Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The losses are mostly at the state and local level. Census aside, the federal government is pretty much flat. The only way to stop the losses at the state and local level would be another Stimulus and there is no support for that.
bloomberg had an interesting piece today on state and local spending, and how few people actually know who controls the purse strings at the state level. take california (for one example) in
"when you hate your taxes but can't name your legislator":.
Under the U.S. Constitution, state governments have primary responsibility for delivering domestic services. According to the Volcker-Ravitch Task Force on the State Budget Crisis, states and localities spend more than the federal government on the direct implementation of domestic policy.
Senator Hancock -- who represents Berkeley and surrounding areas -- voted along with a majority of her colleagues this year to, among other things, cut outlays for higher education, welfare, courts and parks while boosting spending on state employees. The net result: This year, California will spend more than twice as much on the compensation and benefits of just 67,000 corrections employees -- $6 billion -- as the state will allocate to the entire University of California system -- $2.5 billion -- consisting of 10 campuses educating more than 200,000 students, including the University of California, Berkeley, in her district. Because of cuts imposed by the state Senate, more than 70 state parks will close, tuition for college students will rise, welfare benefits will decline, wait times for court dates will increase and litigants will even have to pay for court reporters.
you saw it in greece, and you will see it here.
when governments overspend, they have to cut-and they aren't going to cut their own salaries and benefits.
bloomberg had an interesting piece today on state and local spending, and how few people actually know who controls the purse strings at the state level. take california (for one example) in
"when you hate your taxes but can't name your legislator":.
Under the U.S. Constitution, state governments have primary responsibility for delivering domestic services. According to the Volcker-Ravitch Task Force on the State Budget Crisis, states and localities spend more than the federal government on the direct implementation of domestic policy.
Senator Hancock -- who represents Berkeley and surrounding areas -- voted along with a majority of her colleagues this year to, among other things, cut outlays for higher education, welfare, courts and parks while boosting spending on state employees. The net result: This year, California will spend more than twice as much on the compensation and benefits of just 67,000 corrections employees -- $6 billion -- as the state will allocate to the entire University of California system -- $2.5 billion -- consisting of 10 campuses educating more than 200,000 students, including the University of California, Berkeley, in her district. Because of cuts imposed by the state Senate, more than 70 state parks will close, tuition for college students will rise, welfare benefits will decline, wait times for court dates will increase and litigants will even have to pay for court reporters.
you saw it in greece, and you will see it here.
when governments overspend, they have to cut-and they aren't going to cut their own salaries and benefits.
Well another reason for that problem is California sending people to prison for life for 3 minor offenses. That has exploded its prison population.
One way we could save a LOT of money is by dropping mandatory sentencing guidelines and relying on judicial discretion. For example there were people wanting Dharun Ravi to spend 10 years in prison when he did not kill Tyler Clementi -- what he did was wrong and I think 30 days in prison is appropriate. Our obsession as a nation with extracting a pound of flesh from criminals is one of many reasons for state budget woes.
...
Under the U.S. Constitution, state governments have primary responsibility for delivering domestic services. According to the Volcker-Ravitch Task Force on the State Budget Crisis, states and localities spend more than the federal government on the direct implementation of domestic policy.
...
Just a small correction, the U.S. Constitution doesn't say anything about responsibility for delivering domestic services. The U.S. Constitution only speaks about Powers.
What is interesting is that while Republicans hammer Obama for increased spending, the States and local governments have been contracting. If the economy is weak, it's because of these cut-backs -- which are effectively the policy that the GOP wants.
Thus, the GOP should stop blaming Obama and fault their own policies.
Someone else pointed out that most of these state and local job losses were concentrated in just 12 states. The 11 states that the Republicans took over during the 2010 midterm elections – Alabama, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin – account for 40.5 percent of the total losses. By itself, Texas accounts for an additional 31 percent of the total losses. The remaining states make up the rest.
In other words, the GOP is blaming Obama for government job losses which THEY created at the state level. It should also be noted that those laid off state workers swelled the ranks of the unemployed, which Obama also gets blamed for, and were deducted from net job creation data. Obama is also blamed for those numbers being weak.
