New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

The Rightwing think tanks finally admit Govt cuts hurting recovery.

Spamature

President
A Dam Has Burst. More People Admit That Public Sector Cuts Are Holding Back The Recovery

Joe Weisenthal | Jul. 30, 2012, 8:34 AM |



Earlier we pointed to an article in the WSJ which made the correct observation that it's public sector spending declines that are really holding back economic growth.

This is an idea we've been hammering for awhile. Back in early June, we defended Obama's 'doing fine' comment, noting how private sector growth was much more robust than that of the public sector.

But now the idea really seems to be going viral.

In a blog post over at conservative think tank AEI (!) professor Mark Perry has a post titled: Maybe private sector is doing fine? Growth in post-recession “private GDP” (3%) is above average.

First Trust Portfolios (Brian Wesbury et al.) is the only organization I know that calculates and reports “private real GDP” on a regular basis, here’s their most recent commentary: “We’ve been tracking real “private” GDP (real GDP excluding government purchases), which grew at a 2.2% annual rate in Q2 and is up 3.3% in the past year.”

In the second quarter of 2012, “public sector GDP” decreased -1.44%, and that was the eighth straight quarter of negative growth for total government spending, averaging -2.88% per quarter over the last two years. In contrast, there have been 12 consecutive quarters of positive growth for private sector GDP averaging 3.07% per quarter in the three years since the recession ended, which is slightly higher than the 2.8% average growth rate in private real GDP over the last 25 years. Most of the decline in government spending over the last few years has come from cuts in defense spending at the federal level, and ongoing cuts in government spending by local and state governments.

Unlike some conservative economists, who have spent the past few years purely focusing on the economy's shortcomings (of which there are many) Professor Perry has a track record of being a straight shooter who calls it like he sees it, pointing out strengths and weaknesses where they are.

Still, this is a remarkable think to see at a site like AEIs, and it really shows how this idea is spreading... something that seems to have been catalyzed by last Friday's GDP report.

http://www.businessinsider.com/aei-...ate-sector-is-doing-fine-2012-7#ixzz226ntqxY2
 
Obama's nuts...we don't need no stinkin' government spending to get out of the Clinton recession.....just like we didn't need FDR's socialism to get out of the great depression....we did it without massive government spending. We went to war.

and the republicans want us to trust their math to make the problems caused by their math all better.....sometimes I despair.
 
Reagan reenergized our economy - to the extent he did - by fomenting MASSIVE increases in guvmint spending and public employment.

I think...the Mitt/GOP is convinced that IF they can possibly limp Mitt over the presidential/electoral line, they can reprise the Reagan big guvmint era, and they'll all be hailed as heroes.
 
Of course govt spending cuts are going to hurt a artificially propped up economy.,

Govt spending is almost ONE THIRD OF GDP if you count the trillions in liquidity pumped in from the un-audited FED.

The big diff is... Keynesians believe the economic ponzi can continue forever without any consequences, while history proves otherwise.
 
Reagan reenergized our economy - to the extent he did - by fomenting MASSIVE increases in guvmint spending and public employment.

I think...the Mitt/GOP is convinced that IF they can possibly limp Mitt over the presidential/electoral line, they can reprise the Reagan big guvmint era, and they'll all be hailed as heroes.

Riddle me this.. How come revenue to US TREASURY DOUBLED when Reagan left office, while revenue is still shrinking 4 years into boy wonder's admin?

21204182285.png
 
[The greatest level of political intervention by a government to gain re election since marching goose step was in style]

"This author released a report entitled “The U.S. Economic Impact of Approved and Projected DOD Spending Reductions on Equipment in 2013” on October 24, 2011 in which the economic effects of reduced spending for military equipment were calculated. This analysis determined that a combined $45.1 billion reduction in the purchase of military equipment and in Research and Development funding (BCA I and II) by the Department of Defense would reduce GDP by $86.5 billion and result in the loss of 1,006,320 direct, indirect and induced jobs across all sectors of the U.S. economy impacting every state and representing a decline of personal income (salaries and wages) totaling $59.4 billion. This analysis was restricted to the procurement of military equipment and R&D spending and excluded reductions in DOD civilian payroll and DOD outlays for operations and maintenance. It also excluded the projected spending reductions in the BCA of 2011 impacting non-DOD agencies and therefore only provided a partial assessment.

(Bold mine)

Why is this a problem for Obama? Corporations who are impacted by this sequestration process will be forced to lay off tens of thousands of employees. The WARN act dictates a 60-day notice for layoffs. Sequestration would kick in on January 2, 2013. 60 days prior to January 2 is – November 2… just a few days before the election. Barack Obama does NOT want to have tens of thousands of pink slips to go out days before the election.

Department of Labor to the rescue!"

http://www.redstate.com/bs/2012/07/31/the-department-of-labors-attempt-to-cover-for-obama/
 
Back
Top