[GeneV]

The fact that, starting in 2010 we actually gained private sector jobs is a turnaround of a long trend. The steep, sustained drop in private employment started in 2001.





Back to the original topic, the Heritage graph deserves at least 3 Pinocchios for misleading.

---

Last edited by GeneV; 09-07-2012 at 07:47 AM.

[Nesster]

The fact that, starting in 2010 we actually gained private sector jobs is a turnaround of a long trend. The steep, sustained drop in private employment started in 2001.

Gene, as always you make good points. I would think a current conservative would argue that the growth in government jobs - and their desirability given the erosion in benefits in the private sector - has 'crowded out' the private sector, the same way government debt - treasury bonds - has 'crowded out' private sector borrowing and therefore growth.

Putting on the wag, I would therefore argue that it logically follows that the areas where the government is unable to compete with the private sector should have seen tremendous growth. And indeed: government does not pay top management well, and we've seen CEO and hedge fund etc pay explode. Government doesn't do well creating movies and movie/reality TV stars (despite the occasional televised scandals)... nor emloying pro athletes... Government is terrible at information dissemination, we all remember the lame films we were forced to watch, and at providing hand-held entertainment devices...

[jeffkrol]

Gene, as always you make good points. I would think a current conservative would argue that the growth in government jobs - and their desirability given the erosion in benefits in the private sector - has 'crowded out' the private sector, the same way government debt - treasury bonds - has 'crowded out' private sector borrowing and therefore growth.

WAY too much "slack" to crowd anything out.. At best Fed has become the employer of last resort as it should...............though the stats are "slippery"..

As an aside it is very sadly funny from my perspective since, as many know both sides are wrong... BUT to frame it in my way:

They are blaming the president for not helping when in fact the answer is in solutions he doesn't believe in (more and BETTER spending) and even if he miraculously changed his mind.. a plan Congress wouldn't pass.........

[les3547]

They are blaming the president for not helping when in fact the answer is in solutions he doesn't believe in (more and BETTER spending).........

I'm not sure that's true. I think if he could get it past congress, he'd be spending a lot more on education and infrastructure (and health care would be single payer). In fact, he'd be an entirely different President without far right wingers to contend with.

[jeffkrol]

I'm not sure that's true. I think if he could get it past congress, he'd be spending a lot more on education and infrastructure (and health care would be single payer). In fact, he'd be an entirely different President without far right wingers to contend with.

Actually I was strictly referring to the "economic policies" of cut taxes/raise taxes and cut spending....... which both sides embrace w/ only a matter of degrees and program separating them..
Our founding fathers set up the gov.. NOT TO have a monopoly by party, but a fail more than succeed congress..

Current Congress/Pres is almost exactly what they wanted to happen but with the missing component of compromise..(of course the tweak to the rules over time don't help)

A Rep. Congress/Pres WILL BE a disaster to how I view America... A Dem pres/Rep Congress will be a little disaster.. A dem pres/split Congress will be a long drawn out recovery without disaster...

Unfortunately, economically all three are avoidable....

We need to currently take no money out of the economy.. in the form of taxes or spending cuts (you can always divert some i.e. Defense to infrastructure)...and inject more liquidity in the "base" not bankers..

THAT would work.. what is happening is CLEARLY predicted on the basis of the "economics" I believe and has absolutely no surprises.. yet like I sad most are talking specifically about current statistics and broadly about solutions based on inaccurate cures..

Facts fit a theory nobody is paying attention to.. THAT is what is really sad..............

[les3547]

Actually I was strictly referring to the "economic policies" of cut taxes/raise taxes and cut spending.......

I don't think I can understand your approach with so few words used to describe it.

If I had to guess by extrapolating from your past posts: rather than focus on cutting or raising taxes, or spending cuts, you'd recommend printing all the money we need to invest in stuff that would get the economy rolling, and only then worry about controlling taxes, expenditures, etc. as a matter of everyday congressional business.

A Rep. Congress/Pres WILL BE a disaster to how I view America... A Dem pres/Rep Congress will be a little disaster.. A dem pres/split Congress will be a long drawn out recovery without disaster...

I notice you didn't include Dem Pres/Dem congress (filibuster proof). At least we'd get a constitutional amendment to outlaw superpacs.

[jeffkrol]

I don't think I can understand your approach with so few words used to describe it.

If I had to guess by extrapolating from your past posts: rather than focus on cutting or raising taxes, or spending cuts, you'd recommend printing all the money we need to invest in stuff that would get the economy rolling, and only then worry about controlling taxes, expenditures, etc. as a matter of everyday congressional business.

In a nutshell yes........but w/ great power of the money press comes great responsibility... Personally NOONE has the guts to "DO IT"...

I notice you didn't include Dem Pres/Dem congress (filibuster proof).

not really very likely outcome BUT considering the divesity in the Dem party this would be, in my opinion, best of all worlds..w/ the caviet there still will be drag......

No scenario, including that one would DARE pass HR2990..................

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr2990/text

[GeneV]

Gene, as always you make good points. I would think a current conservative would argue that the growth in government jobs - and their desirability given the erosion in benefits in the private sector - has 'crowded out' the private sector, the same way government debt - treasury bonds - has 'crowded out' private sector borrowing and therefore growth....

