|
Post by marjar on Feb 28, 2011 17:06:10 GMT -5
A report by economist Mark Zandi from Moody’s says that Republicans’ plan to cut spending would cost 700,000 jobs through 2012, the Washington Post reports. Republicans, however, are pushing back, trying to discredit Zandi (who was an economic adviser to John McCain's campaign), calling him the "chief architect" of the stimulus. "When considering the latest study from Mark Zandi on the GOP’s efforts to rein in government spending, let’s not forget that he was the chief architect of the Democrats’ failed stimulus plan," wrote Brian Patrick, a spokesman for Majority Leader Eric Cantor. "Even as unemployment climbed into the double digits, Mr. Zandi continued to defend this failed policy. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that he would come out against the GOP’s common-sense efforts to put an end to more stimulus-style spending." firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/02/28/6154372-economist-predicts-gop-cuts-would-cost-700000-jobs
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 28, 2024 6:06:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2011 17:18:42 GMT -5
I certainly did enjoy reading Zandi's counter-proposals as to what he would do!
Oh, what's that.....he didn't offer up a single counter-solution? Ahhhhh.....I see.
|
|
ChiTownVenture
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 10:39:06 GMT -5
Posts: 648
|
Post by ChiTownVenture on Feb 28, 2011 17:28:48 GMT -5
Confirmed by Goldman Sachs?
His counter proposal.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Feb 28, 2011 17:30:25 GMT -5
If those job losses are govt jobs, good riddance. Likely they are. They do nothing to promote economic growth. Think of the capital freed up.
|
|
ChiTownVenture
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 10:39:06 GMT -5
Posts: 648
|
Post by ChiTownVenture on Feb 28, 2011 17:32:56 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 28, 2024 6:06:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2011 17:35:15 GMT -5
So his big grand idea is to "split the difference"? Wow....that's earth shattering. What kind of a degree do I need to come up with those kinds of scenarios? This guy should be "Galactic Financial Policy Minister".
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Feb 28, 2011 17:36:12 GMT -5
New government jobs? I don't consider any government job as a contribution to the economy. They may provide employment for people (at taxpayer expense, of course), but they do not contribute to the economic well-being of the nation...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 28, 2024 6:06:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2011 17:38:16 GMT -5
It seems like new jobs.....
Yeah, that's what I gathered from the article also. So it's in effect jobs that aren't there yet and "MIGHT" not exist if this goes through. Not actually a guarantee that 700,000 jobs won't be created.....just that they "MIGHT NOT" be.
|
|
ChiTownVenture
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 10:39:06 GMT -5
Posts: 648
|
Post by ChiTownVenture on Feb 28, 2011 17:38:57 GMT -5
So his big grand idea is to "split the difference"? Wow....that's earth shattering. What kind of a degree do I need to come up with those kinds of scenarios? This guy should be "Galactic Financial Policy Minister". Did you read the report or are you shooting from the hip? He goes into detail what would work and what would not. In any case he's not the only analyst saying it will cost jobs.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 28, 2024 6:06:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2011 17:40:13 GMT -5
So his big grand idea is to "split the difference"? Wow....that's earth shattering. What kind of a degree do I need to come up with those kinds of scenarios? This guy should be "Galactic Financial Policy Minister". Did you read the report or are you shooting from the hip? He goes into detail what would work and what would not. In any case he's not the only analyst saying it will cost jobs. Do either of the links (MSNBC and in that Washington Post) link to the report? I'm going by what's in the articles and what you and the OP posted. Edit: I see it's posted in your reply.....give me a couple of minutes.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 28, 2011 17:41:54 GMT -5
If those job losses are govt jobs, good riddance. Likely they are. They do nothing to promote economic growth. Think of the capital freed up. [glow=green,2,300] *** DING DING DING DING DING DING ***[/glow]
|
|
ChiTownVenture
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 10:39:06 GMT -5
Posts: 648
|
Post by ChiTownVenture on Feb 28, 2011 17:42:46 GMT -5
It seems like new jobs..... Yeah, that's what I gathered from the article also. So it's in effect jobs that aren't there yet and "MIGHT" not exist if this goes through. Not actually a guarantee that 700,000 jobs won't be created.....just that they "MIGHT NOT" be. 700,000 jobs not created and government jobs eliminated and the economy stalled and Sounds great, also when you are celebrating all those government employees that are now looking for jobs, don't forget to say "you're welcome" to all the non-government employees that have been out of work that now get to compete against a bunch of new people hitting the job market.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Feb 28, 2011 17:42:58 GMT -5
Yeah, that's what I gathered from the article also. So it's in effect jobs that aren't there yet and "MIGHT" not exist if this goes through. Not actually a guarantee that 700,000 jobs won't be created.....just that they "MIGHT NOT" be.
