Boehner: Federal job losses? 'So be it'

[kaz]

"Over the last two years since President Obama has taken office, the federal government has added 200,000 new federal jobs," Boehner said. "And if some of those jobs are lost in this, so be it. We're broke. It's time for us to get serious about how we're spending the nation's money."

Federal Eye - John Boehner: If federal jobs are lost, 'So be it'

I sure hope the GOP comes through on their promise of a Jobs Bill soon. It looks like a lot of Federal Employees are going to hit the unemployment ranks if Boehner gets his way. Not that he cares....he got HIS government job...

Federal employment economically is unemployment since you are taking money out of the economy and not producing anything. So Federal layoffs have zero economic impact as long as they are unemployed and if they find private sector employment are actually then positive for the economy. Unfortunately it's worse then that when they are Federal employees because they inevitably have to do something, and that something is always more regulation and overhead for the economy causing even more economic slowdown. Laying off Federal workers is all upside and zero downside.

 

[whitehall]

"Over the last two years since President Obama has taken office, the federal government has added 200,000 new federal jobs," Boehner said. "And if some of those jobs are lost in this, so be it. We're broke. It's time for us to get serious about how we're spending the nation's money."

Federal Eye - John Boehner: If federal jobs are lost, 'So be it'

I sure hope the GOP comes through on their promise of a Jobs Bill soon. It looks like a lot of Federal Employees are going to hit the unemployment ranks if Boehner gets his way. Not that he cares....he got HIS government job...

You sure hope what? Where have you been for the last two years of the Obamination or four years of democrat control of congress? What was the first issue democrats tackled when they gained the majority midway in Bush's 2nd term? They went after Baseball players. Federal government jobs do not stimulate the economy. They produce nothing but paper and we pay their salaries. Give the GOP a chance, they have only been in the majority for a month.

 

[Claudette]

Where was the job growth when Bush was president?

As I recall the jobless rate was about 6% or so through most of Bush's presidency.

There was no need to create a vast amount of jobs. Everyone who wanted a job had one. Hell. I had two.

You should know that since your the smartest guy in the room

Quite seriously..I don't trust Bush's numbers in the slightest. They never added up. There were massive layoffs yet the unemployment numbers never reflected the true picture. In some fairness, some of that was probably due to the type of people getting laid off. There were upper middle and middle class folks that delayed getting benefits by taking equity out of their properties or moving back in with parents. But just about everything the Bush administration did in terms of "reporting" was fixed in some way.

So you think Bush's adminstration cooked the numbers?? Kind of a hard thing to prove.

I do know that umemployment during the last 2 years of his presidency was going up. I think it was 7% or so.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Over the last two years since President Obama has taken office, the federal government has added 200,000 new federal jobs," Boehner said. "And if some of those jobs are lost in this, so be it. We're broke. It's time for us to get serious about how we're spending the nation's money."

Federal Eye - John Boehner: If federal jobs are lost, 'So be it'

I sure hope the GOP comes through on their promise of a Jobs Bill soon. It looks like a lot of Federal Employees are going to hit the unemployment ranks if Boehner gets his way. Not that he cares....he got HIS government job...

Federal employment economically is unemployment since you are taking money out of the economy and not producing anything. So Federal layoffs have zero economic impact as long as they are unemployed and if they find private sector employment are actually then positive for the economy. Unfortunately it's worse then that when they are Federal employees because they inevitably have to do something, and that something is always more regulation and overhead for the economy causing even more economic slowdown. Laying off Federal workers is all upside and zero downside.

Can we eliminate the entire defense department then? And achieve all upside and no downside...

...your own words?

 

[Sallow]

"Over the last two years since President Obama has taken office, the federal government has added 200,000 new federal jobs," Boehner said. "And if some of those jobs are lost in this, so be it. We're broke. It's time for us to get serious about how we're spending the nation's money."

Federal Eye - John Boehner: If federal jobs are lost, 'So be it'

I sure hope the GOP comes through on their promise of a Jobs Bill soon. It looks like a lot of Federal Employees are going to hit the unemployment ranks if Boehner gets his way. Not that he cares....he got HIS government job...

Federal employment economically is unemployment since you are taking money out of the economy and not producing anything. So Federal layoffs have zero economic impact as long as they are unemployed and if they find private sector employment are actually then positive for the economy. Unfortunately it's worse then that when they are Federal employees because they inevitably have to do something, and that something is always more regulation and overhead for the economy causing even more economic slowdown. Laying off Federal workers is all upside and zero downside.

That's a load of crap..that Federal employees "produce nothing". That's the new Conservative mantra too.

Cops and firemen produce public safety, teachers produce educated kids, emergency workers produce life saving services, people working in court houses produce the ability to conduct justice, santitation produces clean streets, public works produce clean water, dmv workers produce licences and registration..in other words..Federal and state employees conduct the day to day business of effective government.

 

[Sallow]

As I recall the jobless rate was about 6% or so through most of Bush's presidency.

There was no need to create a vast amount of jobs. Everyone who wanted a job had one. Hell. I had two.

You should know that since your the smartest guy in the room

Quite seriously..I don't trust Bush's numbers in the slightest. They never added up. There were massive layoffs yet the unemployment numbers never reflected the true picture. In some fairness, some of that was probably due to the type of people getting laid off. There were upper middle and middle class folks that delayed getting benefits by taking equity out of their properties or moving back in with parents. But just about everything the Bush administration did in terms of "reporting" was fixed in some way.