In some oblique sense it may even be true that there is an inverse relationship between government and private employment. If good people lose their jobs in government, they probably seek out jobs in the private sector, and are part of the increase in private employment. However, they may then crowd out other applicants for the private jobs. However, that leaves government functions unperformed, and negates overall employment growth.

[GeneV]

Here is another view of the diminishing public employment as a cause of the deepening of the recession.
America's Hidden Austerity Program - NYTimes.com

[jeffkrol]

Here is another view of the diminishing public employment as a cause of the deepening of the recession.
America's Hidden Austerity Program - NYTimes.com

Tried 'that line" in overthrowing our governor.. Falls on deaf ears.. Public employees don't count FOR ANYTHING to many...........

YET:

It has become commonplace to contrast the American and European responses to the Great Recession, with stimulus in the former and austerity in the latter. European austerity has been at the level of member states and local governments — there is no meaningful federal government of Europe to provide either stimulus or austerity. But the United States has also seen unprecedented austerity at the level of state and local governments, and this austerity has slowed the job recovery.

Do I have to say it again?? Very pedicable by "my peeps"..

[kswier]

In some oblique sense it may even be true that there is an inverse relationship between government and private employment. If good people lose their jobs in government, they probably seek out jobs in the private sector, and are part of the increase in private employment. However, they may then crowd out other applicants for the private jobs. However, that leaves government functions unperformed, and negates overall employment growth.

Or is it because government contracts out more work when the number of government employees decreases?

[GeneV]

Or is it because government contracts out more work when the number of government employees decreases?

I'd say in this case, no. Contracting out costs more money, and money is at the root of the cutbacks.

[graphicgr8s]

The Obama also talked about investing more in education.
Why?
Kind of obvious how that's working.

[kswier]

The Obama also talked about investing more in education.
Why?
Kind of obvious how that's working.

Is there less money being paid by state/local government? Could be that the federal government is footing more of the bill, and state and local governments are footing less. So schools might be receiving less or the same amount even thought the federal government's input has sky-rocketed (this is my suspicion anyway).

Also, the plot is hardly from an unbiased source, and I am sure that this plot does not tell the whole story.

[jeffkrol]

Is there less money being paid by state/local government? Could be that the federal government is footing more of the bill, and state and local governments are footing less. So schools might be receiving less or the same amount even thought the federal government's input has sky-rocketed (this is my suspicion anyway).

Also, the plot is hardly from an unbiased source, and I am sure that this plot does not tell the whole story.

CATO institute propaganda:
Big Bully Picks on Little Bully | Vanity Fair

Cato's protestations of independence ring false because, as Martens details, the incestuousness bred by corporate donors such as the Kochs turns the intellectual lobby of capitalism-in-the-raw into one big shiny self-ratifying, propaganda-belching organism.
David Koch, who has sat for many years without complaint until now on the Board of Cato, has given over $1 million to Republican committees and candidates since 1997 according to the FEC.
The deep-pocketed Republican party spending by members of the Cato Board was enhanced by the Supreme Court’s decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010. In 2009, the Cato Institute hired the powerful corporate law and lobbyist firm, Patton Boggs, to file its Amicus brief in the Citizens United case, arguing in favor of loosening restrictions on corporate spending in campaigns. Paton Boggs has spent $390 million lobbying Congress on behalf of corporations since 2000 according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Cato has consistently, for more than 30 years, been a serial plotter to kill Social Security and set up private accounts to be managed by the same financial institutions which have brought the country to the brink.

The Republican Party should just change its name to the Koch Supremacy and be done with it.

facts:
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html
one example:
Federal Grants to States for Special Education *

By the end of the 2004-05 school year, national K-12 education spending will have increased an estimated 105 percent since 1991-92; 58 percent since 1996-97; and 40 percent since 1998-99. On a per-pupil basis and adjusted for inflation, public school funding increased: 24 percent from 1991-92 through 2001-02 (the last year for which such data are available); 19 percent from 1996-97 through 2001-02; and 10 percent from 1998-99 through 2001-02.

Importantly, the increase in funds has been linked to accountability for results, ensuring taxpayers get their money's worth.

It is arguable if we are "getting our moneys worth"... but to put it in CATO's terms (one demographic and no "breakdown" of program spending is just pure propaganda)

Cruel isn't it.............

Federal funding for two main federal K-12 education programs will have increased by $9.3 billion since 2001, under the president's proposed budget.

Under the president's proposed budget for fiscal year (FY) 2006, 65 percent of the U.S. Department of Education's elementary and secondary school funds would go to help schools with economically disadvantaged students (ESEA, Title I) and to support children with disabilities (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA], Part B, Grants to States). If the president's FY 2006 request is enacted, the increases in these programs over the past five years will have substantially exceeded any previous increases over a similar period since the programs were created.

Major programs include:

ESEA, Title I: $13.3 billion
IDEA, Part B, Grants to States: $11.1 billion
Improving Teacher Quality: $2.9 billion
21st Century Community Learning Centers: $991.1 million
English Language Learners: $675.8 million
Impact Aid (schools impacted by military bases and other facilities): $1.2 billion