Jobs where? In the government? Jobs in private industry that are nothing but positions that only exist to comply with govt regulations and mandates?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 28, 2011 17:43:43 GMT -5
If this idi...er, um "economist" is correct, this would be a significant break with historical results. By definition, if the federal government shrinks, the private sector grows. This is no longer theory. It has been proven repeatedly.
|
|
wyouser
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:35:20 GMT -5
Posts: 12,126
|
Post by wyouser on Feb 28, 2011 17:45:43 GMT -5
And once Rome went broke all those public folks kept their jobs and pensions right??? I can see them going up to their new barbian leaders and like Oliver asking....."please sir ...Id like some more"
|
|
ChiTownVenture
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 10:39:06 GMT -5
Posts: 648
|
Post by ChiTownVenture on Feb 28, 2011 17:46:22 GMT -5
Yeah, that's what I gathered from the article also. So it's in effect jobs that aren't there yet and "MIGHT" not exist if this goes through. Not actually a guarantee that 700,000 jobs won't be created.....just that they "MIGHT NOT" be. Jobs where? In the government? Jobs in private industry that are nothing but positions that only exist to comply with govt regulations and mandates? You are all assuming government jobs, these are jobs based on the GDP, not specifically government jobs.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Feb 28, 2011 17:50:05 GMT -5
You are all assuming government jobs, these are jobs based on the GDP, not specifically government jobs.
That is correct. Could also be jobs lost in the private sector such as defense contractors.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 28, 2024 6:06:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2011 17:51:46 GMT -5
Okay.....so he thinks we shouldn't begin implementing extensive cost-cutting measures until the economy is "improved"? What if it doesn't get to the level he deems "improved" for another 5 years? Should we continue to just go along like we have been fiscally?
I'm sorry, I just don't believe that cutting $100bln will be that much different than cutting $60bln. It's still to small an amount and either way should be easily found if you cut out redundant systems in many departments.
As far as the interest rates being kept down, I think that rates need to creep up a little. Not anywhere along the lines of 6 or 7%, but 1.25 to 2% wouldn't be a terrible thing.
It's time for me to go....but I'll read more about it tonight and hopefully post more thoughts on it.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Feb 28, 2011 18:02:16 GMT -5
Well, I don't see anything meaningful happening, we will continue to spend like drunken sailors while letting other countries continue to provide a better environment for business. Businesses will continue to locate outside the United States. At some point we will no longer be able to borrow or print money to continue spending more than we take in and will have to make cuts that will be catastrophic.
|
|
|
Post by jnap on Feb 28, 2011 18:38:09 GMT -5
I have to dispute one statement here about "if Government jobs shrink then private sector grows". That is not a true statement and I would love to see you prove it. The jobs that will disappear, in addition to the 700,000, are the jobs that these previously employed people supported. It doesn't matter whether the jobs are private or government because it is still lost jobs. The private sector, by the way, has been sending jobs overseas and if there are 700,000 fewer consumers there will be less being imported but there will still be no new jobs created. The 700,000 jobs may turn out to be a small number because with state budgets cuts we may very well find ourselves right back into a great recession. Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it. lastly, I would love to see the republicans defend the economic collapse they engineered in 2012.
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Feb 28, 2011 19:40:51 GMT -5
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 28, 2011 21:34:14 GMT -5
It's already proven. We just tested the hypothesis that if government spends more money the economy grows, and jobs are created. President Obama claimed that if we spent $787 billion, the unemployment rate would peak at 8% and begin to fall. Now, we have fewer workers than at any time in the last 30 years. Unemployment is only on its way down now because the supply of jobs is shrinking. So, now that we have the equation, all that's left is the math. We spent $787 billion and we lost 900,000 jobs. Now, we're being told that if we cut $61 billion we'll lose another 700,000 jobs. It's silly on its face.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 28, 2011 21:44:59 GMT -5
Um, Rome fell because of it's command economy, bad, and inefficient tax policy.
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Feb 28, 2011 21:51:38 GMT -5
Remember after Rome fell the world slipped into the dark ages for hundreds of years so all those jobs lost didn't help pull anything up. Part of the dark ages was the re-emergence of the ice ages
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Mar 1, 2011 14:58:46 GMT -5
Okay.....so he thinks we shouldn't begin implementing extensive cost-cutting measures until the economy is "improved"? What if it doesn't get to the level he deems "improved" for another 5 years? Should we continue to just go along like we have been fiscally? It's like this tex.....When the economy is booming, the government grows fat on increased tax revenue. The mantra from DC is spend, spend, spend. When the economy tanks, revenues shrink as jobs go away. Now the government can't afford cut anything out of fear of deepening the recession and therefore they must "boost the economy". The mantra from DC is spend, spend, spend. Agreed. They lower rates to increase borrowing when building our economy on credit is what got us in to this mess to begin with.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Mar 1, 2011 15:01:55 GMT -5
And where do you think all that freed up money will go? To savings, pulleze, the wheels will suck up the money and say we need to get rid of more because we didn't cut enough, and ad nauseum. Some will say that. Others will say we need to rape and pillage more from the evil, greedy rich bastard living in the mansion up on the hill, and ad nauseum.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Mar 1, 2011 15:05:07 GMT -5
So cutting spending costs jobs and raising taxes costs jobs...either way, jobs are going to be lost - we might as well take the better steps of reducing our spending levels.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Mar 1, 2011 15:07:58 GMT -5
Some will say that. Others will say we need to rape and pillage more from the evil, greedy rich bastard living in the mansion up on the hill, and ad nauseum.
The only problem is that govt is engaging in an organized crime style shaking down of the middle class. This is being played out in 100s of cities, counties and states across the country.
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Mar 1, 2011 15:08:02 GMT -5
What did you people think would happen if we cut spending? He is only pointing out common sense, which to me isn't news worthy in the first place. I think Zandi just likes being the shiny star on top of the tree.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Mar 1, 2011 15:10:21 GMT -5
Yes, because 984 people are representative of a population of over 300 million....
|
|