So, what we have here is the Republican Party damaging our recovery on purpose, costing many thousands of people their jobs, and then blaming the President's "poor leadership.".
just as building bridges is not causing economic growth. It is spending money we don't have not producing anything of real value.
I need to point out that that statement is economic illiteracy. Borrowing money (at essentially zero interest) to build a bridge that we need and will be used for 100 years into the future is not only a public investment but also employs workers on the bridge; private contractors and material suppliers. Those people use that income to buy other goods and services throughout the economy.
The fact that the money is borrowed (money we don't have) is immaterial. In today's liquidity trap that borrowing is not crowding out private investment. This spending results in people having jobs and paying taxes. The taxes paid by those formerly idle workers is more than enough to pay the borrowing costs. The net macro economic effect is greater than not borrowing that money and building nothing.
Just a small correction, the U.S. Constitution doesn't say anything about responsibility for delivering domestic services. The U.S. Constitution only speaks about Powers.
What is interesting is that while Republicans hammer Obama for increased spending, the States and local governments have been contracting. If the economy is weak, it's because of these cut-backs -- which are effectively the policy that the GOP wants.
Thus, the GOP should stop blaming Obama and fault their own policies.
Someone else pointed out that most of these state and local job losses were concentrated in just 12 states. The 11 states that the Republicans took over during the 2010 midterm elections – Alabama, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin – account for 40.5 percent of the total losses. By itself, Texas accounts for an additional 31 percent of the total losses. The remaining states make up the rest.
In other words, the GOP is blaming Obama for government job losses which THEY created at the state level. It should also be noted that those laid off state workers swelled the ranks of the unemployed, which Obama also gets blamed for, and were deducted from net job creation data. Obama is also blamed for those numbers being weak.
So, what we have here is the Republican Party damaging our recovery on purpose, costing many thousands of people their jobs, and then blaming the President's "poor leadership.".
Silly you. Welfare and food stamps are great stimulators!
Why isn't Obama doing more to keep/increase government jobs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 70Ford
In total,607,000 government jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were LOST from the time Obama took office until now, April 2012. That's a decrease of 2.69%.
In these troubled times, we should focus on keeping people in their job, regardless of what that job might be. I think it's pretty obvious that Obama's policies and procedures have caused this atrocity. Under Obama, people who weren't needed, were cut. All that money spent on them, that we pay for - through taxation -, isn't being unnecessarily spent. That's just harsh, man. It's like, the government thought it was wasteful or not useful or something.
Obama has attempted repeatedly to get more jobs. But he can't do it w/o congressional approvasl. Those teabaggers you sent to DC are blocking all of those measures.
Quote:
Yeah, during George Bush's first term 900,000 governemnt jobs were created. How about that, Mr. "Jobs man." How about getting that government bloated again? Baby needs a new pair of shoes.
Maybe you're too young to recall the 2001-2004 timeframe.
Bush had a GOP congress. they rubber stamped his every move. Government 101, HS level stuff.
I need to point out that that statement is economic illiteracy. Borrowing money (at essentially zero interest) to build a bridge that we need and will be used for 100 years into the future is not only a public investment but also employs workers on the bridge; private contractors and material suppliers. Those people use that income to buy other goods and services throughout the economy.
The fact that the money is borrowed (money we don't have) is immaterial. In today's liquidity trap that borrowing is not crowding out private investment. This spending results in people having jobs and paying taxes. The taxes paid by those formerly idle workers is more than enough to pay the borrowing costs. The net macro economic effect is greater than not borrowing that money and building nothing.
Just building a bridge anywhere doesn't help anything. Building a ridge that connects major economies is another thing. You can't just spend money on anything you randomly come up with and hope it saves the economy.
Just building a bridge anywhere doesn't help anything. Building a ridge that connects major economies is another thing. You can't just spend money on anything you randomly come up with and hope it saves the economy.
Most bridges are NOT bridges to nowhere, like you guys backed, they are built to fill real needs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why isn't Obama doing more to keep/increase government jobs?
