HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The Republican Recession ...

Tue Jan 28, 2014, 11:20 AM

The Republican Recession and the Democratic Recovery (updated again)

Last edited Tue Jan 28, 2014, 12:21 PM - Edit history (1)

So I made the mistake of watching Michelle Bachmann.

She continues to push trickle down economics and to ask "where are the jobs?"

Well the first question needs to be, where did the jobs go?

The answer to that is that they went away in Bush's last year in office. Basically Bush trickled them down his leg. This is perhaps my 4th update and the BLS keeps changing their numbers. So, if you are keeping score, the numbers will not be exactly the same as the last update http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021566043

Why the numbers from 2008 should change between 2010 and 2014 is a mystery to me, but presumably the latest numbers are more accurate than the earlier numbers. These are the job gains (or losses) by quarter.

First, the Republican recession, a very severe one

2008
1st (150,000)
2nd (570,000)
3rd (945,000)
4th (1,952,000)

total (with Bush as President) (3,637,000)

2009
1st (2,319,000) note - Obama was sworn in as President and the stimulus passed in the middle of this quarter
2nd (1,528,000)

total (in Obama's first five months in office (3,847,000) Clearly NOT the result of Obama policies.

Then the Democratic recovery (starting by slowing the freefall)


3rd (794,000)
4th (411,000)

total of the last half year (1,205,000)

That the economy was no longer losing 1,000,000+ jobs every quarter is a very positive thing. The economy was in free fall and the stimulus was like a parachute. When you open a parachute, you keep falling, but at a much slower rate so that the landing does not kill you. But things kept getting better for the economy.

2010
1st +101,000
2nd +620,000
3rd (166,000)
4th +467,000

total 2010 + 1,022,000

2011
1st + 470,000
2nd + 628,000
3rd + 435,000
4th + 570,000

total 2011 + 2,103,000

2012
1st +787,000
2nd +324,000
3rd +456,000
4th +626,000

total 2012 +2,193,000

2013
1st +622,000 (-15,000)
2nd +547,000 (-22,000)
3rd +502,000 (+27,000)
the next is mostly provisional (estimates)
4th +575,000 (-15,000)

total 2013 +2,246,000

The numbers in parentheses there are the number of JOBS that governments CUT. Showing that Republican austerity policies are STILL a drag on the economy.

So 7.5 million jobs in the last four years. As Governments have CUT 766,000 jobs since May 2009. The private sector then has added 8.3 million jobs.

If our economic policies were more sane, we would have worked to KEEP those 700,000 government jobs. When somebody gets a job for the government, whether as a postal carrier, teacher, firefighter, garbage collector, food inspector, or whatever, even a janitor like me, they not only provide services to the public, but their paycheck allows them to spend money in the private sector. Which creates, or supports, even more jobs.

But if those jobs are cut, that is another drag on the recovery.

Of course, it is true that 7.5 million new jobs still does NOT equal the 8.7 million jobs that Bush (and Bachman's) policies trickled away in 2008 and 2009. Bachman kept saying "In the last seven years" as if Bush was not President seven years ago (to our great misfortune).

We are slowly recovering from a Republican jobs catastrophe. We'd be recovering even better if not for the catastrophe of November 2010 which gave us a Republican Congress.

I will say this again, every three months, until November. And if you are still reading this, thanks for staying with me.

20 replies, 1088 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 20 replies Author Time Post
Reply The Republican Recession and the Democratic Recovery (updated again) (Original post)
hfojvt Jan 2014 OP
ProSense Jan 2014 #1
hfojvt Jan 2014 #2
ProSense Jan 2014 #3
hfojvt Jan 2014 #4
ProSense Jan 2014 #10
hfojvt Jan 2014 #15
ProSense Jan 2014 #17
hfojvt Jan 2014 #20
hfojvt Jan 2014 #5
yewberry Jan 2014 #6
hfojvt Jan 2014 #7
seveneyes Jan 2014 #8
hfojvt Jan 2014 #11
seveneyes Jan 2014 #12
hfojvt Jan 2014 #13
kentuck Jan 2014 #9
kentuck Jan 2014 #14
hfojvt Jan 2014 #16
kentuck Jan 2014 #18
DCBob Jan 2014 #19

Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Tue Jan 28, 2014, 11:25 AM

1. Looks like the

..."liar" (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024391415#post4) already covered that.

