Miserable Jobs Report: Thank You Republicans!

"local government employment peaked in September 2008" (2.00 / 1)

You don't think there's any connection between the massive increases in state and local spending due to unsustainable revenue growth in the first seven years of last decade and the cuts in the same sectors that are being made now?

Regardless of what the proper course of action is (agree to disagree), the reason for so many public sector layoffs is because states and localities are bound by law to balance their budget. The only way to avoid raising taxes and (especially) cutting spending is to have the federal government continually bail out states and counties. Is that what you support?

---

by: sspiker @ Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 15:20:36 PM UTC

Once again, completely twisting things around (0.00 / 0)

and attempting to put words in my mouth. Once again, false or wildly twisted statements ("unsustainable revenue growth..."). And, once again, not worth responding to.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 15:27:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I didn't even reference a single thing you said. (0.00 / 0)

How in the world can I possibly put words in your mouth when I didn't reference a single thing you said. I'm asking you a benign and straight-forward question, and I'm doing so civilly.

And there's absolutely no question that the revenue growth from FY2000 - FY2007 was unsustainable. I offer into evidence FY2008 - FY2012 as proof.

I think it's about time you learned the difference between "not worth responding to" and "I can't/don't want to respond". There's no shame in admitting you don't want to entertain any challenge to your worldview.  

---

by: sspiker @ Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 15:36:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"You don't think there's... Is that what you support?" (0.00 / 0)

Start and end with "you statements," then deny doing it. Nice.

As for entertaining challenges to my "worldview," I'm awaiting one from you that's even remotely intelligible, let alone reality-based.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 15:40:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Those are questions. (2.00 / 1)

And pretty elementary ones at that. If you're getting that hung up over semantics, then I apologize. Allow me to rephrase:

"In an effort to seek your opinion on a matter unbroached by your original post, do you or do you not think there is a connection..."

"Considering the scenario I brought up, which is related to the topic you posted about but not connected to a specific statement that you made, would you consider the solution I referred to as appropriate to support?"

And if you're going to just categorically accuse me of "false or twisting statements" or not being "reality-based" regardless of the content of my post, the least you could do is explain what you think is false. Especially since the only two facts I referenced (1: state/local revenue was up and then went down; 2: state/local government have to balance their budgets) are as close as facts get to "unquestionable".  

---

by: sspiker @ Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 16:08:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

They're totally loaded, biased questions (0.00 / 0)

which are not of any interest to me. Perhaps someone else would like to be baited by Republican operative sspiker respond?

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 16:12:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

???? (2.00 / 1)

In what way are they loaded? And if whatever bias you think exists in pointing out the reality of budget deficits localities face, they should be pretty easy to "unload" and answer honestly. This seems like a lot of effort to go through when a simple "I don't know" would suffice.

As for the second question, there's not even any bias. It's a statement of fact: states and localities have to raise taxes or cut spending, unless they get federal money. How could anybody read that factual statement as loaded?

---

by: sspiker @ Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 16:16:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It is not even worth arguing with this guy...n/t (4.00 / 1)

He's just here to distract and waste our time.

There's nothing in the middle of the road except yellow stripes and dead armadillos (Jim Hightower). PS I'm on Twitter here.

---

by: KathyinBlacksburg @ Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 20:11:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm actually not. (2.00 / 1)

Unless you consider a dialogue with someone who doesn't agree with you 100% a waste of time.

---

by: sspiker @ Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 22:26:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If you call what you do "dialogue" (4.00 / 1)

then I've got news....  

There's nothing in the middle of the road except yellow stripes and dead armadillos (Jim Hightower). PS I'm on Twitter here.

---

by: KathyinBlacksburg @ Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 23:57:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dialogue??? (2.50 / 2)

Dialogue implies respect for the viewpoints on both sides of the dialogue. That disqualifies you.

---

by: Elaine in Roanoke @ Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 00:08:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Of the (now) four people who have participated in this exchange... (0.00 / 0)

I've been the only respectful one.

