ExiledInIllinois Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 I guess that depends on the president's interpretation. One month he says he's responsible for reducing government jobs, and the next month he says the very thing he was responsible for reducing is the same thing holding back the economy. On the other hand, if you saw Darrell Issa defining "green jobs" last week, you'd see that it's all a bunch of crap anyway. Wicked. youtube.com/watch?v=q0IQ_vI9WZ0 Yeah, sure makes your head spin faster than you can say: "EiL's on his soapbox again." We have a really dousy of a choice to make come November... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Paul Krugman weighs in. He's a professor at an overpriced universiy and won a fancy award a few years ago http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/11/krugman_cutbacks_in_public_sector_are_whats_hurting_the_recovery.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Paul Krugman weighs in. He's a professor at an overpriced universiy and won a fancy award a few years ago http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/11/krugman_cutbacks_in_public_sector_are_whats_hurting_the_recovery.html Every time I read one of Krugman's articles, I hear a voice in the back of my head telling me that all restaurants are Taco Bell... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Every time I read one of Krugman's articles, I hear a voice in the back of my head telling me that all restaurants are Taco Bell... Every time I read one of Krugman's articles, I need to enhance my calm because the guy is such a doosh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Every time I read one of Krugman's articles, I hear a voice in the back of my head telling me that all restaurants are Taco Bell... That's the beauty of Paul Krugman, though. You don't even HAVE to read his articles. It goes like this: "Blah, blah, the stimulus was too small, blah, blah, we need to spend more, blah, blah, I'm smarter than you." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 That's the beauty of Paul Krugman, though. You don't even HAVE to read his articles. It goes like this: "Blah, blah, the stimulus was too small, blah, blah, we need to spend more, blah, blah, I'm smarter than you." Take away the stimulus talk and you're writing about Tom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Paul Krugman weighs in. He's a professor at an overpriced universiy and won a fancy award a few years ago http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/11/krugman_cutbacks_in_public_sector_are_whats_hurting_the_recovery.html That's the beauty of Paul Krugman, though. You don't even HAVE to read his articles. It goes like this: "Blah, blah, the stimulus was too small, blah, blah, we need to spend more, blah, blah, I'm smarter than you." But he's right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) So what are we to think about these public sector workers? Reagan/HBush/WBush all added more during recession to help and we've been in the worst recession basically ever and yet we've lost public sector workers. TV crap says 1.whatever million workers could be added with the money Obama wants Congress to give to states. Theoretically this is 1.whatever million unemployed people now employed with income who are then ready to buy housing and goods and get off unemployment/food stamps/other programs etc...spend this income to help the private sector come back...and we've done this over and over in the past to help the overall economy in times of need. At the same time...the money isn't forever and a lot of the states that fired all these people did so b/c they ran out of money... presumably they will again unless we get back to booming and the revenue is back up which is a big "if" relative to when the money runs out etc...it does put the states in a rough spot...plus as we all know reform in public sector benefits is a big issue (rightfully so in many states) and until that is taken care of it's even more reasonable for states themselves to feel apprehensive about this from a management standpoint...even assuming they would phase some out gradually as the economy gets better b/c some may be unnecessary they fired them at great political cost even now it will be more difficult in a theoretical future where we are back to normal and revenues are better... All that said...these unemployed people live in these states so it's not as if they take on the burden without getting some of the benefit. Then there's the money in the first place...some people want to aggressively attack the federal deficit now others are fine for now provided we link it with long term stability... ...what to think...is there truth somewhere in the middle? Should we maybe hire some back but not all, should we hire a bunch, should we not hire any, should we cut more? How does the answer to that effect how we view the actions of past Presidents who have increased public sector workers in recession? Also we know Romney doesn't plan to slash government spending/public employment when he's in office based on his Time interview so are we just waiting until Obama is out? Edited June 12, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politicsinvesting/7190-private-jobs-down-46-million-from-january-2008-federal-jobs-up-114 "President Obama’s statement Friday that the private sector is “doing fine” drew so much ridicule that he was forced to backtrack hours later. But it’s clear that Obama and many other Democrats see job problems — and solutions — starting and stopping with government employment. A quick look at payroll stats shows that’s not the case. Private-sector jobs are still down by 4.6 million, or 4%, from January 2008, when overall employment peaked. Meanwhile government jobs are down just 407,000, or 1.8%. Federal employment actually is 225,000 jobs above its January 2008 level, an 11.4% increase. That’s right, up 11.4%" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 When overall government jobs are down 407K despite a 225K increase in Federal hiring you know something just hit the fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 When overall government jobs are down 407K despite a 225K increase in Federal hiring you know something just hit the fan. Or, if you believe in cutting federal spending, you're probably giddy over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Or, if you believe in cutting federal spending, you're probably giddy over it. Probably be more excited about it if we weren't coming out of a depression and stalled in recession Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Probably be more excited about it if we weren't coming out of a depression and stalled in recession Meh. The federal government is such a huge chunk of the GDP at this point, it's impossible to cut spending and NOT be in a recession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Meh. The federal government is such a huge chunk of the GDP at this point, it's impossible to cut spending and NOT be in a recession. And lets be real here, what you've said DC is basically what I consider to a reasonable thing to say. Not, "we'll cut our way out of depression" and "if only Obama's 10000 trillion debt weren't crushing us all!" But a realistic assessment ... something a few of my libertarian friends aren't afraid to say "we should feel the pain, GDP should contract, this should be ugly and will take a lot time to get through" isn't the way to get elected I know...but people who are willing to talk that way deserve credit in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 And lets be real here, what you've said DC is basically what I consider to a reasonable thing to say. Not, "we'll cut our way out of depression" and "if only Obama's 10000 trillion debt weren't crushing us all!" But a realistic assessment ... something a few of my libertarian friends aren't afraid to say "we should feel the pain, GDP should contract, this should be ugly and will take a lot time to get through" isn't the way to get elected I know...but people who are willing to talk that way deserve credit in my book. Of course, if "Obama's 10000 trillion debt" (sic) wasn't crushing us all, there wouldn't really be a need to cut government spending... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Meh. The federal government is such a huge chunk of the GDP at this point, it's impossible to cut spending and NOT be in a recession. So essentially we're scroomed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 So essentially we're scroomed? Uh...yeah. Bascically, federal spending is the proverbial toothache that you let go because having it filled hurts. Now, it's abscessed, and needs to be pulled...and people don't want to, because it'll hurt. But maybe, if we let the tooth simply rot away, it'll all magically get better... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Uh...yeah. Bascically, federal spending is the proverbial toothache that you let go because having it filled hurts. Now, it's abscessed, and needs to be pulled...and people don't want to, because it'll hurt. But maybe, if we let the tooth simply rot away, it'll all magically get better... Worked for Tom Hanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Uh...yeah. Bascically, federal spending is the proverbial toothache that you let go because having it filled hurts. Now, it's abscessed, and needs to be pulled...and people don't want to, because it'll hurt. But maybe, if we let the tooth simply rot away, it'll all magically get better... I wonder if they're hiring in Australia. They're probably scroomed too but their women are hotter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Worked for Tom Hanks No, he "pulled" the tooth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts