PDA

View Full Version : Unemployment Rate Without Government Cuts: 7.1%



Qtec
05-09-2012, 03:46 AM
From that lefty newspaper, the WSJ!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One reason the unemployment rate may have remained persistently high: The sharp cuts in state and local government spending in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, and the layoffs those cuts wrought.

The Labor Department’s establishment survey of employers — the jobs count that it bases its payroll figures on — shows that the government has been steadily shedding workers since the crisis struck, with 586,000 fewer jobs than in December 2008. Friday’s employment report showed the cuts continued in April, with 15,000 government jobs lost.

But the survey of households that the unemployment rate is based on suggests the government job cuts have been much, much worse.

In April the household survey showed that that there were 442,000 fewer people working in government than in March. The household survey has a much smaller sample size than the establishment survey, and so is prone to volatility, but the magnitude of the drop is striking: It marks the largest decline on both an absolute and a percentage basis on record going back to 1948. Moreover, the household survey has consistently showed bigger drops in government employment than the establishment survey has.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The unemployment rate would be far lower if it hadn’t been for those cuts: <u>If there were as many people working in government as there were in December 2008, the unemployment rate in April would have been 7.1%, not 8.1%</u>.</span> </div></div>

link (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/05/08/unemployment-rate-without-government-cuts-7-1/)



Q

LWW
05-09-2012, 04:47 AM
Which would reduce the rate to only about 130% of the evil Bush average,
.

What a tool you are.

Qtec
05-09-2012, 05:14 AM
The Bush average is not the problem nor is it relevant to the situation when Obama took over. The UE rate hit 10% BEFORE Obama had enacted any legislation.

link (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000)

http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS14000000_2002_2012_all_period_M0 4_data.gif

Right now you have republicans slamming Obama for UE rates when at the same time they are slashing public sector jobs around the country!

Q

Gayle in MD
05-09-2012, 08:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Bush average is not the problem nor is it relevant to the situation when Obama took over. The UE rate hit 10% BEFORE Obama had enacted any legislation.

link (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000)

http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS14000000_2002_2012_all_period_M0 4_data.gif

Right now you have republicans slamming Obama for UE rates when at the same time they are slashing public sector jobs around the country!

Q </div></div>

And all for disgraceful political purposes.

Here is a great question.

How does a country rid itself of people who are so ignorant that they vote against their own best interests?

If we could figure that one out, everything else would fall into place, economically, and socially.

G.

Soflasnapper
05-09-2012, 09:20 AM
If no government cuts, 7.1%.

Meaning that had government GROWN instead of shrinking or staying the same, and by grown, I mean as much as it grew in Reagan's recession time, it would be in the 6%s.

LWW
05-09-2012, 10:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Bush average is not the problem nor is it relevant to the situation when Obama took over. The UE rate hit 10% BEFORE Obama had enacted any legislation.

link (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000)

http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS14000000_2002_2012_all_period_M0 4_data.gif

Right now you have republicans slamming Obama for UE rates when at the same time they are slashing public sector jobs around the country!

Q </div></div>

Thanks for having my back again.

As your chart shows, the upsurge in UE began when the demo kooks took control of congress.

eg8r
05-09-2012, 10:54 AM
LOL, he cannot decide when he thinks Presidents are responsible for legislation or when he wants Congress to be at fault. This is a great example of the small business owners not feeling comfortable with a Dem led Congress.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
05-09-2012, 11:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If no government cuts, 7.1%.

Meaning that had government GROWN instead of shrinking or staying the same, and by grown, I mean as much as it grew in Reagan's recession time, it would be in the 6%s.

</div></div>

Republican Governors throwing people out of work all over this country hasn't helped our recovery, either.

Are we better off now, than we were when we were losing over 700,000 jobs a month under BUSH, and heading for, according to Bush and Paulson, a decade long deep Depression?!!!!

bin Laden was still free and plotting.

Cheney was still out there spreading fear around and arranging for the Halliburton Loophole.

Bush was crawling around in the Oval Office, for the cameras, joking about looking for WMD, while our kids were being blown up daily, and he was pushing legislation that allowed for more predatory lending!



Damned right, I'd say, we are a lot better off than in January, 2009. The charts prove that very clearly.

