The Loss Of Government Jobs Is Holding Back The Economy

[editec]

The recent loss of jobs due to Sequestration is a tiny part of the overall problem of unemployment in this nation.

It does not help, of course, but then too, it is not designed to really help.

 

[Billo_Really]

The salaries of government employees are paid by taxpayers. Government employees contribute nothing to the economy.

That is absolute bullshit!

I worked on a DOE contract when I was 22 and I had a paycheck every two weeks for the next 4 years. And for those 4 years, I spent my paychecks on rent, food, clothing, gas, entertainment, bitches and ho's, bought a car and even loaned my mother a couple of bucks.

Now, how is "that" not contributing to the economy? You got the balls to explain that?

 

[Skull Pilot]

The salaries of government employees are paid by taxpayers. Government employees contribute nothing to the economy.

That is absolute bullshit!

I worked on a DOE contract when I was 22 and I had a paycheck every two weeks for the next 4 years. And for those 4 years, I spent my paychecks on rent, food, clothing, gas, entertainment, bitches and ho's, bought a car and even loaned my mother a couple of bucks.

Now, how is "that" not contributing to the economy? You got the balls to explain that?

Here is an example for you.

If a community of 100 people all make 1000 a month the total money available for the economy is 100K a month.

Now lets say a government is formed and 10 people are hired to do some administrative work.

So now we have 110 people all making 1000 a month but 10000 of that must be taken from the 100 members of the private sector.

So we have 100 people now left with 90K a month to spend and 10 people with 10 K to spend.

There is no net gain in money available to the community. The same money is spread over more people.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The salaries of government employees are paid by taxpayers. Government employees contribute nothing to the economy.

That is absolute bullshit!

I worked on a DOE contract when I was 22 and I had a paycheck every two weeks for the next 4 years. And for those 4 years, I spent my paychecks on rent, food, clothing, gas, entertainment, bitches and ho's, bought a car and even loaned my mother a couple of bucks.

Now, how is "that" not contributing to the economy? You got the balls to explain that?

Your just spending little old ladys with a fixed income tax dollars., ya think they couldnt have spent it?

 

[DiamondDave]

The salaries of government employees are paid by taxpayers. Government employees contribute nothing to the economy.

That is absolute bullshit!

I worked on a DOE contract when I was 22 and I had a paycheck every two weeks for the next 4 years. And for those 4 years, I spent my paychecks on rent, food, clothing, gas, entertainment, bitches and ho's, bought a car and even loaned my mother a couple of bucks.

Now, how is "that" not contributing to the economy? You got the balls to explain that?

Here is an example for you.

If a community of 100 people all make 1000 a month the total money available for the economy is 100K a month.

Now lets say a government is formed and 10 people are hired to do some administrative work.

So now we have 110 people all making 1000 a month but 10000 of that must be taken from the 100 members of the private sector.

So we have 100 people now left with 90K a month to spend and 10 people with 10 K to spend.

There is no net gain in money available to the community. The same money is spread over more people.

bingo

 

[boedicca]

The salaries of government employees are paid by taxpayers. Government employees contribute nothing to the economy.

That is absolute bullshit!

I worked on a DOE contract when I was 22 and I had a paycheck every two weeks for the next 4 years. And for those 4 years, I spent my paychecks on rent, food, clothing, gas, entertainment, bitches and ho's, bought a car and even loaned my mother a couple of bucks.

Now, how is "that" not contributing to the economy? You got the balls to explain that?

Here is an example for you.

If a community of 100 people all make 1000 a month the total money available for the economy is 100K a month.

Now lets say a government is formed and 10 people are hired to do some administrative work.

So now we have 110 people all making 1000 a month but 10000 of that must be taken from the 100 members of the private sector.

So we have 100 people now left with 90K a month to spend and 10 people with 10 K to spend.

There is no net gain in money available to the community. The same money is spread over more people.

Well done, except for one wee detail: Liberals Fear Math.

 

[Oddball]

The salaries of government employees are paid by taxpayers. Government employees contribute nothing to the economy.

That is absolute bullshit!

I worked on a DOE contract when I was 22 and I had a paycheck every two weeks for the next 4 years. And for those 4 years, I spent my paychecks on rent, food, clothing, gas, entertainment, bitches and ho's, bought a car and even loaned my mother a couple of bucks.

Now, how is "that" not contributing to the economy? You got the balls to explain that?

From where came the money to pay you, your rent, food, clothing, gas, entertainment, bitches and ho's, a car and to lend you mother?....That productive taxpayer working out in the real world, that's where.

Friggin' parasites.

 

[boedicca]

loinboy also neglects the incredibly obvious:

Current consumption is not investment in the future. What spurs economic growth is capital invested in new products, projects, and market expansion. Government just eats the seed corn.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It's official... Chief Shitting Bull has lost what little mind he had....

 

[SFC Ollie]

To be fair, Government must spend some moneys. But most should be at State and local level. It is the Federal Government that has grown too large and spends so much for so little gain......

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

This is the dumbest thing you have ever posted, which makes it really dumb.

 

[The Rabbi]

To be fair, Government must spend some moneys. But most should be at State and local level. It is the Federal Government that has grown too large and spends so much for so little gain......

Yes. Some things are legitimate functions of gov't. Weights and measures. Patents. Courts. A couple of other things. So liberals that bleat that conservatives want to end all gov't are morons.

But those things are a fraction of what gov't actually spends money on. In the late 19th century when gov't actually did only those essential functions they funded the gov't almost totally through tariffs and excise taxes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

How has Congress blocked Obama from spending state money?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I thought that this was so obvious, that it hardly required any comment.

Of course a loss in consumption will trickle down.

Trickle down government is good, trickle down private sector is bad.

Good to know.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

Of course creating government jobs means more jobs.

The real question is: How much can we afford to borrow (and for how long) to artificially prop up the economy?

 

[nodoginnafight]

To be fair, Government must spend some moneys. But most should be at State and local level. It is the Federal Government that has grown too large and spends so much for so little gain......

I don't find state or local governments to be significantly more efficient.

 

[The Rabbi]

To be fair, Government must spend some moneys. But most should be at State and local level. It is the Federal Government that has grown too large and spends so much for so little gain......

I don't find state or local governments to be significantly more efficient.

They actually are, believe it or not. But mostly they are more responsive to the average citizen, which is why the Founders tried to push governance down the chain as much as possible.

 

[Harry Dresden]

The Rich Have Gained $5.6 Trillion in the 'Recovery,' While the Rest of Us Have Lost $669 Billion

A middle class person would have to be retarded to vote republican.

i live in California Junky.....please tell me how the Democrats govern so much better than the Republicans?....because were i sit they both suck....

 

[The Rabbi]

The Rich Have Gained $5.6 Trillion in the 'Recovery,' While the Rest of Us Have Lost $669 Billion

A middle class person would have to be retarded to vote republican.

i live in California Junky.....please tell me how the Democrats govern so much better than the Republicans?....because were i sit they both suck....

Wasn't the recovery legislation passed by the Democratic House, the Democratic Senate and signed by the Democrat Obama? So how can Republicans be blamed for the outcome??

 

[Harry Dresden]

A middle class person would have to be retarded to vote republican.

i live in California Junky.....please tell me how the Democrats govern so much better than the Republicans?....because were i sit they both suck....

Wasn't the recovery legislation passed by the Democratic House, the Democratic Senate and signed by the Democrat Obama? So how can Republicans be blamed for the outcome??

Rabbi all i know is that a good 85 % of this State is run by Democrats.....and look at it....i want fucking Junky to tell me how the Democrats are so much more effective then those she bad mouths.....