E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA 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."
Leave a Comment:
"Tax cutes for the rich increase investment and trickle down to everyone else."
30 years later. Still waiting
"Tax cuts pay for themselves and create more government revenue."
Still waiting
Outsourcing is good. Outsourcing to cheaper labor creates higher value jobs in America.
Still waiting
I'm guessing Repubicans are still waiting for alchemy to work.
Voodoo economics focuses so much on supply side economics, they seem to give little or no thought to the demand side. Consumers who have no money can't buy things.
Are these the same economists who completely missed the Great Recession of 2008 - 2009? As shown in this article, economists are notorious for trying to pretend that economics is a science that can actually predict human behaviour but rarely does:
http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2011/02/imf-and-worlds-central-bankers-blind.html
Economics is rather like herding cats; it looks good on paper but rarely works in practice. Predicting job losses is a mug's game.
Those poor starving billionaires need another tax cut.
Please donate to;
Feed a Billionaire
Box 3287448 Zurich, Switzerland
Thermen---why didn't Obama and the Democrats who had total control of this country for two years raise the taxes on the ultra-wealthy??? Oh, please someone explain that to me---why didn't they??? They could have and choose not to----maybe it's time for liberals to vote Obama out.
Rightiskind, what a bunch of horsesh*t. Have you forgotten already? The Republicans threw a big huge tantrum until Obama agreed to go along with a continuation of the Bush tax cuts. They absolutely refused to concede on that. I can't believe you don't know that.
The GOP will no doubt be surprised to find, that trickle down unemployment (unlike trickle down economics) actually exists, when those 700,000 stop buying cars from the local Republican car dealer.
700,000 jobs will be lost? That's about 2 weeks worth of job losses under the so-called stimulus. Chances are that 600,000 of those jobs will be federal, state and local beaurocrats who have been cruising along unaffected by the economy, because government always protects its own. It's about time the beaurocrats felt the pain that the giant ponzi scheme we call government has foisted on the people who actually produce goods and services.
" foisted on the people who actually produce goods and services"
You mean the Indians and the Chinese?
Jose, quoting Bernie Madoff does not exactly make you sound like an economic genius.
Obama pushes $3Trillion in stimulus and loses 2,000,000 - 3,000,000 jobs. GOP cuts a humongus budget by a mere 0.5% ($61B out of $300-400 Billion) which will lose 700,000 jobs......Sounds like a good trade to me.
Cuts of 35,000 IRS agents and another 150,000 government workers is a mere drop in the bucket. By eliminating ObamaCare another 35,000 Irs agents will never be made. Is that part of the 700,000 job loss? Should be.
The U.S. gained more than a million private sector jobs during Obama's first two years. 863,000 jobs added in the private sector in 2010 alone. When Obama first took office, the U.S. was losing about 700,000 jobs a month.
Handy chart here:
http://veracitystew.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/JobsPrivateSector-e1286801400481.jpg
Don't believe it Michael----had we gained that many jobs MSNBC would have been all over it. Let's face it the bail-out only helped the rich---Obama's true friends.
MSNBC was all over it right. But I guess you must have missed that. After all Fox didn't exactly scream it from the rafters.
SO, does that mean if there are no cuts, the Dems will have "saved" 700,000 jobs, and if you increase spending equal to what the Repubs propose cutting, it will "create" 700,000 jobs? Someone please explain...I have a hard time with Dem math. It's SO confusing...everything the Dems say and do is always fuzzy.
We can't keep the triillon dollar deficits up forever as Obama wants without a serious price down the road. I am really afraid we may have already passed the point of no return as for avoiding total economic collapse, If we continue the present policies, we are eventually doomed.
Make up your mind; we've "already passed the point of no return", or "if we continue present polices we are ... doomed".
Easy Rick---DON is right, we are headed for or may be already there for a huge problem---sorry Obama and the Dem's have only made things worse--which we knew they would.
LOL Don doesn't know which way he's going.
Why shouldn't the rich get richer? If we permit them the opportunity to enrich themselves via the tax structure, they will in turn hire the rest of us. The rest of us are of course the serf or peon class. We are the lesser endowed members of the species whose function is to till the soil of the aristocracy. We should get in line and know our place. If we are good and moral and support the wealthy to create jobs, we too may some day be all powerful and wealthy. That is the American dream. Democrats want to ruin that dream which will eliminate the incentive for we serfs to strive to be among the blue bloods.
The bottom line is support for the wealthy will keep us fit and motivated to be rich too. Help for the weak only rewards weakness.
No they won't. They'll hire people from India. Until we go back to having 70 hour work weeks and no minimum wage. Then they'll hire us again for $1 an hour. Aren't you thankful?
it has definately worked during the reagan era and now during the bush/obama eras. The rich are definately getting richer and the jobs are just falling from the sky. After 9 yrs of tax cuts for the rich, I turn down about 15 different jobs a day because they are just so generous to us little people. Buck, wake up!!!!!
Steve- look at tax brackets from Reagan's time and compare them to George W Bush's. They are totally different.
What are you guys talking about? The rich have created millions of jobs...in India and China.
America is done. We're a hollowed out shell. It's over. We've outsourced our growth to India and China. Our standard of living is not competitive in a "global economy" when our competition is making 25 cents an hour.
The rich get richer and we fight over the bones,
"You're STILL making middle class income because you're in a union? How dare you! I want you to be poor too!"
Twenty years ago, NO one really wanted to be an auto worker or a teacher, pension or not. Now those are the GOOD jobs, and Republicans are really ticked off that there are actually decent jobs left, "We have to get rid of those!"
Let's not forget here that the unions drove those jobs across the sea, if it weren't for their outragous demands we would have those jobs here yet----look at how much they get in pensions and salaries, plus health care benefits----now you know why states like WI are broke and the unions won't help to ease the pain---greedy union types got the greedy owners to move things across the sea---thank them.
So the Republican's "jobs bill" is to lay off people. Ingenious.
Democrats plan---spend money we don't have---even better.
Nope, spend money we don't have, we can either print more and/or borrow from our Chinese buddies.
We are Phucked, no matter how you slice it...Going to hurt like the dickens, and we might as well get to it.
If you cut spending, people lose their job. That is a fact. If or when we balance the budget, millions of jobs will be lost due to spending cuts. This is a short term bad thing but a long term good thing. That is why it is so tough to cut spending. You can't balance the budget without people losing their job. If you cut military spending, the military will not lose jobs, it will be the private sector that loses jobs as the private sector builds the weapons that will be cut.
It is funny how we will lose 700k in jobs on spending cuts of 60 billions but we have stimulas of $800k or more and still lost jobs or created very few jobs. The math does not seem to work. We have a 1.5 trillion in debt. How many jobs do we lose when we balance the budget? If you raise taxes jobs will be lost and if we cut spending jobs will be lost. We all know this but now is the time we want to cut a very small 60 billion out of a budget of 3.7 trillion and the sky is falling?
It all does not make sense?
"It" makes sense, but you don't. Jobs will not be lost if we raise taxes; no businessman is going to reduce jobs and thereby reduce his potential income because the tax rate goes up. In fact, he may hire more because those employee costs are deductions potentially increasing his income.
Cutting spending can cost jobs because that spending is either for purchases or payroll and has a direct or indirect effect on reducing sales made by other businesses and subsequently their need for manpower.
George Bush's stimulus idea which Obama continued "created" jobs in that it "saved jobs" - not all of them - by slowing and stopping the crash.
If we and the Congress are serious, they will repeal the tax cuts for the rich along with corporate tax breaks, neither of which creates jobs and the lack of either will not cost jobs.
Rick----your plan is what got us here in the first place. If we raise taxes on companies all they do is pass that cost onto the consumer---raise them too much or raise their cost of business (employee wages) too much and they are forced to mover overseas---let's get this fixed--not try the same old thing.