G.

sack316
05-09-2012, 11:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The unemployment rate would be far lower if it hadn’t been for those cuts: <u>If there were as many people working in government as there were in December 2008, the unemployment rate in April would have been 7.1%, not 8.1%</u>.</span> </div></div>
[/quote]

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

What groundbreaking research by the WSJ here! Who would have guessed that budget cuts equal job cuts which in turn equals higher unemployment. In other words, IF people didn't lose their jobs, then unemployment would be lower? My mind is blown!

Sack

eg8r
05-09-2012, 12:09 PM
Well I think you are missing qtip's point. As you can recall he is only in favor of firing government employees when they are prison workers and it is a Dem doing it.

eg8r

Qtec
05-09-2012, 06:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, he cannot decide when he thinks Presidents are responsible for legislation or when he wants Congress to be at fault. This is a great example of the small business owners not feeling comfortable with a Dem led Congress.

eg8r </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Bush says he inherited recession</span>

Bush, Cheney take advantage of revised GDP data to say economy a mess when they took office.

August 7, 2002: 6:04 PM EDT
By Mark Gongloff, CNN/Money Staff Writer

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Although last week's revision of U.S. gross domestic product data for 2001 may have been old news for the economy, it was something of a stroke of luck for President Bush, who has since used it as evidence that he inherited an economic mess when he took office.

Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, in separate speeches Wednesday, both claimed the U.S. economy was already in recession when they were inaugurated in January 2001, <u>implying the blame for the slowdown rested on President Clinton's shoulders.</u>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Both men also made assurances that they had a handle on the problems facing the economy.</span> </div></div>

Republicans had control of both house from 1994-2000, but you guys and Bush call it the Clinton recession! Its not me that can't make up his mind.

Q

Qtec
05-09-2012, 06:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who would have guessed that budget cuts equal job cuts which in turn equals higher unemployment. </div></div>

Obviously not Republicans. At the same time they are slashing budgets and firing people, they slam Obama for the high level of UE!

Q

cushioncrawler
05-09-2012, 06:41 PM
The fundamentalists of theusofa ekonomy are strong.
mac.

Qtec
05-09-2012, 06:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The fundamentalists of theusofa ekonomy are strong.
mac. </div></div>

LOL. Yes, they are mac. That's the problem.

Q

Soflasnapper
05-09-2012, 06:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The unemployment rate would be far lower if it hadn’t been for those cuts: <u>If there were as many people working in government as there were in December 2008, the unemployment rate in April would have been 7.1%, not 8.1%</u>.</span> </div></div>
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

What groundbreaking research by the WSJ here! Who would have guessed that budget cuts equal job cuts which in turn equals higher unemployment. In other words, IF people didn't lose their jobs, then unemployment would be lower? My mind is blown!

Sack </div></div>

Er, the point was that had Obama seen the policies of Reagan implemented as to government employment during the economic downturn, which was an INCREASE of government employment, we'd be well under 7% as of this point.

People arguing we should do what Reagan did have a point-- raising taxes and keeping government employment growing.

They just don't know what he did, in reality.

sack316
05-09-2012, 08:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The unemployment rate would be far lower if it hadn’t been for those cuts: <u>If there were as many people working in government as there were in December 2008, the unemployment rate in April would have been 7.1%, not 8.1%</u>.</span> </div></div>
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

What groundbreaking research by the WSJ here! Who would have guessed that budget cuts equal job cuts which in turn equals higher unemployment. In other words, IF people didn't lose their jobs, then unemployment would be lower? My mind is blown!

Sack </div></div>

Er, the point was that had Obama seen the policies of Reagan implemented as to government employment during the economic downturn, which was an INCREASE of government employment, we'd be well under 7% as of this point.

People arguing we should do what Reagan did have a point-- raising taxes and keeping government employment growing.

They just don't know what he did, in reality. </div></div>

Just to be clear, my sarcasm was aimed at WSJ, not Q.

And I've said all along taxes need to be raised... AND spending needs to be cut. Obviously we must focus on where and when to cut spending from given the sensitive nature of our situation, but inevitably both will have to be done at some point. (and as well, have the spending we do continue to be focused and purpose driven).

Sack

Gayle in MD
05-10-2012, 12:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The unemployment rate would be far lower if it hadn’t been for those cuts: <u>If there were as many people working in government as there were in December 2008, the unemployment rate in April would have been 7.1%, not 8.1%</u>.</span> </div></div>
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

What groundbreaking research by the WSJ here! Who would have guessed that budget cuts equal job cuts which in turn equals higher unemployment. In other words, IF people didn't lose their jobs, then unemployment would be lower? My mind is blown!