So you think Bush's adminstration cooked the numbers?? Kind of a hard thing to prove.

I do know that umemployment during the last 2 years of his presidency was going up. I think it was 7% or so.

Hard? No it isn't. Anyone paying attention saw this..

The Bush administration cooked all sorts of numbers..and used federal funds to run fake news stories and promote his re-election.

It's one of the most crooked administrations in memory.

 

[kaz]

Federal employment economically is unemployment since you are taking money out of the economy and not producing anything. So Federal layoffs have zero economic impact as long as they are unemployed and if they find private sector employment are actually then positive for the economy. Unfortunately it's worse then that when they are Federal employees because they inevitably have to do something, and that something is always more regulation and overhead for the economy causing even more economic slowdown. Laying off Federal workers is all upside and zero downside.

That's a load of crap..that Federal employees "produce nothing". That's the new Conservative mantra too.

Cops and firemen produce public safety, teachers produce educated kids, emergency workers produce life saving services, people working in court houses produce the ability to conduct justice, santitation produces clean streets, public works produce clean water, dmv workers produce licences and registration..in other words..Federal and state employees conduct the day to day business of effective government.

I'm not referring to that they don't "do" anything. I'm referring to economic production. You can't grow an economy no matter how much you spend on government. That doesn't mean that you want no government or you don't value what some of them do. But the post claimed that since Federal workers are being laid off they'd better create more jobs and I was addressing that point which refers to economic production. So look at it this way.

1) Economies grow because companies spend money creating a product or service, then sell it for more then what it cost them. The amount they sold the product for minus the cost of producing it is the growth in our economy.

2) Government spends money, but it produces nothing (economically) and therefore it only destroys economic value. Sadly bureaucrats in fact create negative growth because they create more cost to companies creating value dealing with not only their cost but they impede businesses with regulation as well.

3) So does that mean we don't want fireman? No, we are purchasing protection from fire. Teachers educate our kids. Roads enable movement and transportation of goods. Those things are things we want and only government can practically do. But none of them actually create economic value. Like in your household, you buy insurance to protect what you have, you spend money gas for your car to provide transportation. But those things don't make you wealthier.

Again, the point I responded to though didn't address that, it said if Federal employees are going to be laid off government better produce more jobs. I addressed that economically Federal workers don't produce any jobs anyway, so it's a nonsense statement. And in fact laying them off and cutting government jobs reduces the drain on our economy and produces jobs as money remains in the hands of where economic production comes from. In fact, making itself smaller is the ONLY way that government creates net jobs in our economy.

 

[Trajan]

Boehner's numbers are a little off. 200K? It's more like 50K jobs were added to Federal Payrolls. And the amount of Federal/State workers are at historic lows. It represents like 5% of the budget as well.

Way to get that Deficit under control.

you can always offer a budget yourselves....oh wait...he did, and?

its a bomb....."landed with a thud" I think the Times said.

Now its; " hey those bastard republicans" !!! Being adults is no fair!!!!!

have you no shame sir, at long last? have you no shame?

 

[Claudette]

Quite seriously..I don't trust Bush's numbers in the slightest. They never added up. There were massive layoffs yet the unemployment numbers never reflected the true picture. In some fairness, some of that was probably due to the type of people getting laid off. There were upper middle and middle class folks that delayed getting benefits by taking equity out of their properties or moving back in with parents. But just about everything the Bush administration did in terms of "reporting" was fixed in some way.

So you think Bush's adminstration cooked the numbers?? Kind of a hard thing to prove.

I do know that umemployment during the last 2 years of his presidency was going up. I think it was 7% or so.

Hard? No it isn't. Anyone paying attention saw this..

The Bush administration cooked all sorts of numbers..and used federal funds to run fake news stories and promote his re-election.

It's one of the most crooked administrations in memory.

WOW Who knew.
I'm sure you have a link or some sort of proof for your theory??

 

[kwc57]

Uh..yeah.

And Canada..has some extremely tough banking regulations. Hence they didn't need to do bailouts. Hence..they have the cash to cover lowering corporate rates.

But cherry picking is fun.

Carry on.

I've been in the banking business for over 30 years. If you don't think we have tough banking regulations in the US, then you've had your head up your butt for a long time. We have a sound banking industry in large part due to the regulations. What got banks in trouble more than anything else is the government forcing them to make mortgage loans to risky borrowers against sound policy. True story. Don't believe all the hype you see in those 10 second sound bites on the news.

BANKING REGULATIONS: REG: A B C D E F H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U X Y Z AA BB CC DD EE

Head up my butt?

Thems fightin' words.

And I've been arond the financial industry for around 15 years..and I've watched as regulations and regulators both got evisercerated. From the Reagan bailouts to now, the destruction of the walls set up between brokerage houses, auditors and banks led to this..and will lead to other "crisis". I, for one, would be in favor of the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall. And the SEC really needs to be properly funded.

 

[saveliberty]

If you fire the federal employee who reports job losses in that region, will the increase in unemployment show?

 

[Claudette]

If you fire the federal employee who reports job losses in that region, will the increase in unemployment show?

The totals will probably be as accurate as the CBO scoring for Obamacare.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Republicans rationalize this because of what? the deficit? the debt?

And what was the rationalization the Republicans gave for their deficit exploding budget busting 800 billion dollar tax cut in December?

Let me think...was it...

...JOBS???

Oh yes, I think it was!

Where was their 'so be it' then??