result in more job loss. Reagan was also a huge Keynesian when it came to the expansion of credit to consumers. Look at household debt starting in the 80s and it will blow your mind. Bush lost two major sectors on his watch - housing and finance. Can you imagine what would have happened to the Republican Party if Obama fixed it? They had to cut off anything that would have helped the economy, including tools that were made available to Reagan.

Obama did not cut a single job. There are more federal workers today than ever before.
Reagan also lowered tax rates and simplified the tax code. He also had little expansion in the CFR.

Reagan=success
Obama=failure.
Is that simple enough for you?

I am never sure why people think goverment policy drives industry, it can hurt it like Obama has. but in the 80's and 90's we had a little thing like technology with the internet and cell phones, quality control, stripping out old obsolete factrorys. and the like.... untill some one invents the "new" thing that everyone wants.. were stagnet if you ask me.

 

[Londoner]

Growth in the public sector is a drag on the economy. Increased government spending removes cash from the producers in the private sector.

You might separate spending on things like industrial infrastructure from, say, welfare. Do you know how much money we spend on the patent system or protecting the overseas supply chains of corporations? Things like the Hoover Dam and the Interstate and energy grids and government investment in the internet and commercial aviation had a huge multiplier effect. This is why corporations create such massive lobbying system. John Galt spends a lot of time in Washington begging for subsidies. Government spending is not frowned on by business - it is craved.

http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/cnswebbook.pdf

Also. Look at what happened to the Bush Tax Cuts. They went overwhelmingly into the Wall Street Casino, which has grown overly speculative, and based increasingly on asset bubbles. Money poured into housing securities and derivatives as opposed to the real economy. The reason they didn't go into the real economy is because consumer demand has grown increasingly weak since we started shipping jobs to cheaper labor markets in freedom-hating nations. We tried to replace lost jobs/wages with credit cards. A.K.A morning in America brought to you by Visa, American Express and Master Card. And when ran out of plastic credit, we turned to the last thing left that had any value - our homes.

 

[hortysir]

Why is the OP a fail? Government (public sector) job losses are government (public sector) job losses. Obama has tried to stimulate the public sector but Congress keeps blocking him.

So bigger government is the answer to our unemployment woes?



got it

 

[Oddball]

Growth in the public sector is a drag on the economy. Increased government spending removes cash from the producers in the private sector.

You might separate spending on things like industrial infrastructure from, say, welfare. Do you know how much money we spend on the patent system or protecting the overseas supply chains of corporations? Things like the Hoover Dam and the Interstate and energy grids and government investment in the internet and commercial aviation had a huge multiplier effect. This is why corporations create such massive lobbying system. John Galt spends a lot of time in Washington begging for subsidies. Government spending is not frowned on by business - it is craved.

http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/cnswebbook.pdf

Also. Look at what happened to the Bush Tax Cuts. They went overwhelmingly into the Wall Street Casino, which has grown overly speculative, and based increasingly on asset bubbles. Money poured into housing securities and derivatives as opposed to the real economy. The reason they didn't go into the real economy is because consumer demand has grown increasingly weak since we started shipping jobs to cheaper labor markets in freedom-hating nations. We tried to replace lost jobs/wages with credit cards. A.K.A morning in America brought to you by Visa, American Express and Master Card. And when ran out of plastic credit, we turned to the last thing left that had any value - our homes.

Gubmint has no money of its own, the "multiplier effect" is a Keynesian unicorn and tax cuts are not an expenditure.

But ripper job of regurgitating standard economically illiterate leftist boilerplate.

 

[Oddball]

Why is the OP a fail? Government (public sector) job losses are government (public sector) job losses. Obama has tried to stimulate the public sector but Congress keeps blocking him.

So bigger government is the answer to our unemployment woes?



got it

Kicking out the lowest rungs of the ladder makes it much easier to climb, dontchaknow?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Growth in the public sector is a drag on the economy. Increased government spending removes cash from the producers in the private sector.

You might separate spending on things like industrial infrastructure from, say, welfare. Do you know how much money we spend on the patent system or protecting the overseas supply chains of corporations? Things like the Hoover Dam and the Interstate and energy grids and government investment in the internet and commercial aviation had a huge multiplier effect. This is why corporations create such massive lobbying system. John Galt spends a lot of time in Washington begging for subsidies. Government spending is not frowned on by business - it is craved.

http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/cnswebbook.pdf

Also. Look at what happened to the Bush Tax Cuts. They went overwhelmingly into the Wall Street Casino, which has grown overly speculative, and based increasingly on asset bubbles. Money poured into housing securities and derivatives as opposed to the real economy. The reason they didn't go into the real economy is because consumer demand has grown increasingly weak since we started shipping jobs to cheaper labor markets in freedom-hating nations. We tried to replace lost jobs/wages with credit cards. A.K.A morning in America brought to you by Visa, American Express and Master Card. And when ran out of plastic credit, we turned to the last thing left that had any value - our homes.

You might want to take your socialist central planning views and post to someone else.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Most Shrinkage in Government has been at the State and Local level............. Why? Because we the people can't afford to keep them.......

Google "austerity is hurting economy"...

And be bombarded by opinion pieces written by liberal pundits. No thanks.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Government Spending Can Create Jobs - and It Has

Of Course the Government Can Create Jobs! - Forbes

Why You Should Love Government Deficits - Forbes

Of course the government can hire people. There's no growth in doing that, though. It's simply robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Moving the chess pieces around the board.

 

[Oddball]

Most Shrinkage in Government has been at the State and Local level............. Why? Because we the people can't afford to keep them.......

Google "austerity is hurting economy"...

Google "worst comics of all time".