Reversing Local Austerity

<...>

One question that arises when we talk about the possibility of reversing the disastrous push for austerity runs something like this: “OK, you say you want more government spending, but what should it spend money on?” The truth is that I think the perceived lack of shovel-ready projects was overstated even in 2009, but it was a real concern.

The point I want to make is that matters now are actually a lot easier: we could get a fairly big fiscal bang just by resuming aid to state and local governments, allowing them to reverse the big cuts they have recently made.

So here’s my chart. It shows employment by state and local governments, which has fallen around half a million, with the majority of the cuts coming from education. Moreover, the baseline should not be zero; it should be normal growth, say along with population growth. So I’ve indicated what would have happened to state and local employment if it had grown at its usual rate of 1% a year:



This suggests to me that we could put well over a million people to work directly, and probably around 3 million once you take other effects into account, without any need to come up with new projects; just transfer enough money to state and local governments to let them return to doing the essential business of government, like educating our children.

- more -

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/reversing-local-austerity/


States of Depression

By PAUL KRUGMAN

The economic news is looking better lately. But after previous false starts — remember “green shoots”? — it would be foolish to assume that all is well. And in any case, it’s still a very slow economic recovery by historical standards.

There are several reasons for this slowness, with the most important being the overhang of household debt that is a legacy of the housing bubble. But one significant factor in our continuing economic weakness is the fact that government in America is doing exactly what both theory and history say it shouldn’t: slashing spending in the face of a depressed economy...if it weren’t for this destructive fiscal austerity, our unemployment rate would almost certainly be lower now than it was at a comparable stage of the “Morning in America” recovery during the Reagan era.

Notice that I said “government in America,” not “the federal government.” The federal government has been pursuing what amount to contractionary policies as the last vestiges of the Obama stimulus fade out, but the big cuts have come at the state and local level...We’re talking big numbers here. If government employment under Mr. Obama had grown at Reagan-era rates, 1.3 million more Americans would be working as schoolteachers, firefighters, police officers, etc., than are currently employed in such jobs.

And once you take the effects of public spending on private employment into account, a rough estimate is that the unemployment rate would be 1.5 percentage points lower than it is, or below 7 percent — significantly better than the Reagan economy at this stage.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/opinion/krugman-states-of-depression.html

This is why Republicans in Congress and State Governorships have been working hard to sabotage the recovery.

The Jobs Program That Wasn’t

Macroeconomic Advisers on the American Jobs Act, proposed a year ago:

We estimate that the American Jobs Act (AJA), if enacted, would give a significant boost to GDP and employment over the near-term.

-The various tax cuts aimed at raising workers’ after-tax income and encouraging hiring and investing, combined with the spending increases aimed at maintaining state & local employment and funding infrastructure modernization, would:
-Boost the level of GDP by 1.3% by the end of 2012, and by 0.2% by the end of 2013.
-Raise nonfarm establishment employment by 1.3 million by the end of 2012 and 0.8 million by the end of 2013, relative to the baseline

Of course, it that had happened, Obama would be more or less a lock for reelection. Instead, having blocked the president’s economic plans, Republicans can point to weak job growth and claim that the president’s policies have failed.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/the-jobs-program-that-wasnt/


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 28, 2014, 11:35 AM

2. too bad he's also endorsing trickle down

Krugman "The various tax cuts aimed at raising workers’ after-tax income and encouraging hiring and investing..."

That part of the "Jobs act" actually passed. The accursed payroll tax cut DID get extended for a year. Obama proposed making it even bigger and that didn't happen (thankfully).

I am surprised the dumb thing is not STILL with us.

12.1% of the payroll tax cut goes to those in the bottom 40%
26.7% of the payroll tax cut goes to those in the top 10%

27.1% goes to those in the bottom 60%
46.4% goes to those in the top 20%

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/160

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 28, 2014, 11:45 AM

3. LOL!

too bad he's also endorsing trickle down

Krugman "The various tax cuts aimed at raising workers’ after-tax income and encouraging hiring and investing..."

