Spross reports: "New numbers released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the economy added a mere 80,000 jobs in June. Republican intransigence on economic policy has been a key contributor to the sluggish recovery."
Only 80,000 jobs were added in June, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. (photo: Folsom Cordova Community Partnership)
5 Ways Republicans Have Sabotaged Job Growth
08 July 12
ew numbers released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the economy added a mere 80,000 jobs in June. That's down from an average of 150,000 jobs a month for the first part of the year, and far too little to keep up with population growth.
Republican intransigence on economic policy has been a key contributor to the sluggish recovery. As early as 2009, Republican fear-mongering over spending and their readiness to filibuster in the Senate helped convince the White House economic team that an $800 billion stimulus was the most they could hope to get through Congress. Reporting has since revealed that the team thought the country actually needed a stimulus on the order of $1.2 to $1.8 trillion. The economy's path over the next three years proved them right. Here are the top five ways the Republicans have sabotaged the economic recovery since:
- Filibustering the American Jobs Act. Last October, Senate Republicans killed a jobs bill proposed by President Obama that would have pumped $447 billion into the economy. Multiple economic analysts predicted the bill would add around two million jobs and hailed it as defense against a double-dip recession. The Congressional Budget Office also scored it as a net deficit reducer over ten years, and the American public supported the bill.
- Stonewalling monetary stimulus. The Federal Reserve can do enormous good for a depressed economy through more aggressive monetary stimulus, and by tolerating a temporarily higher level of inflation. But with everything from Ron Paul's anti-inflationary crusade to Rick Perry threatening to lynch Chairman Ben Bernanke, Republicans have browbeaten the Fed into not going down this path. Most damagingly, the GOP repeatedly held up President Obama's nominations to the Federal Reserve Board during the critical months of the recession, leaving the board without the institutional clout it needed to help the economy.
- Threatening a debt default. Even though the country didn't actually hit its debt ceiling last summer, the Republican threat to default on the United States' outstanding obligations was sufficient to spook financial markets and do real damage to the economy.
- Cutting discretionary spending in the debt ceiling deal. The deal the GOP extracted as the price for avoiding default imposed around $900 billion in cuts over ten years. It included $30.5 billion in discretionary cuts in 2012 alone, costing the country 0.3 percent in economic growth and 323,000 jobs, according to estimates from the Economic Policy Institute. Starting in 2013, the deal will trigger another $1.2 trillion in cuts over ten years.
- Cutting discretionary spending in the budget deal. While not as cataclysmic as the debt ceiling brinksmanship, Republicans also threatened a shutdown of the government in early 2011 if cuts were not made to that year's budget. The deal they struck with the White House cut $38 billion from food stamps, health, education, law enforcement, and low-income programs among others, while sparing defense almost entirely.
There have also been a few near-misses, in which the GOP almost prevented help from coming to the economy. The Republicans in the House delayed a transportation bill that saved as many as 1.9 million jobs. House Committees run by the GOP have passed proposals aimed at cutting billions from food stamps, and the party has repeatedly threatened to kill extensions of unemployment insurance and cuts to the payroll tax.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, those policies - the payroll tax cut, food stamps, unemployment insurance, and discretionary spending for low-income Americans - have the highest multipliers, meaning more job boosting potential per dollar.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 24 May 2013
|
 23 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 23 May 2013
|
 23 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 24 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Don't forget the fuel-based economy; the oil company daily rip off. Both sides are in on this one.
The American public simply has to realize that the "dirty word" entitlements is what "they" call social security etc.
"We" at least owe it o ourselves and our children to call them what they are: EARNED BENEFITS!!!!!
Also, don't keep insisting that Social Security "won't be there" when we retire. Adjust the system, perhaps by raising the cap to adjust for inflated dollars, but understand that its OUR money, not to be monkeyed with by Wall Street.
Inquiring minds want to know.
(P.S. Don't bother giving me the FDR crap. More recent economic analysis -- some of it even on the liberal side -- has concluded that FDR's policies PROLONGED the depression by as much as perhaps 10 years. His own Treasury Secretary thought he was nuts.)
WTF?
I suggest that you start "inquiring" by learning a certain factual amount about economic policies and how they apply to government spending, and economic recovery. Paul Krugman has written more than a few good articles regarding discretionary spending. But, individuals who are willfully ignorant, and hate Dems so, so much that they have to keep bringing up FDR, (would you like to discuss Herbert Hoover while you're at it?!)do not want to know the truth. That is not why you are trolling this site--sorry, no propaganda for you here.
Unlike you, I don't just listed to what old defunct and discredited Keynes has to say. There are other schools of thought on the subject.
