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, 3790 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

20 replies	Author	Time	Post
The Republican Recession and the Democratic Recovery (updated again) (Original post)	hfojvt	Jan 2014	OP
Looks like the	ProSense	Jan 2014	#1
too bad he's also endorsing trickle down	hfojvt	Jan 2014	#2
LOL!	ProSense	Jan 2014	#3
"the various tax cuts"	hfojvt	Jan 2014	#4
This makes no sense	ProSense	Jan 2014	#10
just because YOU don't understand something	hfojvt	Jan 2014	#15
No,	ProSense	Jan 2014	#17
no it doesn't	hfojvt	Jan 2014	#20
I think this thread needs a stimulus.	hfojvt	Jan 2014	#5
Do you know if there is a visual chart depicting this?	yewberry	Jan 2014	#6
there are some	hfojvt	Jan 2014	#7
Individual and family prosperity now	seveneyes	Jan 2014	#8
I bet they do care	hfojvt	Jan 2014	#11
Of course they care now	seveneyes	Jan 2014	#12
it's not about the 33% now	hfojvt	Jan 2014	#13
Very well said.	kentuck	Jan 2014	#9
I'm gonna bookmark this!	kentuck	Jan 2014	#14
thanks	hfojvt	Jan 2014	#16
Thanks again for the link.	kentuck	Jan 2014	#18
Excellent points.	DCBob	Jan 2014	#19

Response to hfojvt (Original post)

Tue Jan 28, 2014, 11:25 AM

ProSense (116,464 posts)

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/

The Republican Recession and the Democratic Recovery (updated again)

1. Looks like the

2. too bad he's also endorsing trickle down

3. LOL!

4. "the various tax cuts"

10. This makes no sense

15. just because YOU don't understand something

17. No,

20. no it doesn't

5. I think this thread needs a stimulus.

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

7. there are some

8. Individual and family prosperity now

11. I bet they do care

12. Of course they care now

13. it's not about the 33% now

9. Very well said.

14. I'm gonna bookmark this!

16. thanks

18. Thanks again for the link.

19. Excellent points.