Utter Irresponsibiility
The jobs report was solid yesterday and unemployment fell to 7.8 percent. Instead of cheering this fact, there are Republicans and much of Faux News who are claiming that the numbers are bogus. That is utterly irresponsible.
Much of the economy and the broader global economy is driven by government data that the U.S. and other countries put out. The idea that the BLS jobs figures have been cooked in order to gain some short term political advantage is utterly preposterous. But it is being put out there to try to discredit the fact that we are seeing significant improvement in our economy by Right Wing political hacks.
There are policies and procedures in place that would prevent such tampering and it would be absolutely devastating to U.S. credibility and the underpinnings of how global capitalism operates. People in leadership positions need to be more responsible. Unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise, questioning the BLS is horrible politics.
Republicans just don't want to accept that the economy is improving and that despite all of their obstruction and opposition, the Obama economic plans are actually working. There has been continuous job growth even as the global economy has suffered - most notably the problems in Europe, China, and India have grown. We also saw that the deficit shrank by more than $200 billion last year. It is still too high, but it is moving in the right direction. If we could actually pass a tax increase on those making more than $250,000 and we let the 2 percent payroll tax cut expire, the decifit would fall by $400 billion with the increased tax revenue and if the employment figures continue as they have been over the last 30 months. This would happen in just one year.
Romney's economic plan - which seems to change every few days - would eliminate the progress we are seeing and most certainly increase the deficit in the short run with no real explanation for how it would help over the longer term. It would create all kinds of new uncertainty.
posted by Rob @ 10/06/2012 10:32:00 AM
11 comments
11 Comments:
Professor, you've been saying that the economy is on the rebound for 3 1/2 years. The U3 unemployment rate is misleading. The REAL unemployment rate (U6) stayed at 14.7% in Sept. The number of jobs created in Sept. (114,000) was, again, pathetic. In July, Aug and Sept., the change in number of non farm employees has been 181k, 142k 114k respectively. We're moving in the wrong direction. It takes about 150k new jobs/month just to absorb the growing population. We should be seeing 500k+ new jobs created/month. Labor force participation rate is now at 63.6 percent and has continually declined since Obama took office. In Feb. 2009, the civilian labor force was 154521k, in Sept it was 155063k, an increase of only 542k, a decent MONTHLY increase. In that same time, the labor force participation rate FELL from 65.8 to 63.6 percent. That doesn't sound like continuous job growth.
Obama has also baked in trillion dollar deficits (Obama owns the 2009 budget. Bush proposed a 3% increase for FY2009. The final budget, approved by BHO, was an increase of 17.9% over FY 2008).
Did the BLS cook the U3 number? Who knows. Even if they did, BHO's record is far more egregious. You're getting worked up over the wrong thing.
Dennis
"A 1/32 Cherokee Tea Party guy having fun"
"We don’t believe that anybody is entitled to success in this country." -Barack Obama from a 10/5/12 speech in Virginia
It is very hard to take you seriously when you actually think there is a possibility that the numbers are made up.
I laughed when I read your claim that we should have '500k+ new jobs created/month." That would be remarkable at any time - let alone when there continues to be a global economic slowdown. It happened once under Reagan, never under either Bush, and once under Clinton. Seriously, you have to have a better sense of context.
If you do not accept that the budget deficit was over a trillion when Obama came to office then you just do not accept reality.
You must have been freaking out when we were losing 800,000 jobs/month under W. There is no question that the economy is on much firmer ground. Jobs have been created for 30 straight months. Unemployment has been steadily falling. Consumer confidence is rising, GDP is growing, the major stock indicies have recovered and are continuing to grow. The budget deficit is now shrinking.
In President Obama's second term, the numbers are going to continue to improve.
So you're saying that if Obama wins a second term we'll continue to have 14.7% REAL unemployment PLUS $ trillion annual deficits. Wow, what a bummer.Even Debbie Downer is more optimistic than that.
The U6 rate is holding steady, not going down. In Jan 1012 it was 15.1% now it's 14.7% but it's been hovering around 15% all year.Do I think this administration cooked the unemployment books? Perhaps. Do I think the administration which has given us Solyndra, Fast and Furious, several tax evaders as Cabinet officials, a fatal attack on our Libyan consulate is capable of doing it? You betcha.
