View Full Version : Proof Repig Gov's Causing Job Losses W/ Their Cuts

Gayle in MD
12-02-2011, 09:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There’s a new cult of economic thought sweeping the nation — or at least many Republican (and even some Democratic) political circles. Its adherents cling to the erroneous belief that sharp government spending cuts will revitalize economic growth and create much needed new jobs

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) is an ardent follower of this Cut-Grow cult, as are a number of high profile governors. For instance, Gov. John Kasich (R-OH) declared, “We’re going to have to reduce spending…to create a platform for economic growth.” When Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) delivered his budget to the state Legislature he argued, “We must continue to cut government spending” to create jobs and prosperity for New Jersey families. Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) vowed his budget “lays [the] foundation to create jobs.”

Now these Republicans want the American public to drink a giant glass of their Cut-Grow Kool-Aid. But the data actually show the opposite of their claims to be true: steep spending cuts are hampering economic recovery in some states, while other states that resisted cuts or increased spending are now seeing declining unemployment rates, faster private-sector job creation, and stronger economic growth.

From the start of the Great Recession in December 2007 through the end of 2010, 24 states have cut government spending by an average of 7.5 percent after adjusting for inflation. Another 25 states have expanded government outlays by an average of 11 percent. (The analysis excludes Alabama due to data problems reported by the National Association of State Budget Offices). And the differences in these states’ economic performance could not be more self-evident. Relative to national economic trends, states that increased spending enjoyed on average:

0.2 percentage point decrease in the unemployment rate
1.4 percent increase in private employment
0.5 percent real economic growth since the start of the recession
In contrast, states that cut spending saw on average

1 percentage point increase in the unemployment rate
2.1 percent loss of private employment
2.9 percent real economic contraction relative to the national economic trend
Steep state spending cuts have gone hand-in-hand with rising unemployment rates, falling private-sector payroll employment, and lower growth in state’s gross domestic product, or GDP — the sum of all goods and services produced by labor and equipment in each state, less imports.

Take private sector jobs, for example. This graph shows that state spending is not just about jobs for public service workers, but also has far reaching consequences for private businesses and their workers. The downward sloping red line shows the relationship between cuts to state spending and changes in private sector employment relative to the national average since the start of the Great Recession. States that cut spending are seeing significantly more job losses in the private sector than states maintaining or increasing spending levels. For every 10 percent cut in state spending, state economies lost 1.6 percent of their private-sector jobs.

Certainly policymakers should seize every opportunity to eliminate waste and improve the efficiency of delivering government functions. But spending cuts achieved or championed by conservatives are aiming much deeper at public services and public investments critical to economic recovery now as well as the future of U.S. economic growth and competitiveness.

see chart:


This is a commentary to the big lie that Repiglicans are still yapping about.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>It proves there is an organized Repiglican effort to destroy the recovery, and proves their FAILED ECONOMIC POLICIES and THEIR LIES, DON'T FLY IN THE REAL WORLD!</span>

The President is absolutely correct. We Cannot Afford To Wait!

And Middle Class Americans are waking up, finally!


12-02-2011, 03:34 PM
I doubt that americans are waking up.
Certainly krappynomicysts aint.

The imaginary problem that exists only in the minds of all krappynomicysts now duznt exist all over the globe.
And shortly it will grow and will be lethal all over the globe.

Psychosomatic hypochondria among krappynomicysts kan be eased uzing tryed and true placebos that are guaranteed to lift the confidence of krappynomicysts everywhere -- and they will all die happy.

Gotta luv happy endings.

12-03-2011, 03:35 AM
What did they cut?

Gayle in MD
12-03-2011, 09:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I doubt that americans are waking up.
Certainly krappynomicysts aint.

The imaginary problem that exists only in the minds of all krappynomicysts now duznt exist all over the globe.
And shortly it will grow and will be lethal all over the globe.

Psychosomatic hypochondria among krappynomicysts kan be eased uzing tryed and true placebos that are guaranteed to lift the confidence of krappynomicysts everywhere -- and they will all die happy.

Gotta luv happy endings.
mac. </div></div>

I don't share your worst case scenarios, though you are welcome to air them.