No sense in trying to talk to right, he's bought into the BS hook line and sinker. he's to daft to realize that all those tax breaks haven't done a damn thing to reduce UE. But hey, send em more right. Dimwit!
"700,000 lost jobs" This is only a downpayment on what conservatives have in store for this country.
Have you been oxygen deprived for awhile? This is the dealth match as to weather the country survives.
If you think we can balance the budget without pain, then your are not really paying attention. Government needs to lead, cut 10% a year in head couint for 3 years. Painful, yes. Necessary, ABSOLUTELY yes!
It will survive. What we now think of as South American economics will become American economics. South America has billionaires too you know.
Then it should be painful for all. Raise taxes on the richest 2%
"If you think we can balance the budget without pain,"
Just curious Fincrisp. How much "pain" is the end of collective bargaining or teacher layoffs going to create for YOU?
When people start talking about how their solution is going to cause "some pain", they're almost always talking about someone else's "pain".
It's kind of like all those politicians, lawyers, Accountants, and MBAs telling the rest of us we need to be scientists and mathematicians to make America competitive. They couldn't pass Algebra I, but "we" need more math and science majors.
The key to paying down the debt is really very simple in terms of what will work and what will not work. What will work is to create businesses and lower cost energy sources. The other is to eliminate all pork spending and stop all unnecessary military allocations to include Afghanistan.
Last but not least tax money when spent, not when earned. Our current system allows everyone including crooks and the wealthy to pay up. This alone would probably pay off our debt.
When you say tax money when spent not when earned - this is a very bad idea.
One of the problems with cash flow in this country today is that the wealth of the country has been gradually consolidating in the hands of the 2%. Think those guys give a hoot about income tax? They're making their income off of accumulated wealth, the income from which is taxed at a far lower rate than income. Also, no Social Security tax! So what you are advocating is to have only the wealthy be in a position to accumulate wealth.
A better policy would be to revamp the way income and capital gains are taxed. Determine the tax rate based on gross income overall, not a flat 15%.
Realistically, we do need to cut 900,000 Government jobs over the next three years to make this work. 10% a year for three years. Budget problem is not solved until you show me the names. Any decline in service cannot be tolerated, either. Private industry knows how to cut overhead without diminishing service. It is about time government learned, too.
I've been reading some comments made by union officials claiming that government workers are being underpaid compared to comparable positions in industry - I find this surprising. In industry I am under constant pressure to build a better product at lower cost. And now you all get do a gut check as to where that pressure comes from - if you said the <fill in your adjective> corporation then you're a liberal - if you said the <fill in your adjective> market then you're a conservative. The problem with governments and their workers is that they form an inefficient market. Inefficient markets always lead to disruptions (i.e. revolutions when governments are involved) which is why government always needs to remain as small as possible.
how convenient - 2012 - therefore the GOP can keep job growth down and blame the current administration and dems for the bad economy. Then when they're in complete power (god help us) start spending at their discretion. Which isn't that part of what got us in this mess to begin with
The act of trimming waste to help balance the budget will result in some job cuts. No one honestly thought we could balance the budget without cutting a some jobs? Wake up people! The country is out of money and has been for quite some time, thus the huge debt we owe. Something has got to give.
About Wisconsin, people just don't get it. Health care and Pension are part of an employees compensation package - they are deferred compensation: employees take the benefits rather than the salary. So if you think about it, it is not about balancing the budget but lowering wages.
Hey-GOPers WHERE ARE THE JOBS?
Hey ROZ - ask Obama when oil workers can get back to drilling in the gulf - 30,000 jobs right there.
"create businesses"
For instance? Should I start another corporation that is nothing but a brand and some marketing with all product development and manufacturing done overseas? Will that help? I'll need a CEO, and a COO, and a CFO, and a CIO, and some Executive VPs. Oh, yeah and some minimum wage (can't we get rid of that? It's so socialist) "retail clerks". That should do it. Am is missing anything?
The conservatives brought us to the edge of an economic chasm under Bush, now they are ready to push us over thanks to Boehner.
That is total nonsense. We were attacked and we are still under attack from a variety of enemies. Bush defended us quite well.
But now we are paying the bill. And in typical fashion conservatives want to put the burden on the middle class.
Yes, he certainly has. Iraq hasn't attacked us again since 9/11. Saddam is dead and will never again fly an airliner into the World Trade Center.
Sam. Stop showing your ignorance. Its embarrassing
Wasting money is wasting money. We can not bankrupt the country in the name of jobs. If 3.7 trillion do not create enough jobs, another 70 billion will create lots of jobs?? Who is doing the math? Somebody is doing some creative mathematics!
Exactly what jobs would be eliminated? State and Federal Government type jobs? Eliminating these type of jobs help in two ways; cuts big government and cuts spending taxpayer's money!
1st words of the article...ECONOMIST PREDICT....
yeah, they've been doing such an EXCELLENT job with their predictions so far.. huh.
Their only cutting $61 billion? Where are these "massive cuts" I've been hearing about? Thats about a 1.6% budget reduction, which in my opinion is way too little. At the local level my county government is making ~5% budget cutbacks, and we're still in the hole. Sorry but we need to balance the budget, this binge spending is going to kill our country in the long run. Better to hurt now then die later. BTW those are some pricey jobs, $61,000,000,000 / 700,000 = $87,142.85 per job.
Good point Ano: Very pricey jobs indeed. THEY MUST BE UNION!!
What is it with your class envy Towne?
Thermal: It is far from envy. I am disgusted with our governments constant waste of money and then idiots trying to defend it because they think they have some right to government assistance.
It really doesn't matter who created the mess. What matters most now is cutting the loses to a minimum. Face it, we can't print more money and we can't borrow more money so we have to cut our everyday spending. Families are cutting costs by getting fewer wanted items so they can have their needed items. Our government has no choice but to do the same. And cutting a bunch of over paid government jobs is a great place to start. Ask any federal/state employee about some of the people they work with, they will point out unneed people and positions instantly.
It really doesn't matter who created the mess. What matters most now is cutting the loses to a minimum
How many have heard these very same words from the co-worker/employee who royally screwed up? It's always the ones who screw up who say "it doesn't matter now how it happened all that matters is we have to fix it" in an effort to deflect the attention from those who created the mess in the first place. that way they are free to screw up again and again.
GO REPUBLICANS!!!! GO REPUBLICANS!!!! CREATE JOBS!!!! CREA.....wait, what?!?!?!?!
The only jobs conservatives want to create are in China or some other low wage country.
Not siding with the Republicans here this isn't partisan. But the fact is if you don't tackle the deficit aggressively, long term you're going to lose a hell of a lot more than 700,000 jobs and what few jobs there are will pay miserly.
The deficit is huge. It will take a combination of defense cuts, spending cuts, and tax increases on a massive scale to even make a dent in it. And the sooner we take the pain on that and go forward the better off we're going to be.
Agreed. But right now, when the U.S. is just beginning a fragile recovery, is NOT the time to start slashing the budget. If the GOP gets its way we'll be double dipping into another recession.
*puts on conspiracy theory hat*
Which would help the Republicans in 2012, but nobody is that evil or heartless.
The double dip is likely to happen no matter whether we do another tarp. It is writing on the wall, and it isn't going to be pretty.
clotho - I appreciate the sentiment but I don't think it works that way. If we keep stimulus spending we keep the fragile economy going at the expense of massive pain a year or three down the road. Better to take the pain now.
As for Republicans - now they're running the House. They'll get creamed too if the economy goes way south before 2012. Your *conspiracy theory hat* theory works if we're still wall to wall Democrats.
Been There - I think you're right. The point is to make dip 2 less painful by being responsible now. But there will be pain.