(06-13-2012 08:38 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(06-12-2012 06:05 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  One of the most amateurish attempts at economic projections I've ever seen. Basically they argue that the private sectors strength has nothing to do with the public sectors weakness... That zero private sector jobs are the result of opportunities created by the lack of public sector activity. That's so amateurish as to be laughable. Certainly sites raising taxes to pay for public sector hiring wouldn't have impacted people's spending habits... /sarcasm. Stupid really

If it were necessary and profitable, either sector would be doing it. If the feds want more public secti spending, they should have given more of the bailout money to states and less to business. Letbthe fed offer repo to cities rather than banks.

Bottom line, if they aren't getting what they wanted, then They should have done it themselves. Nobody to blame but the inept economic leadership in the white house. He had a bulletproof congress and decided to focus on something OThEr than the economy.

If there's someone around here who is an expert in amateurish economic projections, it's definitely you. Falling public sector employment is not good for the private sector during an economic recession. To suggest such is idiocy, which explains why you are suggesting it. GOPer presidents have consistently increased public sector employment during recessionary times, but current GOPers are fighting tooth and nail to decrease the numbers of teachers, firefighters, police officers, etc. in an attempt to stunt economic growth for their own political gain. The reason they can get away with it is because morons like you think it's good economic policy.

And then you have the great El Rushbo...lol:

Nobody's opposed to cops or firefighters or teachers. But they aren't private sector jobs. They do not contribute to economic growth. Their purpose is otherwise. They have an entirely different purpose: Public safety, public education, this kind of thing. But there's no growth in the economy. If you add those jobs — and if there aren't other types of private sector jobs added while at the same time we're adding to the fire rolls and the cop rolls and teachers — we are reducing the size of the private sector. This is Marxism 101. It's also Ignorance and Sophistry 101.

Only in the leftist mind does the public sector fuel the private sector

(06-13-2012 10:06 AM)maximus Wrote:  Only in the leftist mind does the public sector fuel the private sector

Only in your mind did anyone ever say it did.

Once again "grad" has nothing to add but insults. Boring

I never suggested anything about the policies. My complaint is about the supposed study, which merely adds the "typical" public sector growth to the private sector growth and tries to argue this is meaningful... As if the two aren't related. I'm certain that a left leaning "scientist" would argue that public job growth would actually accentuate private job growth... That may or may not be true, but as that didn't happen, it really doesn't matter what people think would have happened.

If things don't happen they way you expect them to... Then maybe your expectations were flawed. MANY cities and states don't have the ability to run deficits. They certainly can't print money. Anyone who expects a state with a balanced budget amendment to keep spending up when revenues are decreasing is stupid... And leave it to a worm like Obama to get elected by promising not to raise taxes on 97% of the population, and then complain when others do the same thing

(06-13-2012 10:06 AM)maximus Wrote:  Only in the leftist mind does the public sector fuel the private sector

So where do those dollars that they earn working go? They don't buy groceries? Don't buy clothing? Don't buy cars? Your screen name may be Maximus but your brain capacity is minimus. Having said that, there is a limit to this. Not everyone can work for the government and still have the same effect.

(06-13-2012 01:11 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-13-2012 10:06 AM)maximus Wrote:  Only in the leftist mind does the public sector fuel the private sector

So where do those dollars that they earn working go? They don't buy groceries? Don't buy clothing? Don't buy cars? Your screen name may be Maximus but your brain capacity is minimus. Having said that, there is a limit to this. Not everyone can work for the government and still have the same effect.

better question lite brite

so where do those dollars they earn come from?

lets start at an elementary level for you

(06-13-2012 01:16 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-13-2012 01:11 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-13-2012 10:06 AM)maximus Wrote:  Only in the leftist mind does the public sector fuel the private sector

So where do those dollars that they earn working go? They don't buy groceries? Don't buy clothing? Don't buy cars? Your screen name may be Maximus but your brain capacity is minimus. Having said that, there is a limit to this. Not everyone can work for the government and still have the same effect.

better question lite brite

so where do those dollars they earn come from?

lets start at an elementary level for you

The dollars they earn come from are private dollars transferred into the public fund. By spending them by buying gas, clothes, and other goods, that money is cycled back into the private sector.

So it is government function to provide employment for people, even if only to "launder" taxpayer money and redistribute it back into the population.?

(06-13-2012 02:13 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  So it is government function to provide employment for people, even if only to "launder" taxpayer money and redistribute it back into the population.?

Right. Not one employee on the government dime does anything of any value.