A tax cut for low income workers is "trickle down"?

Do you even know what you're talking about? Of course not, you called Krugman a liar, and now you're misrepresenting his position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 28, 2014, 12:18 PM

4. "the various tax cuts"

were what I call "the accursed payroll tax cut".

As the data shows, it was NOT primarily a "tax cut for low income workers".

You'd know that, if Krugman ever bothered to write about it, but maybe he's just too busy counting his $4,000.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/economy/jobsact#sub4-tab

As Citizens for Tax JUSTICE showed in their analysis (which matched mine) the top 10% got far more of the accursed payroll tax cut than the bottom 40% did.

That's why I called it trickle down, even if Krugman was in favor of it.

I called him a liar. Is it a "lie" if somebody (who knows better) is all "rah, rah, hooray for the payroll tax cut" without ever mentioning that, by far, more of the benefits go to the top 20% than go to the bottom 60%? Is it a lie to call THAT a "tax cut for low income workers"? (which Krugman never did, at least not in your snip. He said "workers" without mentioning "low income".)

I would call that "a lie by ommission". He knew the truth (that it favored the top over the bottom) but never talked about the truth as he promoted it.

Bush promoted his tax cuts in much the same way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 28, 2014, 04:17 PM

10. This makes no sense

"the various tax cuts"

were what I call "the accursed payroll tax cut".

As the data shows, it was NOT primarily a "tax cut for low income workers".

You'd know that, if Krugman ever bothered to write about it, but maybe he's just too busy counting his $4,000.

You keep railing against people who make just over $100,000, implying that they're the rich (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024391415#post77). Now, here you are implying that a tax cut that only affects income up to $110,000 is a tax cut for the rich, the "trickle-down" BS.

The reason you keep making these contradictory claims, confusing yourself, is that the point is nonsensical spin.

I called him a liar. Is it a "lie" if somebody (who knows better) is all "rah, rah, hooray for the payroll tax cut" without ever mentioning that, by far, more of the benefits go to the top 20% than go to the bottom 60%? Is it a lie to call THAT a "tax cut for low income workers"? (which Krugman never did, at least not in your snip. He said "workers" without mentioning "low income".)

I would call that "a lie by ommission". He knew the truth (that it favored the top over the bottom) but never talked about the truth as he promoted it.

A "lie by ommission"? It's your bizarre spin. Krugman is under no obligation to address it, and would likely call it out as silly like he does other ridiculous arguments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 28, 2014, 07:10 PM

15. just because YOU don't understand something

or want to pretend you don't understand something, does not mean that it makes no sense.

The math is fairly simple, if somewhat paradoxical at first glance.

Those who make more than $110,000 a year get a bigger tax cut than those who make less than $20,000 a year.

The average payroll tax cut of those in the bottom 20% was $145. The average payroll tax cut of those in the next 20% was $320.

The average payroll tax cut of those in the top 1% was $2,328. The average for those in the next 4% was $2,137.

$2,000 is a LOT more than either $145 or $320. Hence the richest 10% end up with 26.7% of the benefits and the bottom 40% end up with only 12.1%.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxcompromise2010.pdf

Krugman should know this. Is he under obligation to tell us? Well, he is selling the payroll tax cut as "a good policy". Trying to sell it to progressives, people who generally like and respect him. Selling a used car without telling the prospective buyer about its bad transmission would be dishonest.

Krugman is selling trickle down tax cuts as a way to create jobs, without bothering to mention that they are trickle down.

The conscience of a liberal indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #15)

Tue Jan 28, 2014, 07:31 PM

17. No,

"Those who make more than $110,000 a year get a bigger tax cut than those who make less than $20,000 a year...$2,000 is a LOT more than either $145 or $320."

... your point makes no sense. You are railing against an income of $110,000 garnering a tax cut of $2,000 because their payroll tax was cut by 2 percent.

A person earning $50,000 got a tax cut of $1,000. That's how the tax code works.

Now, how much did the person earning $250,000, $500,000 or more get?

Answer: The same damn $2,200 that a person earning $113,000 got because the payroll tax is capped.