IMO, our only hope is to rid the country of failed Repiglican economic, foreign and domestic policies, which they are hell bent to continue.

IMO, President Obama's mistake was that he did not fire the Repiglicans who were still in the top levels of government, when he took over.

Bernake, for example, a die hard Repiglican, is still there. IMO, he is a crook who covers up his dealings, just like Paulson was.

We don't need to argue with the low intellect righties on this forum, they're the same morons who defended Goerge Bush, the worst of the worst, and hence, given the critical state this country was in when we finally got rid of him, and the proof that President Obama has made significant progress in turning around the Bush Fiasco, I am confident of America's ability to survive this, as we have survived all of the other Repiglican FAILED AND DESRTUCTIVE POLICIES OF THE PAST.

Here is an article that addresses another Repig governor, who is as corrupt and destructive as they come....and so stupid, he doesn't even know thed law of the land. You may note, he, too, has that wide eyed, crazy look in his eye that is so prominent among Repiglicans.....Do you think they have been victims of alien invaders who removed brain cells, and filled their heads with nonsense???

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 11pt'>Florida Gov. Rick Scott's (R) claim that the Affordable Care Act is "not the law of the land" was ruled "false" Thursday by PolitiFact, the fact-checking project run by the St. Petersburg Times.

In an editorial board interview with the Palm Beach Post, Scott was pressed as to why the state of Florida was not taking federal money to implement the health care law signed by President Barack Obama. "Because it's not the law of the law," Scott said. "I don't believe it'll ever become the law of the land."
<span style='font-size: 11pt'>
While some courts have declared the law unconstitutional, no court has ordered states to stop implementing it. Moreover, legal experts told PolitiFact that statutes are the "law of the land" unless Congress or the Supreme Court decides otherwise.</span>

The Huffington Post's Mike Sacks reported that the Supreme Court will consider a challenge to the Affordable Care Act in March. A decision will come down at the end of June, potentially throwing the presidential election into chaos.

Before being elected governor of Florida in 2010, Scott founded a group in 2009 called Conservatives for Patients' Rights, which ran ads against health care reform.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Under Scott, Florida has turned away millions of dollars in grants from the federal government available under the new law, despite having among the highest rates of uninsured and unemployed in the nation.</span>

</span> </div></div>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/01...ml?ref=politics (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/01/rick-scott-obama-health-care-law_n_1124045.html?ref=politics)

<span style='font-size: 11pt'> Additionally, here is an article that exposes the lies of the REagan/Bush/Repiglican/Neocon cabal that is destroying our country, because there IS NO FREE MARKET!

This is a corrupt, hidden shadow market, and everyone is afraid to dismantle, because the entire globe is at risk economically all because of the Free Market lyingass Repiglican policies of Paulson, Greenspan and Bush...which stated clearly, in words or in actions to the entire financial industry, that FRAUD in the markets, was A-OK!

That's Repiglican economics for ya! As long as the wealthy are stealing from everyone else, the idiots of the right think is a good thing. Idiots!

Check out this link. I find this site to be an excellent source of accurate information. </span>


12-03-2011, 11:41 AM
"IMO, President Obama's mistake was that he did not fire the Repiglicans who were still in the top levels of government, when he took over."

Obama has bent too far over for so-called bi-partisanism. Bush didn't GAFF, and he ignored so much intelligent minds that he ran his entire economic team off. Obama didn't have the nuts that Hillary had for this job, and that's sad. sid

12-03-2011, 01:29 PM
So what did they cut?

12-03-2011, 03:52 PM
Crooks and Liars
Home » Blogs » Richard RJ Eskow's blog
December 02, 2011 09:00 AM
The Greatest Hoax in the History of Money: The Fed, The Banks, The Lies
44 commentsBy Richard RJ Eskow

It took the journalists at Bloomberg News two years - and presumably lots of legal fees - to pry information out of the Federal Reserve that should have been made public long ago. We now know that the Fed's secret $7.7 trillion lending program wasn't just the most massive bank bailout ever seen, and it wasn't just free money for mega-bankers - though it was certainly both of those things. It was also the greatest hoax in stock market history.