A few things to take away from this blog entry:

1) The lines are designed to show relative changes between each recession period - not actual employment. If you look at this data in terms of actual jobs, the data may actually look more like a "bubble". I don't have the data in front of me, but IMO the reason for the difference in gov't job creation in this recession vs prior recessions may be due to a gov't employment bubble that is going into correction.

2) I think the message is not so much that something is good or bad - just that the results for employment in the public sector are different vs prior recessions.

3) It's not surprising that the municipals are affected because unlike the Feds, they can't print money. Combine that with the idea that most of these places have laws that state the budgets must balance and you can see a big difference when you take into account the multiple debt bubbles that are bursting. The money is not there like it was in the past.

(06-13-2012 02:47 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-13-2012 02:13 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  So it is government function to provide employment for people, even if only to "launder" taxpayer money and redistribute it back into the population.?

Right. Not one employee on the government dime does anything of any value.

Not what I said and you know it. If the public sector has much lower unemployment rates than the private sector, then the conclusion is that there may be an oportunity to consolidate further in those areas of discretionary spending that the current economic situation does not support. Never said that no government employees provide anything of value, but am saying the growth of this sector (and less rapid decline during this recession) only create public sector obligations at a greater percentage compared to those folks in the private sector that actually produce something. And that is not good.

I'll try typing slower and use smaller words next time if the concepts remain too challenging for you.

Seems to me that the fundamental flaw in the administrations economic projections was to think they could shift some of their burdens to the states and local governments without them having to find ways to pay for them. It seems the administration was either ignorant of budgets (seems more likely) or just thought that while extending the bush tax cuts for the wealthy at the federal level was a good idea, that it wouldn't matter at the local level??

Not smart

(06-13-2012 05:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Seems to me that the fundamental flaw in the administrations economic projections was to think they could shift some of their burdens to the states and local governments without them having to find ways to pay for them. It seems the administration was either ignorant of budgets (seems more likely) or just thought that while extending the bush tax cuts for the wealthy at the federal level was a good idea, that it wouldn't matter at the local level??

Not smart

One of the administration's big mistakes was negotiating with GOPers who demanded worthless tax cuts rather than more dollars for cash-strapped states. Relying on GOPers for economic policy is akin to relying on Bernie Madoff for investment advice. GOPer policy brought this country to its knees, and they have no interest whatsoever in seeing things get better.

They didn't have to negotiate with sh*t for the first two years, you moonbat. Sh*t was still going downhill.

(06-13-2012 07:22 PM)Rebel Wrote:  They didn't have to negotiate with sh*t for the first two years, you moonbat. Sh*t was still going downhill.

The real tragedy of Barack Obama is this..

He picked the *one* thing to do that not even everyone in his own party wanted. He had two years to fix things but instead he wanted time buying the voted of conservative democrats and a couple of liberal republicans to pass Obama care...

And Obama care could be thrown out by the courts..

I was *never* in the camp that said Obama was too foolish to be president. I thought he was wrong here or there but he seemed to be politically savvy... It seems, no, he was not...

I read this thread earlier to day & just came back to it.......... I still just can't believe that the libs on here say that if the economy slows down, and private sector jobs diminish thus lowering government tax receipts......... that we fix the problem by the Fed just printing money and passing it out to all government levels to spend. And oh by the way, raise taxes on those remaining lucky enough to be earning income. Just lower the value of every dollar held by individuals and take more of those remaining dollars in the form of tax increases..........Absolutely amazing.

No wonder we as a country are running toward a cliff as fast as we can and somehow expecting not to fall over the edge. Jeesh!

(06-13-2012 07:48 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-13-2012 07:22 PM)Rebel Wrote:  They didn't have to negotiate with sh*t for the first two years, you moonbat. Sh*t was still going downhill.

The real tragedy of Barack Obama is this..

He picked the *one* thing to do that not even everyone in his own party wanted. He had two years to fix things but instead he wanted time buying the voted of conservative democrats and a couple of liberal republicans to pass Obama care...

And Obama care could be thrown out by the courts..

I was *never* in the camp that said Obama was too foolish to be president. I thought he was wrong here or there but he seemed to be politically savvy... It seems, no, he was not...

exactly. he had two years to do whatever he wanted and he focused on healthcare and not the economy. he chose himself to extend the "Bush" tax cuts... all of them.. nobody to blame but himself. He didn't negotiate with Republicans, except as it suited his own purposes.

he blew it, and the left knows it., so they have to come up with excuses

He did focus on the economy. His version of what it should be. Don't give this amateur failure a pass. He sucks. Period.