Sack </div></div>

Er, the point was that had Obama seen the policies of Reagan implemented as to government employment during the economic downturn, which was an INCREASE of government employment, we'd be well under 7% as of this point.

People arguing we should do what Reagan did have a point-- raising taxes and keeping government employment growing.

They just don't know what he did, in reality. </div></div>

Just to be clear, my sarcasm was aimed at WSJ, not Q.

And I've said all along taxes need to be raised... AND spending needs to be cut. Obviously we must focus on where and when to cut spending from given the sensitive nature of our situation, but inevitably both will have to be done at some point. (and as well, have the spending we do continue to be focused and purpose driven).

Sack </div></div>

Focused and purpose driven? I'd say the focus and purposes behind Republican cuts are pretty easy to decipher. They are focused on making cuts which will increase their political power, and serve their corporate contrubutors, at the expense of education for our children, food and shelter for the hungry, the old and the ill.

Hungry children, single mothers, women who access affordable and/or free medical procedures and birth control offered by Planned Parenthood, should not be their route to deficit reduction.

Our focus should be saving jobs, not axing them. Raising taxes for the wealthy, not cutting them even more. Ending subsidies for corporations that are making record breaking profits, not subsidizing them even more.

Republicans and their policies certainly have increased our unemployment rates, intentionally aimed at creating higher unemployment, a deepened recession, precisely for political purposes, and they have hurt those of our citizens who most need assistance.

That isn't the kind of country we were before this bunch of radicals took over the Republican Party, and it's not the kind of country I want.


This is the wrong path.


Deficits should not be our focus until we recover from the huge job losses of the Bush Administration, and create more jobs, not destroy more jobs.

More people working is the most effective route to a thriving economy.

The deficits can be addressed later, after unemployment is back down to the 6 to 7% range.

Republicans have it backwards, as usual.

G.

eg8r
05-10-2012, 08:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And I've said all along taxes need to be raised... AND spending needs to be cut.</div></div>It is funny that lefties never understand the latter. They want to increase taxes and spending so that they can promise the world to get re-elected.

All along we, on the board, have supported tax increases through the simplicity of tax law yet have wanted to force reduction in spending at the same time. The lefties have offered nothing other than steal more money from the rich and give to those unwilling to work.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
05-10-2012, 01:18 PM
Odd, then, that the only actual brake on spending that lasted and worked was the deal the Democratic Congress forced on GHW Bush: to put in place by law hard caps on the discretionary budget, and to implement the pay-go rule, to ensure that any new spending OR tax cut would remain deficit neutral, by reduction in spending to compensate, or a source of new revenue appropriately sized to pay for any new spending.

This was part of the tax hike Bush was also forced into, and continued in effect through the Clinton years under the Democratic Congress when he came into office, and then by his own insistence and that of the Democratic minorities in Congress after the GOP took both houses in the '94 midterm.

Inflation adjusted discretionary spending rose in the 1-2% annual range for much of that time, providing its part of the 1-2 punch to restore the federal government's balance sheet to health (the other part, the second tax hike, Clinton's, on top of the effect of Bush's).

With 'he who shall remain nameless' in office with that GOP majority Congress, the hard caps were eliminated, and the pay-go policy eliminated, and the spending started growing by double digit annual increase rates.

It's clear what worked, and it's clear why it stopped working, and who cancelled it. (Hint: not the left, and not the Democrats.)

Stretch
05-10-2012, 02:07 PM
To my way of thinking, if the top 10% have 80% of the wealth then they can pay for 80% of the debt! They are the ones that have been milking the economy for the last 30 years and conspired to influence Governments to create policies that made them even richer. They are the ones that broke the social contract between the public, the government, and big buisness to all share in the wealth and prosperity following the 2nd WW. It's on them! St.

Gayle in MD
05-10-2012, 02:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To my way of thinking, if the top 10% have 80% of the wealth then they can pay for 80% of the debt! They are the ones that have been milking the economy for the last 30 years and conspired to influence Governments to create policies that made them even richer. They are the ones that broke the social contract between the public, the government, and big buisness to all share in the wealth and prosperity following the 2nd WW. It's on them! St. </div></div>

Yes, and their killing of the earth is even a greater offense against all mankind, and against everything that lives on this earth, and the earth itself.