---

by: sspiker @ Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 01:54:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Said another way (4.00 / 1)

While I would agree with you about the reason for the public sector employment decrease in that local governments don't have the same resources due to a dried up tax base through people no longer working and plummeting home values deceasing property taxes you are framing this in a juvenile way that makes it look like local governments went to Vegas and have no money so "tough luck for them". In circumstances where the state of Virginia needs funds to pay for school teachers or else lay them off or have a hiring freeze (as my mom's school district is under) darn right I would support the federal government stepping and helping the locality continue to have our schools operate as best they can. We are in a recession but there are vital institutions for our future that I would support going into debt for (like how we did when we went to college) such as keeping our schools operating as best we can, ensuring that we have adequate public safety officers, ensuring that as our population grows our infrastructure keeps up with that. While no doubt there is waste in government spending and there are items to cut do you personally support cutting what I mentioned due to state and local governments not having the revenue base to support it?  

---

by: Cool_Arrow @ Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 19:00:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I do think they've been irresponsible. (0.00 / 0)

Maybe "went to Vegas" is too strong, which is why I didn't use a phrase such as that, but irresponsibility is irresponsibility. And the reason one can objectively make that claim is that many states and localities have weathered the downturn reasonably well (some by fortune of circumstance, others by not spending extravagantly and/or preparing for bad times), while many others are faring much worse than average.

I'm not opposed to federal assistance (even before the recession the feds gave liberally to the states, and states are interdependent with one another), but if one state/locality has smartly prepared for the worst and been fiscally responsible, and another state (say, California) has been the very model of fiscal irresponsibility, how much should we give? And given that the downturn doesn't seem to be ending any time soon, how long should we give it?

Because when we're talking about handouts and the consequences of bad decisions not being felt (even if those consequences are paid by the people who voted for the people who made the decisions), there's always going to be a question of who gets what. And anytime there's that question, there's the promise of political favoritism and corruption. And, of course, the message sent that state legislators don't really have to take their constitutional mandates to balance their budget seriously, because Uncle Sam will be along shortly to keep them solvent.

So yes, while I think the stimulus has been an abject failure and the various bailouts have made bad things worse, I can't really get up in arms against federal assistance to the states targeted toward education and keeping teachers in classrooms. But governments have to live in their means, even if it means cutting jobs that are the product of the (often unnecessary) expansion of government in good times.

---

by: sspiker @ Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 02:06:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Is that what you support? DAMN RIGHT (4.00 / 1)

We are here because of 3 failures: 1) failed free market policies of the bush administration.  If the bush administration had reasonably regulated folks like AIG, Golden West and Bear Stearns, we wouldn't be in this mess to start with.  2) These ridiculous tax cuts for the rich and big business 3) bush's expensive wars with NO payment plan.  Now the republicans want to screw us seniors, our children, and grandchildren by destroying medicare and social security.  The republicans want to screw the unemployed by destroying the safety net even though the republicans are mainly responsible for the folks being unemployed.  Now is NOT the time to balance the budget, now is the time to send money out from the government to float this economy until it can get going again.

Let me give you a simple English lesson here. Spending cuts means job losses. Reducing the deficit means job losses. Balancing the budget means job losses. Austerity means job losses. And lots of job losses means slower economic growth. This reports shows that for every two workers hired by the private sector, one is fired by the government, leaving us with net job growth that is meager at best. Since the jobs recover started 18 months ago, the private sector has added an impressive 2.2 million, while the government has been shoveling jobs away half as fast.
This is a major ingredient of my long term forecast that American GDP growth has permanently downshifted from the 3.9% we saw from 2000-2009 to 2% for this decade.

http://www.madhedgefundtrader....

---

by: normanva @ Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 19:47:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Tim Kaine's statement (0.00 / 0)

Today's jobs report shows that the private sector has added jobs for 16 months in a row. But, not surprisingly, efforts to reduce the deficit are also reducing public sector employment. This demonstrates that efforts to reduce the deficit just via cuts will slow job growth. The balanced approach involves spending cuts, finding more tax revenue through the elimination of unnecessary loopholes and continued investments needed to grow the economy. I applaud recent efforts by the President and Congressional leaders to embrace such an approach.

Can anyone tell me what on earth Tim Kaine's saying here? I started nodding off after the second sentence...zzzzzzzzzzz.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 15:31:41 PM UTC

President Obama weighs in: "We still have a long way to go..." (0.00 / 0)

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 17:55:51 PM UTC