If the economy is so bad, why are tax receipts up?

[Gaspar]

Isn't anyone going to note the disastrous reduction in Federal, State and local employment as a factor in the both employment stats and the poor economy? I forecasted two years ago that if we were to follow the dictates of the Republican mantra of eliminating government "waste" by chopping jobs that this would happen. But did anyone listen? Noooooooo. Now we must suffer.

Seriously, a recession is usually lessened by increased federal, state and local employment efforts. Its a good way to pump money into the economy as a jump start till the next cycle begins. It was done under both Bushes and was effective. Unfortunately, it is being ignored this time in favor of T-party doctrine which chokes government while blood letting to get the bad demons out of the sick patient. It hdoesn't help that its an election year and the party out of office wants to make the one in office look powerless.

But if you actually look at the unemployment numbers by industry, according to the Government's own numbers Government unemployment is only at 4.2%.  In fact, it's the lowest of any industry.  Construction still shows the highest rate at 14.2%

Now if you throw out government workers and unpaid workers the adjusted unemployment rate is 8.7% 
When you add in government unemployment it actually improves the rate to 8.1%
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t14.htm



So to blame President Obama's failures on a decrease in government employment is rather silly.

[Townsend]

Okay. I'm all for drinking and posting. Problem is I am sober right now. Can you help me?   

I'm referring to the FOX talent as meadow muffins dropped by W.

[Townsend]

I won the thread.  Quit it.

Just lobbin' night soil.

[Gaspar]

Bush is running against Obama this year?

He is far easier to run against than Romney, so it may indeed be the wisest strategery.

[RecycleMichael]

Despite guido and conan declaring that the thread should be over because they have spoken, the thread continues.

Conan: you wrote this "shrinking local and state employment are the direct result of shrinking incomes and spending and is a far better indicator of the overall economy."

Income tax collections are up, even with less local and state government jobs. More income from people employed in the private sector, yet less government jobs. Why is that a bad thing?

Gaspar: Why are you obsessed with what Obama should be saying? You would probably be the last person in America that he would listen to. You have posted time and time again all about Obama's message, his campaign strategies, even what all his advisors are saying. It just seems odd to me that you are constantly trying to put words in his mouth, then attacking anything he does say.

I think it is time to admit that you have a mancrush on Obama.

[Townsend]

I think it is time to admit that you have a mancrush on Obama.

He's an Obamaboy?

[Gaspar]

I think it is time to admit that you have a mancrush on Obama.

Meh, he'd probably just tell me whatever I want to hear without really appreciating me as a person.

[AquaMan]

But if you actually look at the unemployment numbers by industry, according to the Government's own numbers Government unemployment is only at 4.2%.  In fact, it's the lowest of any industry.  Construction still shows the highest rate at 14.2%

Now if you throw out government workers and unpaid workers the adjusted unemployment rate is 8.7% 
When you add in government unemployment it actually improves the rate to 8.1%
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t14.htm



So to blame President Obama's failures on a decrease in government employment is rather silly.

Yeah, that professor of economics on MSNBC who used his stats to prove the opposite, was just silly. Maybe you could send him your phone number.

[Gaspar]

Yeah, that professor of economics on MSNBC who used his stats to prove the opposite, was just silly. Maybe you could send him your phone number.

[AquaMan]

Who classifies themselves as a government worker? Details matter. If 4.2% of the government workers are unemployed does that mean they can no longer work anywhere but the government? Not likely. Teachers jobs have been cut but they find work elsewhere. Also one wonders that if a job that is totally eliminated through no funding is it really a job. If a tree falls in the forest and no hears it does it make any noise?

Why did you ignore the rest of the post? A reasonable solution might be to follow the path of predecessors who lessened the impact of business cycles by increasing government investment in jobs during down cycles and diminish them during growth periods. As Chauncey Gardner might say, "It is prudent to prune the garden while it is growing not while it is dying".

I wonder how Romney feels about business cycles and government employment used to manipulate them.

[Conan71]

Despite guido and conan declaring that the thread should be over because they have spoken, the thread continues.

Conan: you wrote this "shrinking local and state employment are the direct result of shrinking incomes and spending and is a far better indicator of the overall economy."

Income tax collections are up, even with less local and state government jobs. More income from people employed in the private sector, yet less government jobs. Why is that a bad thing?

Gaspar: Why are you obsessed with what Obama should be saying? You would probably be the last person in America that he would listen to. You have posted time and time again all about Obama's message, his campaign strategies, even what all his advisors are saying. It just seems odd to me that you are constantly trying to put words in his mouth, then attacking anything he does say.

I think it is time to admit that you have a mancrush on Obama.

As state income tax collections heading up and sales tax collections, chances are we will start to see state and local employment begin to increase again as budgets increase.  That is unless the Tea Baggists figure out we didn't need those furloughed workers in the first place.  I was merely explaining in general that when the economy shrinks, local and state governments have to react much quicker to laying people off.  Clearly tax receipts increasing is a sign of advancing recovery.  The main problem is, there are at least 14 plus million people who are not presently sharing in that recovery. 

Obama has a hard sell for those people.

[Gaspar]

Who classifies themselves as a government worker? Details matter. People who are paid by federal or state government.

If 4.2% of the government workers are unemployed does that mean they can no longer work anywhere but the government? Nope.

[Gaspar]

[AquaMan]

You finally found something you have in common with the president then.

The spin never ends eh?

[RecycleMichael]

Of course you blame Obama for lower house prices. Maybe you should look up actual facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_housing_bubble

National home sales and prices both fell dramatically in March 2007 — the steepest plunge since the 1989 Savings and Loan crisis. According to NAR data, sales were down 13% to 482,000 from the peak of 554,000 in March 2006, and the national median price fell nearly 6% to $217,000 from a peak of $230,200 in July 2006.

Chief economist Mark Zandi of the economic research firm Moody's Economy.com predicted a "crash" of double-digit depreciation in some U.S. cities by 2007–2009. In a paper he presented to a Federal Reserve Board economic symposium in August 2007, Yale University economist Robert Shiller warned, "The examples we have of past cycles indicate that major declines in real home prices—even 50 per cent declines in some places—are entirely possible going forward from today or from the not-too-distant future."

It must be comforting to simply blame Obama for everything, even for things that happened before he even announced his campaign for the Presidency.