If I had my way, everything they owned, after the crash, would have been confiscated by the Government, and liquidated to pay for everything they stole from others.

You would think if all of these right wing nutjobs wanted something to shoot at, they could figure out a way to shoot the villians, but they're too stupid to know who the villians are! Fux Noise and Republicans took care of that immediately, and began the propaganda to throw attention away from the bankers, and demonize the victims, those who were exploited.

I can understand how it was necessary to keep them on until things could be fully figured out, but, they should have been indicted in short order after that.

There is absolutely no possible way to justify what they did. PURE GREED!

eg8r
05-10-2012, 02:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To my way of thinking, if the top 10% have 80% of the wealth then they can pay for 80% of the debt!</div></div>They almost do (~70%) so what is your problem?

eg8r

Qtec
05-11-2012, 01:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All along we, on the board, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>have supported tax increases</span> through the simplicity of tax law </div></div>

Yeah, tax increases for the lower paid and cuts for the wealthy.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yesterday, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>House Republicans moved legislation forward aimed at<u> preventing any reductions in military spending,</u> even if that means cutting much needed programs for the nation’s poorest. </span>The House Armed Services Committee’s bill provides <span style='font-size: 14pt'>$554 billion for the Pentagon — $29 billion more than DOD had requested</span> — while the GOP-led Budget Committee packaged six bills that would “slice $261 billion from food stamps, Medicaid, social services and other programs for struggling Americans.”

Last night on Fox News, House Majoriy Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) claimed that the Republicans were just trimming the fat from the budget and getting rid of wasteful spending. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So what do McCarthy and the GOP consider budget fat? The New York Times today offered some details:

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that <u>the bill would push 1.8 million people off food stamps and could cost 280,000 children their school lunch subsidies and 300,000 children their health insurance coverage through the federal and state Children’s Health Insurance Program.</u> Elimination of the social services block grant to state and local governments <span style='font-size: 14pt'>would hit child abuse prevention programs, Meals on Wheels and child care.

A further 23 million would be affected by the repeal of the Social Services Block Grant, which helps fund child care and disability assistance to low-income Americans.

In fact, <u>eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans would more than provide the savings the Republicans are seeking, twice over</u>.</span>

While GOP plan has<u> no chance of passing the Democratic-controlled Senate, </u>the AP noted yesterday that it is “likely just a sample of what’s in store next year from Republicans if Mitt Romney wins the White House and the GOP takes back the Senate.” </div></div>

The GOP would rather take the food out of children,s mouths than cut defence spending, even after they agreed to.
They would rather cut child care and disability assistance to low-income Americans than cut tax loopholes for billionaires.

http://crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2012/05/march%20to%20madness.jpg

Q

LWW
05-11-2012, 03:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, he cannot decide when he thinks Presidents are responsible for legislation or when he wants Congress to be at fault. This is a great example of the small business owners not feeling comfortable with a Dem led Congress.

eg8r </div></div>

When The dems ran congress it was all the fault of Bush. Now that the reps control the house, it' his claim that it's all thevres fault tat the dem controlled senate won't vote on a budget.

He is exactly what Orwell predicted.

eg8r
05-11-2012, 08:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yeah, tax increases for the lower paid and cuts for the wealthy.
</div></div>Sorry stupid but you just did not add your closing bold tag far enough down the line. Probably becasue you wanted to run your mouth but then again what else do we expect from the tax evader qtip himself.

eg8r

eg8r
05-11-2012, 08:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Odd, then, that the only actual brake on spending that lasted and worked was the deal the Democratic Congress forced on GHW Bush</div></div>I agree that is odd that the only item you have to defend the steal and spend lefties is something that happened a couple decades ago. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif Thanks for pointing out for the last 20+ years, after that strange blip, the Dems are still up to their tried and true steal and spend antics.

eg8r

LWW
05-12-2012, 05:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Odd, then, that the only actual brake on spending that lasted and worked was the deal the Democratic Congress forced on GHW Bush

</div></div>

If you mean the deal te demokrooks wouldn't agree to unless GHWB agreed to the, then, largest tax increase in history ... which lead to the ensuing recession which they ten blamed him for, tree is as midge of truth to yor revisionist history.