Do you think that $2,200 means as much to a person earning $500,000 as $1,000 or $2,000 means to a person earning $50,000 or $100,000, respectively ?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #17)

Tue Jan 28, 2014, 09:00 PM

20. no it doesn't

but for some reason - they took the money anyway.

Those households making between $127,000 and $458,000 got $26.5 billion dollars. The 1% got another $3.4 billion. So there's $29.9 billion for the richest 10%. And only $13.6 billion for the bottom 40%. Just $2.9 billion LESS than they got from the Making Work Pay Credit.

So get rid of the making work pay credit, replace it with the accursed payroll tax cut.

So take $2.9 billion from the bottom 40% and give that plus $27 billion to the richest 10%.

That's trickle-down.

Bush used to say that with his tax cuts, the poor got a bigger percentage tax cut than the rich. Even though the rich got most of the money, it was supposed to mean more to the poor.

I didn't buy it then, and I don't buy it now. It just another one of the dishonest arguments to promote trickle down policies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Tue Jan 28, 2014, 02:53 PM

5. I think this thread needs a stimulus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Tue Jan 28, 2014, 03:23 PM

6. Do you know if there is a visual chart depicting this?

Or maybe I should make one...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yewberry (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 28, 2014, 03:36 PM

7. there are some


http://politicalcorrection.org/print/factcheck/201104050007

But it is monthly and it makes the blue bars at the beginning of Obama's Presidency look like they are Obama's fault.

Plus it is apparently only private sector jobs, instead of all jobs.

The economy lost over 5 million jobs in Obama's first year in office, but it is absurd to put that in HIS record. It was a continuation of the crash of 2008.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Tue Jan 28, 2014, 04:08 PM

8. Individual and family prosperity now

Has there been a DU poll to get a feel for how the average person is doing now versus five years ago?

Most people that are struggling do not care who is to blame for the downturn, they just want it fixed. Maybe there are a lot more jobs now, but the average citizen is not doing much better now than in years past. We are getting close to needing another jobs program funded by our government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seveneyes (Reply #8)

Tue Jan 28, 2014, 04:52 PM

11. I bet they do care

If somebody burned down ten houses, including yours, wouldn't you want to know who it was?

And if another group was steadily rebuilding houses, shouldn't they get credit, and get support?

And if people had some power to take the matches away from the careless firebugs, like, say, by voting them and their FAILED policies out of office, then wouldn't it be good to know WHOSE policies had failed, and WHO to vote out of office?

It would be ridiculous to say "Houses are not being rebuilt fast enough. Let's put the arsonists back in charge and try some of that napalm they are proposing."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #11)

Tue Jan 28, 2014, 05:03 PM

12. Of course they care now

My point is that now is the problem, not five years ago. Perhaps educating people that the 33% of government controlled by the Republicans needs replaced in 2014. If and when Congress is controlled by Democrats, and we have 100% control, then there had better be some major progress or 2016 could get ugly.

In my mind, some voters might attribute 66% of the jobs problems now to the Democratic party. The people on the fence and looking for good jobs are the ones who need convinced that the 33% GOP is responsible for our job woes now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seveneyes (Reply #12)

Tue Jan 28, 2014, 06:03 PM

13. it's not about the 33% now

it is about still picking up the pieces from the failed policies of five years ago and we are making progress.

It has been 12 years since 911 and the twin towers have not been rebuilt. It takes a little bit of time to rebuild an economy too.

I still think we ought to blame the people who knocked it down rather than jumping on the rebuilders for not moving fast enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Tue Jan 28, 2014, 04:13 PM

9. Very well said.

Thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Tue Jan 28, 2014, 06:51 PM

14. I'm gonna bookmark this!

Good information! Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #14)

Tue Jan 28, 2014, 07:19 PM

16. thanks

I probably should include a link

http://www.bls.gov/data/#historical-tables

I don't make this stuff up, after all. I'm just a tabulator.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #16)

Tue Jan 28, 2014, 07:44 PM

18. Thanks again for the link.

kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Tue Jan 28, 2014, 08:03 PM

19. Excellent points.

spot on!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread