The Republican recession vs. the Democratic recovery

[hfojvt]

Republicans are trying to push the meme that Obama has failed. And it is true that the 'recovery' is still pretty shaky, but it is undeniably true that the disaster happened when the disaster that was George W. Bush was in the White House. Here's a report on job gains (or losses) by quarter.

2008
1st (93,000)
2nd (573,000)
3rd (1,002,000)
4th (1,895,000)
total (with Bush as President) (3,563,000)

2009
1st (2,258,000) note - Obama was sworn in as President and the stimulus passed in the middle of this quarter
2nd (1,433,000)
total (in Obama's first five months in office (3,691,000)

3rd (780,000)
4th (310,000)
total of the last half year (1,090,000)

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.

2010
1st +118,000
2nd +543,000
3rd (137,000)
4th +385,000
total 2010 + 909,000

2011
1st + 497,000
2nd (provisional and so far)

April +232,000
May +54,000

total of 1.6 million jobs created. Yes, that is a long way from recovering the 8 million jobs lost, but it seems to be a step in the right direction, but all the media wants to talk about is negativity.

Another point, about Republicans claim that we need to "cut spending" to save the economy. This is from an article on the most recent jobs report "Cities and counties have cut jobs for 22 straight months and have shed 446,000 positions since September 2008."

Over 400,000 jobs lost because of "spending cuts" and every one of those lost jobs means a loss of consumer spending and an increase in government spending as those now jobless people stop shopping and start collecting government benefits.

And I have written this before about the Reagan years, which are now remembered as "the best of times" in much of the public memory.



"Going back to GDP

1981.1 - (.8%)
1981.2 - 1.22%

At this point Congress passed the Reagan tax cuts, titled as the Economic RECOVERY and Tax Act. Given that it was the middle of the 3rd quarter and that the economy grew at an annual rate of almost 5% in the 2nd quarter one might ask "Recovery from what?"

ERTA passed on 4 August 1981. A date that should live in infamy. The unemployment rate was 7.4%. By September of 1982 the unemployment rate was 10.1%.

Talk about a failed stimulus. I am sure that the media was hammering Reagan for his failed stimulus.

Of course, ERTA cannot really be blamed for the slump in late 1981 as the economy shrank by 1.25% in the 3rd quarter and by 1.64% in the 4th quarter, making the slump for 1981 a total of (2.47%). Still blaming ERTA for the slump is just as fair as Republicans blaming the stimulus for the lost jobs of early 2009. Still Republicans picked up two senate seats in the elections of 1982 and while they lost 27 seats in the House that still did not erase their gains of 1980. Meanwhile unemployment rose to a peak of 10.8% in December and stayed above 10% until July 1983.

So, to repeat, unemployment was 7.4% when ERTA passed and it rose to over 10% and stayed there for almost two years. Talk about a failed stimulus, and it took almost ANOTHER year before unemployment fell back to 7.4% by May 1984, and it was still 7.4% in October of 1984 and stayed over 7% for all of 1985 and for 8 months of 1986. Again, talk about a failed recovery. Remember that unemployment was below 6% for half of Carter's term. And five years after Reagan's stimulus - his RECOVERY act, unemployment is still over 7%.

The average unemployment rate for Reagan's first term was 8.61%, compared to 6.54% for Carter's term. 10 million jobs were created in Carter's four years, compared to only 6.3 million for Reagan's first four years."

Yet Republicans, aided by the M$M still want to push Reaganomics as an answer to economic troubles. It was Reaganomics version 2.0 that drove the economy into the ditch it is still struggling to get out of. And the Republican's only "idea" seems to be Reaganomics 3.0 - the steroid version, bigger and meaner than the two previous version combined. Well if I was gonna revive something from a Reagan, it would be from Nancy - "Just say 'No' - to failed economic theories"

[midnight]

1. I'm hearing that students graduating from law school are doing

restaurant work... and their are no jobs... Construction workers can't find jobs even though many of our communities have crumbling infrastructures...

These numbers don't explain the hemorrhaging that has been going on prior to 2008... and how those jobs are not coming back... Many people are never going to work again... But President Obama does not see that it as primarily the responsibility of Govt. to create jobs.. He want's the private sector to do that... No... We need a real jobs bill.... It is as important to our countries security as any other spending program the military asks for...

[badtoworse]

2. Without a strong base of private sector jobs, we won't be able to pay for public sector jobs

Don't tell me about tax the rich. 1.) Politically, it's not going to happen and 2.) even if by some miracle, it did happen, they wouldn't put put up with confiscatory taxation for very long - they'd leave.

In the long run, private sector jobs are the only solution.

[MadHound]

3. In regards to taxing the rich,

Politically it should have happened last winter, or over the previous two years. After all, the Democrats had a majority of votes in both Houses of Congress, and the public backing them on this issue, strongly.

As far as them leaving, where would they go? Europe, where the tax rate is even higher? Some third world country where taxes are low, but things like, oh, decent weather, culture, clubs, etc. are unavailable:rofl: And frankly, unless they renounced their citizenship, it simply wouldn't matter.

Private sector jobs are part of the solution, but cutting public sector jobs now, especially when we should be hiring more folks in the public sector, is a sure way to insure that our economy remains in the toilet.

[eilen]

5. Where are they going to go?

Any place worth going to also has high tax rates for the wealthy. Sure, they can go to the 3rd World and risk kidnapping...

[hfojvt]

8. yeah thanks for the Republican talking points

The point of a Keynesian stimulus, though, is to get us through the short run. In the long run, we are all dead.

Here's part of the deal. Think of the private sector. Many people work in the private sector in retail and services. They cut grass, they cut hair, they sell furniture and shoes, they work at restaurants. What happens to their private sector business if a bunch of their regular customers, who happen to work for the city, the school district, the state or the county, lose their jobs? Well, that takes a bite out of those private sector businesses too. So they cut back, lay some people off, consume less, invest less, and the economy gets even worse.

Confiscatory? Nobody even proposes that. A 1% increase on people with incomes over $100,000 in Kansas could have saved $180 million in budget cuts every year since 2007, making the Kansas economy that much stronger. 1% is hardly confiscatory. Nor is it going to somehow kill the private sector if the public sector does not slash jobs in a bad economy. Instead the public sector will be propping up the private sector until the economy recovers.

[MadHound]

4. What recovery?

Oh, yeah, the open air casinos on Wall St. are back up and booming, and the GDP, a number that is rigged in many different ways, has had a fairly enemic rise.

But if you look at what's going on in the real world, where there are tens of millions unemployed or underemployed, where wages are going down, where housing is still bumping along the bottom, where prices are going up, where the middle class is still shrinking, guess what, there is no recovery.

There is only an illusion of recovery, but the fact of the matter is that our economy still sucks, and in the real world, millions and millions are still suffering.

[hfojvt]

7. the recovery from 2.2 million jobs lost in the 1st quarter of 2009

to 497,000 jobs gained in the first quarter of 2011. What you talk about is always going to be the case - for some people. I've been underemployed for 24 years now since I quit my job with the war machine. Heck, one of my first moves was to goto graduate school in 1988 - because I couldn't find a job, ANY job, much less one that utilized my math degree. I moved to Iowa in 1998 and I got really sick of the media talking about the prosperity. Oh happy day, all Americans were so happy and prosperous in that great economy. Well, there I was, working as a temp and unable to find a non-temp job. And that was still true until 2002, but even then I was still working just part-time, unable to find full time employment.

[SpiralHawk]

6. k and r - Recovery for America

No matter what obstacles Republicons throw in the way

[MakingANoise]

9. Good stuff but any source(s)?

this is good info to share, but if any sources are available, would be better!

:)

[hfojvt]

10. the sources are generally the BLS monthly jobs reports

found here http://www.bls.gov/data/