Dennis
"A 1/32 Cherokee Tea Party guy having fun"
You may think that, but please do not make up my arguments.
Your argument is that the current economic trends will continue if BHO is reelected, correct?
Dennis
" A 1/32 Cherokee Tea Party guy having fun"
Yes and we should see even faster improvement in the deficit and job creation numbers as the economy continues to improve.
You have to build a base to improve from - which is exactly what is happening.
Let me ask you a question.
You do agree that:
1. We were losing about 800,000 jobs a month in the U.S. when President Obama took office.
2. The federal budget deficit for the 2009 fiscal year that President Obama took office with was $1.2 trillion.
3. The U.S. economy when he took office - as neasured by GDP was shrinking by 8+ percent.
1. Yes- due to MAL economic policies.
2. Yes- Based on additional spending approved by Obama and the Democrat Congess.
3. Yes again due to MAL economic polcies.
Since this was a severe recession the recovery SHOULD have been dramatically large and rapid. Obama's policies have stifled any chance at a recovery. Luckily the Republican House has opposed BHO or things would be much worse.
Dennis
"A 1/32 Cherokee Tea Party guy having fun"
The last point is a joke. You have no understanding of economics whatsoever if you actually believe that.
Bush and the Republicans are blameless no matter what in your mind. No problem for me - but then there is no reason to discuss economic policies further. That position is utterly preposterous, and for me it is like arguing with a child.
The day President Obama was inaugurated, the CBO was projecting a $1.2 trillion deficit for FY 2009. Bush's $800 billion bank bailout and the economic collapse were factored into that number.
Given that no Republicans supported the Stimulus or any of the President's economic policies, as we continue to recover it will be all Democratic solutions. I am sure you will have some silly excuse.
I have 2 requests:
1. Please read my comments. I mean really read them. I'm not sure if your problem is reading comprehension or purposeful misstating of my position.
2. Please lose your snippy, condescending attitude. I know you're angry, but it's not my fault that your candidate is a failure. I'm just the messenger. Saying that I don't know what I'm talking about, or that I'm being silly, or that arguing with me is like arguing with a child contributes nothing to our debate. It would be alot more helpful if you would say WHY you think I'm wrong and back your position with some facts. I offered facts in my first comment and so far you haven't refuted any of them.
With that out of the way, I'd like to respond to your last comment. Nowhere have I said that "Bush and the Republicans are blameless...". On many, many, many occasions on this site I've said that Bush made mistakes. If you notice in my post above (again, please read my posts), I said that MAL (Modern American Liberal)policies are to blame. That doesn't absolve Bush or the Republicans. There are many MALs (aka RINOs) in the Republican party and Bush was surprisingly Liberal economically. What I am saying is that Keynesian economics has NEVER worked and NEVER will work. I believe that the initial stimulus didn't work (we have 14.7% unemployment after all)and additional stimulus favored by Obama and the Dems would have been very distructive. There are plenty of Conservative economists who agree. Ever hear of the Chicago School? Do you consider such economists (like Thomas Sowell at Stanford) to be children? In the past we have had many severe recessions and these typically ended quickly without aggressive government meddling. Of the two candidates, I feel that Obama will be to the left of Romney economically. Romney is the far better choice in my opinion, but he is by no means perfect. If that makes me a silly know nothing child, so be it.
Dennis
"A 1/32 Cherokee Tea Party guy having fun"
"We don’t believe that anybody is entitled to success in this country." -Barack Obama from a 10/5/12 speech in Virginia
I did read your comments and I'm not angry. You may view it as snippy, but the fact is that you clearly do not understand basics about how the economy or government budgets are set. You also actually think the numbers may be fixed - which would totally destroy the worldwide economy. You do not accept the long history and many examples of successful use of deficit spending according to Keynesian economics. You also have no meaningful understanding of history or context that allows you to put forth reasonable numbers - the idea that we should expect 500,000 jobs/month is just silly.
In this case, I don't really feel like debating because it is just like debating a child who cannot understand the facts. I am not mad - I would not get mad at a child who doesn't understand more complex facts. It would be a waste of time and energy, so I just have to move on.
I'm sure you do not agree, but that's OK.
Post a Comment
<< Home