 

[thereisnospoon]

So we take taxpayer dollars to create public sector jobs that don't produce anything so people that produce have less money to spend.And this is a good thing?

Public sector workers provide services such as teaching our children, protecting our citizens, maintaining our roads, and fighting fires. They pay taxes. With their paychecks they buy goods and services which fuel our economy.

Sure, not everyone can work for the government. We need a private sector. However i grow tired of the mantra that government workers produce nothing.

Nonsense.
First, DO NOT include public safety workers. Public safety is an essential function of government.
Second. Most of the taxes these people pay go right back into their pockets. Essentially, they pay themselves. That is why the system is self serving.
For example. When then NJ Gov Corzine was forced to sign a annual tax levy cap bill into law, the first people to complain and the loudest complainers were the unions representing public workers and the rank and file.
Imagine that.
Increasing the size of government accomplishes two things..
1. it increases the size of government.
2 removes money from the economy.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So we take taxpayer dollars to create public sector jobs that don't produce anything so people that produce have less money to spend.And this is a good thing?

The problem is, slick....that the people who ACTUALLY DO the producing aren't getting paid diddly squat. That lowers the tax base in a huge way...and THAT'S why we can't "afford" them....but hey....keep voting for the clowns who sent the jobs away and blame the disaffected for their own poverty... meanwhile the Conglomerate pulls a bait and switch on you and you're to damned dumb and stubborn to realize it.

Who do you REALLY think that our tax dollars are subsidizing? The working poor, who....according to right wing propaganda are just too lazy to get a better job, or the businesses that pay those shitty wages that they KNOW aren't sustainable....once again....because they KNOW that we aren't going to let them be hungry and homeless.

So...the next time your at Walmart, when you pay your bill....mentally add the cost of food stamps, Medicaid, and subsidized housing to your bill and remember what a great deal your getting.

Same when you fill up next time at the gas station. Add all those tax breaks, oil subsidies, farm subsidies ( ethanol), and the cost of keeping those OPEC countries stable....economists have estimated that our true cost of a gallon of gas is about $14....another great deal, huh?

But do go on about how we can't "afford" teachers, cops, firefighters, highway workers etc....

and just who is responsible for the nonsense you mentioned? Government. And never mind the feeble attempts at partisan hackery. I am not entertaining that garbage.
Now..How does government want to fix the problem of too much spending?....AH HA!!!! More spending. Brilliant.

 

[Londoner]

Gubmint has no money of its own

Obviously. Thanks for the talk radio bumper sticker.

I'll ask again: do you think there is a difference between government spending on the legal infrastructure associated with say the patent system (which corporations want) and government spending on welfare for the poor? Or... what about the legal system as whole, which enforces contracts and protects private property and supplies the needed predictability to market transactions? Rather than spewing tired anti-government rhetoric which we've all heard before, have you ever attempted to draw distinctions between different forms of government behavior? For instance, do you think government subsidies to Boeing and commercial aviation were better spent than spending on poverty programs?

Talk Radio Republican versus Eisenhower - A one act play

Eisenhower (father of Interstate): "Sound transportation investments lowers the costs of moving people and goods. This increases economic productivity."

TRR: "Fucking Gubmint."

Eisenhower: "When money is spent on any public works project, the people who are paid to construct that project use the money they receive to buy services and goods from others. The money spent in any jurisdiction thus recirculates there and elsewhere, with the initial expenditure priming the pump of economic activity. Construction workers spend their income to buy hamburgers, television sets, and automobile insurance, so a given dollar of construction expenditure ends up having more than a dollar's worth of impact, thus "multiplying" the effect of the expenditure. This multiplier also shows up in the balance sheet of corporations, who can now ship their goods much cheaper. This is why Republicans have traditionally been in favor of infrastructure spending over welfare spending - because they see a more obvious benefit. The spending on the Hoover Dam, national Interstate and Brooklyn Bridge will have a positive commercial effect for untold decades, whereas when government spends your money protecting the dung beetle...."

TRR: "Fucking Gubmint."

 

[Oddball]

Gubmint has no money of its own

Obviously. Thanks for the talk radio bumper sticker.

I'll ask again: do you think there is a difference between government spending on the legal infrastructure associated with say the patent system (which corporations want) and government spending on welfare for the poor? Or... what about the legal system as whole, which enforces contracts and protects private property and supplies the needed predictability to market transactions? Rather than spewing tired anti-government rhetoric which we've all heard before, have you ever attempted to draw distinctions between different forms of government behavior? For instance, do you think government subsidies to Boeing and commercial aviation were better spent than spending on poverty programs?

Talk Radio Republican versus Eisenhower - A one act play

Eisenhower (father of Interstate): "Sound transportation investments lowers the costs of moving people and goods. This increases economic productivity."

TRR: "Fucking Gubmint."

Eisenhower: "When money is spent on any public works project, the people who are paid to construct that project use the money they receive to buy services and goods from others. The money spent in any jurisdiction thus recirculates there and elsewhere, with the initial expenditure priming the pump of economic activity. Construction workers spend their income to buy hamburgers, television sets, and automobile insurance, so a given dollar of construction expenditure ends up having more than a dollar's worth of impact, thus "multiplying" the effect of the expenditure. This multiplier also shows up in the balance sheet of corporations, who can now ship their goods much cheaper. This is why Republicans have traditionally been in favor of infrastructure spending over welfare spending - because they see a more obvious benefit. The spending on the Hoover Dam, national Interstate and Brooklyn Bridge will have a positive commercial effect for untold decades, whereas when government spends your money protecting the dung beetle...."

TRR: "Fucking Gubmint."

Screw Eisenhower....What worked when he had total control of the military situation isn't practical or practicable in a free economy.

The USSR was tried, operating on that very philosophy....How'd that shake out?