And I have hard data to back up what I say.
1931-----16% unemployment
1932-----24%
1933-----25% (FDR elected; New Deal policies put into place)
1937-----14.2% (mike Darby says 9.1%)
**FDR listens to the deficit hawks and decreases gov spending**
1938-----19%
Although FDR was no economic guru, a rational, honest assessment of New Deal policies clearly demonstrates that, in the aggregate, they were central to economic recovery.
Two final notes: 1) John Maynard Keynes arrived at his theory by studying the Great Depression and didn't publish until 1936. 2) War-related spending that finally brought unemployment below 4% was in fact the 'mother of all gov stimulus policies.'
Now explain the above data with your theory or go have another glass of Austrian School kool-aid.
Much of it comes from "How Much Is That In Real Money", by John McCusker (1992).
It does not contain information past '92, but one can use the government's own figures, which are easily available online, to fill in the rest. If you so, you end up with a chart much like this:
http://things.titanez.net/download/prices_annotated.png
In this chart, "price level" amounts to (very roughly), the inverse of the worth of the dollar. If you invert the chart, you get something more like this:
http://things.titanez.net/download/chart_fun.png
Now, again, this is only rough, and the "price levels" in the earlier parts of the charts are (necessarily) estimates made by economists... for the simple reason that our "official" US dollar did not exist then, but we did have fair analogues that economists can use for those calculations.
Note in the first chart, the lines at 1913, 1934, and 1971. I will leave you to guess what economic events those lines represent, but I will give you a hint: they mark important points at which the government decided to interfere ever more in the economy, and, at the same time, increase government spending.
Spending has always generated growth. It doesn't matter a fig whether that spending is initiated at the Federal level, State level, local level, big corporation, small corporation, or individuals. The sole advantage to having a government agency perform the spending comes from the fact that the spending can be targeted to areas that will generate more growth than others. In fact, in the current economic situation, the government SHOULD increase spending by printing money in order to generate inflation. That is the easiest way to return some of the wealth that the banks stole from the vast majority of the 99%. For the folks that you guys are suddenly worried about, like the elderly, increase their benefits.
You see, whether you like it or not, the government has a significant role in our economy; and it also a significant part of our economy, so think twice about cutting off that huge chunk of the economy and come up with a plan to replace it immediately. Otherwise it is obvious that you have no plan at all except to enrich some businesses.
Remember this aviom and try to contradict me if you can. When Americans do well, American businesses do well. The opposite is not true as a cause and effect.
Good Luck!
"Stimulus spending" is a Keynesian (or, at best, Neo-classical) economic idea that was thoroughly discredited long ago. It has NEVER worked in the United Stated.
It didn't work during the Depression. FDR's Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, wrote in his diary about just how dysfunctional the policy actually was.
It didn't work in the 70s. In fact, the Keynesians had to fundamentally alter their "theory" in the 70s to account for "stagflation", which according to their neat little charts and graphs should have been impossible.
It didn't work in the 80s.
It didn't work during the recession of 2000.
It sure as hell hasn't worked since 2008. We have started to see the inevitable inflation as a result, but even when the government was "stimulating" the most, the economy was still turning down.
Evidence says you're wrong. And I base my comments on the actual evidence. The fact that you disagree with me does not make me a "troll".
I did not call you a troll. I did make an assumption regarding your positions on economic matters. You did not dispute what I said, so I will continue to believe that you are aligned with the Chicago School of Economics.
As noted earlier, it did work during the Depression but the plug was pulled too early, leaving it to the war to save FDR's chestnuts.
We got to the 70's after 2 decades of amazing economic growth which was the direct result of Keynesian econonmic policies. Once we reached the 70's three things happened. First, the plug was pulled on the Great Society; just as it was beginning to bear fruit. Second, the drain on the economy from the VietNam war began to punch holes in the economy and third we started using Chicago School solutions instead of Keynesian solutions.
In the Eighties, Reagan using Chicago solutions nearly destroyed the economy until he backed off and began using some Keynesian solutions to ward off disaster.
We never used any Keynesian solutions since then; except maybe a tiny bit by Clinton and Obama. In both cases when inadequate Keynesian plans were started they were destroyed by the Chicogoans as ineffective. Of course they were, they were never sufficient or properly utilized.
So, I have given examples where Keynesian worked, and where it failed. Every failure was the result of Right Wing Chicago School adherents setting up roadblocks and calling Keynesians for not reaching the finish line.
"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.
"I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises.
"I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot!"
The date? May 9, 1939.
"Why [the Great Depression] lasted so long went unanswered until Harold L. Cole, professor of economics at the University of Pennsylvania, and Lee E. Ohanian, professor of economics at UCLA, published their research project ... in the Journal of Political Economy (August 2004). Professor Cole explained, 'The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes. Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened.'
... FDR's economic policies added at least seven years to the depression." -- Walter E. Williams
And I have actual numbers too. Fact: gov't. spending PROLONGED the depression. Anything else is revisionist history.
He was the guy that convinced Roosevelt in 1937 and 1938 to stop deficit spending which as has been stated here and innumerable other places stopped the recovery cold in its tracks.
In the 1930 as now Conservatives do not allow true Keynesian policies to be implemented using whatever means they have.
Geitner by not embracing Keynesian policies has done a wonderful impersonation of Morganthau.
For once can you righties please let Keynesian policies operate, then if they fail condemn them. Again, if you block the road, you cannot turn around and blame the driver for not getting to the finish line. By the way, we did fully embrace Keynesian policies from around 1950 until 1970. Coincidentally, it was the possibly the period of the greatest growth in modern times. Sorry to repeat myself, but you have real hang up on this Morganthau guy so I decide to repeat my other points.
JUST LIKE the inflation WE have been seeing the last 2 years or so.
See that first chart I linked to above? Look at 1934. You call that "recovery"? Look at the slopes of the lines. Prices had actually started to recover before that.
They tried to inflate their way out of a depression, and it didn't work.
And you can't credit the post-war boom on Keynesianism. KEYNESIANS said the post-war period was going to be an economic disaster... that's why they advised the President to not bring all the troops home right away. Fortunately for us, he didn't listen to them.
And then, when the 70s rolled around, they were EQUALLY, disastrously, wrong. Their beloved "scientific" Phillips Curve said "stagflation" was not even theoretically possible. Yet we had to put up with the reality, off and on, for nearly a decade.
And it wasn't the Keynesians who eventually came up with a semi-rational explanation for stagflation, either. It was Milton Friedman.
First, I am not a "righty", and I very much resent your assumption that I am.
Second, many of the basic principles that Keynes later incorporated into his theories have been in use since 1913, most of the rest since the 30s.
I think 80 YEARS and more is a pretty long time to wait for failed policies to "get to the finish line".
Again, look at that chart I linked to elsewhere. After nearly 300 years of essentially flat monetary value, the last 80 years have been disastrously inflationary. The dollar today is worth less than 4% of a 1913 dollar. Even less today, I am sure, since the last time I looked up that figure was a couple of years ago.
That's what Keynesianism -- and the other theories that it built upon -- has done.
All you've done here is identify whose opinions you are reading. Emphasis on OPINIONS. You have not quoted any hard facts, no statistics to back up their statements. Just their opinions. Maybe that's because there IS no factual backup for their statements.
I did some quick research of my own. These two professors that Mr? Eachus quotes came up with their proof of the ineffectiveness of the New Deal by not counting WPA workers as employed.
In plain English, these guys fudged their numbers to prove their argument.
You are totally correct, he/she is using no facts, just opinions.
Oh, so that's how they did it. Figures...
//You are totally correct, he/she is using no facts, just opinions.//
Thanks. I do get tired of the tirades people can't back up with facts!
As for "opinion" about the matter: if you can't trust your own Treasury Secretary to know what's going on, then whose word ARE you going to take?
Go back and read above where it mentions the "highest multiplier". Give a person a welfare check and it's money back in the economy almost immediately. Same for unemployment, food stamps, Social Security. When the money gets back in the economy it gets taxed again and again until it's back in the treasury waiting to be disbursed again.
Does that help you understand? By the way, there's an archives section here so you can go back and read a lot of things that will help bring you up to speed.
You first.
I always knew you were a patriot, sacrificing your full salary so your lower unemployment check will benefit the rest of us.
Well, that is what it has been all about these last 3 years - make the economy scream - put the pressure on the folks but not the corporatist interests.
The present administration did not have the gumption nor skills to grasp the game plan.
The U.S. was originally set up by the founders to support the QUALITY of life for its people. What your attitude supports is the QUANTITY of life for a very few people.
You sound like a wanna-be rich person, as someone who wants to avoid looking at the reality of what is going on, because then you might have to change your mind. You might even come to see yourself as similar to the people you don't want to like. OMG, what would that do to your attitude?
How do you know that I am NOT a rich person already? And what reality are you talking about? The one where libs destroy individual freedom for the "good" of society? I kind of like my attitude but am willing to change when presented with facts that warrant a change.
The saying means that because you know the exceptions, the rule is proved.