No, scratch that. It was the greatest hoax in the history of money. And it was built on lies. How many? Let us count the ways.

Here's the first one: The banks paid back all the money back that they were given. No, they didn't. They paid back the principal on these loans. But by obtaining loans at rates far below market value, we now know they received the equivalent of $13 billion in cash giveaways.

Here's another lie: Fed economists support a free-market economy.

Ben Bernanke is a conservative economist who claims to support a free-market system. But we now know that the Federal Reserve lent astonishing sums to US banks in secret, and Bernanke fought with all the resources at his disposal to ensure that this information didn't become public. He didn't just want it to be held back to avoid a panic during the crisis. He wanted it kept secret forever.

I don't know what you call somebody like that, but I know what you don't call him: A capitalist. Free markets need transparency, so that investors and customers can make informed decisions and 'the wisdom of the market' can prevail. Nobody wanted the market to do its job. When it came to banks, they wanted it to be blind, deaf, and dumb, unable to make sound judgments about their financial soundness.

They still want it that way. They don't want investors to know how badly Wall Street executives failed at their jobs. They don't want the free market to do what it does best - thin the herd so it's free of incompetent managers like the executives who still run our largest banks.

You can believe in the free market, ur you can believe in today's Wall Street. But you can't do both.

Here's another lie, one that's spread by Dimon and others: Giant banks are more efficient. Size brings efficiency in other kinds of business, but these banks needed massive help. America's six largest banks accounted on any given day for an average of 63 percent of the debt on these loans. The only thing they're more efficient at is wringing free money out of government-created institutions.

And, wow. Jamie Dimon sure is a hypocrite. As Bloomberg noted:

JPMorgan Chase & Co. CEO Jamie Dimon told shareholders in a March 26, 2010, letter that his bank used the Fed's Term Auction Facility "at the request of the Federal Reserve to help motivate others to use the system." He didn't say that the New York-based bank's total TAF borrowings were almost twice its cash holdings or that its peak borrowing of $48 billion on Feb. 26, 2009, came more than a year after the program's creation.

He also didn't mention that these favorable loans gave his bank nearly half a billion dollars in cash it otherwise wouldn't have had. Know what's convenient about that? It helps make up for the three-quarters of a billion Dimon's bank gave up to settle charges of bribery and corruption in Jefferson County, Alabama.

Chase borrowed massive sums of money, either because it was in bigger trouble than it has admitted or because it was bleeding an emergency public program out of greed. Either way, they weren't doing anybody a favor except themselves. How big a favor? Chase netted $457.9 million.

Citigroup's an even more extreme example. Once our largest bank (until continued mismanagement led to ongoing shrinkage). It only exists because Robert Rubin and other officials in the Clinton Administration,cleared the way for the largest merger in history with the enthusiastic support of the Republicans. That merger combined a bank with an insurance company, a harbinger of bad things to come in the risk area.

Citigroup's got the equivalent of a $1.8 billion gift, courtesy of Uncle Sam.

Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan sneers at his critics, especially those who think you shouldn't foreclose on families without obtaining proof that you own their mortgage. "Oh, sure," he said in response to government demands, "we'll do our homework."

Bank of America's gift came to $1.5 billion.

Goldman Sachs shouldn't have been eligible for any Fed giveaways because it wasn't a commercial bank. But a special "waiver" allowed Goldman allowed to become commercial bank so it could be rescued from actions it took before it was a commercial bank. Before that it was an investment bank. Yet, strangely, it seems to have kept operating as an investment bank even after the transition, too, even though commercial banks aren't allowed to do that.

Understand that? Don't take it personally if you don't. You're not supposed to.

Goldman Sachs's take? Just under $1 billion.

Washington's always telling us that bankers may have done naughty things, but they weren't illegal things. That gets us to our next lie: There's no evidence that bank executives have committed crimes. Thanks to Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, we may be about to discover whether that's true regarding foreclosures and mortgage filings. But when it comes to stock fraud, the evidence is already piling up.

The Federal Reserve and the US government may have stopped believing in the free market, but the law hasn't. It's a crime to deceive investors about the financial condition of your business, either by lying or by failing to provide the right information. Eliot Spitzer, who knows a thing or two about prosecuting financial crimes, hit the nail on the head when he asked: "where are the inquiries into the false statements made by the bank CEOs? And where are the inquiries about the Fed and Treasury officials who stood by silently as bank representatives made claims that were false, misleading, or worse?"

(Spitzer also proposes a five-point action plan that should be implemented immediately. His piece is well worth a read.)

How about this fib? The media's done a good job reporting on the banks. There's some great reporting going on out there -- Bloomberg, ProPublica, the Huffington Post, the Nation, the New York Times - but they're the exceptions.

Television's still a wasteland most of the time. Are you as sick of the "we got all the money back" line as I am? CNN personality Erin Burnett infamously used it to make an Occupy Wall Street demonstrator look stupid. But the reason he didn't know that because it isn't true. Banks paid back the principal but got a freebie from the interest. That's real money - billions of dollars of it.

You know that. I know that. But Erin Burnett, CNN financial reporter, doesn't seem to know that.

We're not condemning all television. Scott Pelley did a great report about homelessness on 60 Minutes just last week. But most channels haven't found the time to fully or accurately report on the enormity of this secret loan program. They've pretty much taken a pass on what, barring some ancient event I'm forgetting, is the greatest financial hoax in history.

And while we're on the topic of Occupy, let's thanking them for the fact we'll probably never hear this next lie again: "Wall Street and Main Street rise and fall together." Banks got massive giveaways. And despite their recent credit downgrade they're doing fine, thank you very much. The rest of the country? Not so much. In fact, let's do a quick inventory:

Robert Rubin made an estimated $155 million during his tenure at Citigroup.

One in four mortgages in this country is still underwater.

Brian Moynihan at Bank of America got promoted, then made that 'homework' wisecrack.

Twenty-four million Americans are un- or under-employed, including record numbers of young people and African-Americans.

The CEO of Goldman Sachs , Lloyd Blankfein, still has his job.

Poverty has soared to record levels since the financial crisis.

Erin Burnett, who made fun of a young demonstrator for not being aware of the misinformation she had repeated, still has an evening news program on CNN. She is engaged to be married to a Citigroup executive.

College graduates' unemployment rate rose last month, while the total amount of student loan debt in the United States is now greater than the total amount of credit card debt.

Jamie Dimon made a second career out of complaining that bankers are being unfairly criticized, even as Chase became the largest bank in the United States - and the world.

Jefferson County, Alabama, where Chase was forced to settle charges of bribing local officials, recently declared bankruptcy

Gayle in MD
12-03-2011, 04:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"IMO, President Obama's mistake was that he did not fire the Repiglicans who were still in the top levels of government, when he took over."

Obama has bent too far over for so-called bi-partisanism. Bush didn't GAFF, and he ignored so much intelligent minds that he ran his entire economic team off. Obama didn't have the nuts that Hillary had for this job, and that's sad. sid </div></div>

Well, Martin, I don't agree my friend. I think this president has demonstrated incredible courage, and determination, in the fact of unprecedented obstructionism and incompetence by Repiglicans.

IMO, this president has done a magnificent job of preventing the impending Bush Depression, worked very hard and effectively to bring an end to the two F-ed up Bush Wars, with some honor, and dignity, by cautiously, carefully extricating us from Bush's moronic Middle East disastrous and failed fiasco, along with the other inherent economic disastrous circumstanes he left behind himself, and President Obama has succeeded in getting not only bin Laden, o0ur major attacker, but other leading al Qaeda terrorists who were operational threats to our country.

Additionally, he has handled himself with honor and dignity, and proven that he has the highest intentions for our country, and for the world.

I am very happy with his performance. He is a thousand times better than either of the Bush morons, Nixon the crook, or Reagan, the lying ass, mentally challenged, Great Pretender...a deceitful moron, who blazed the path to our economic and foreign difficulties around the world.


12-03-2011, 05:31 PM
So they didn't actually cut anything?