So why do the overwhelming majority of people that are born poor, stay poor? And what is it about the people who don't stay poor that allowed them to not stay poor?
Sure! Every kid shooting hoops in the hood is Michael Jordan. Sure! Every kid in little league is Nolan Ryan. Sure! Every kid that tinkers with electronics in his garage is Steve Jobs.
So where the hell are they?
By the way phantomww, what multi-billion dollar multi-national corporation do YOU own? (not sarcasm).
The reason so many people vote against their own best interests is because they are pathetically ill-informed, mislead, and generally completely gaslighted--par ticularly by FUX. If individuals do not understand the truth about the economic obstruction instigated by the Repugs, how can they have any idea what the policies enacted by Repugs (or lack thereof) actually mean in terms of day to day living. People vote against their best interests when they are not aware, or are willfully ignorant of the facts.
And, we do not have a media that is INFORMATIVE OF THE FACTS. Corporate owned "journalist" whores such as Devin Dwyer (ABC.com) are writing hack pieces spewing lies--and the readers simply absorb the lies just like the amoeba brained idiots they are. THAT is what the problem is--a completely gaslighted citizenry--exce pt for those who happen to have a few working brain cells. The only one being "blind, arrogant, and elitist," is you, and others of your ilk.
I see little difference between the Republicans being spoken of in this editorial, and the ones I'm exposed to on a regular basis.
Whatsupwiththat ??
Since U.S. Senate rules require the entering of the senator's name into the public record after two days, senators commonly circumvent the limit by using what is called a 'tag-team' on a hold. 'Tag-Teaming' a hold requires at least two senators that want to hold the legislation indefinitely. The first senator (anonymously) places a hold on the legislation, and then, before his or her name is entered into the record, releases his or her hold. The second senator then places an (anonymous/secr et) hold on the legislation and repeats the action, releasing his or her hold before the 2 day window is up. The first senator then takes over the hold, and the process repeats itself indefinitely. Any one who wants a GOP majority next time around raise your hand. But even if they are not in the majority they can resort to filibusters and SECRET HOLDS. The cards are stacked agaiinst us.
Any chance he's waiting for the American public to figure it out, and reach a boiling point? As Thomas Friedman pointed out, "We don't need better government - we need better citizens."
It is possibly true that we get the government we deserve. Seems like too many people would rather have someone else to blame than take the risk of standing up, and changing what is going on.
What I think this society needs to do is broaden its definition of violence. What the bankers and brokers of Wall street have done, and are continuing to do is a form of violence. It's not always immediate, and it usually isn't physical, but the consequences are the same in the long run.
If we were to frame their actions as a form of violence, then jail would seem like a reasonable response to their behaviors and decisions.
Wanting to take away a woman's right to choose to have an abortion is a form of violence. The Michigan house keeping Lisa Brown from speaking her mind because she had the audacity to say the word "vagina" in a public meeting is a form of violence.
All violence is based on the idea of having power over others and the earth, as compared to having power with others and the earth. Seems like that fits what many, if not most of the bankers, brokers, and Republicans I'm currently reading about are doing or supporting.
Fracking, for instance, is another form of violence. Again, the consequences may not be immediate, but they may well be disastrous in the long run. Nuclear energy - look at Fukushima. And how about climate change?
Every major issue or problem we are currently dealing with involves people, usually men, who want to have power over others, as well as a lot of people who want to give up their power to others.
Act locally, convince your local Democratic party to embrace Progressive ideals. Support primary challenges of old line, and especially Blue doggie Democrats.
Don't change the world, change the Democratic Party and they will do it with you.
It is cheaper and takes less inertia to move the Party than each person one by one.
It seems we're seeing the same view from St. Louis. The $$tax breaks$$ went to the "job creators", and the jobs were created in China, India, Ecuador, The Philippines, but few in the USA. Venture Capitalists ventured their capital overseas.
Please try to name one prominent venture capitalist for me.
Boner and his lying bunch of Merry men. They say things benefit when their side does it, and then vote against it when the other side does it. Republicans are a ridiculous ambiguous bunch. The only reason they have any credibility at all is because they are so heavily propped up by the mainstream media, corporations and the billionaires club, that own the republican party. Apparently money can buy the ignorant, stupid, and the weak minded peoples votes...which all equal Fox News brainwashed Sheeple!
In order to stand a chance, we are going to have to work hard -- make it a person-to-perso n campaign. Get together your list of things that Obama has done. Write letters to the editor. We must be LOUD.
We must start working now.
And don't forget what Obama has done in foreign policy. He has protected the US better than any president in recent history.
RSS feed for comments to this post