Unemployment rate drops the lowest in 4 years!

[the DRIZZLE]

First, get your facts straight, then make an argument-

http://middleclasspoliticaleconomist.blogspot.com/2012/01/expensive-subsidies-help-state-and.html

Reference also the FRED employment graph linked earlier from Krugman. States & Munis are revenue constrained, as you point out, so obviously their spending has gone down with revenues. This depression has been bad enough that cash strapped states basically have to lay off employees & curtail projects of all sorts to meet enormous unemployment claims, just a small part of a race to the bottom.

You attempt to have it both ways, and fail.

You are the one who needs to get his facts straight.
Year Total gov't spending $bn 2005
2003 4179.68
2004 4268.95
2005 4397.1
2006 4550.8
2007 4634.67
2008 4891.26
2009 5440.71
2010 5341.03
2011 5328.58
2012 5380.51

Total government spending is still way above 2008 levels in inflation adjusted dollars. I've shown inflation adjusted spending to give you the benefit of the doubt, and obviously the trend is even more pronounced in nominal dollars. There is no government austerity here. You keep posting charts that show YOY change, rather than total spending which paints a clearer picture.

 

[stormkroe]

First, get your facts straight, then make an argument-

http://middleclasspoliticaleconomist.blogspot.com/2012/01/expensive-subsidies-help-state-and.html

Reference also the FRED employment graph linked earlier from Krugman. States & Munis are revenue constrained, as you point out, so obviously their spending has gone down with revenues. This depression has been bad enough that cash strapped states basically have to lay off employees & curtail projects of all sorts to meet enormous unemployment claims, just a small part of a race to the bottom.

You attempt to have it both ways, and fail.

To be fair, that chart only goes down when spending is expressed as a percentage of the previous year. When actual dollar amounts are used, it seems to support a no-change position.

Although this chart seems to disagree with your chart in percentages too. I have no idea which one is more accurate, and am in no way saying that mine is right and yours is wrong.

 

[Jhhnn]

I am terribly sorry, you are correct.

Total .gov spending shot way the hell up between 2009-2010 from 35% of GDP to 42% of GDP and then it fell back but still above the previous 35% levels. So yes, if you count the huge temporary jump I guess you can say spending was "cut" but it is still considerably higher than it was for most of the 2000's and 90's.

BTW, does "goods and services" exclude legacy costs such as pensions and healthcare spending for state and local reteries? I only ask because it seems silly to use something like that versus total spent.

Regardless, you agree that states are in a revenue crunch yet you and Krugman are advocating them spend more money? How?

And for the record, I do not attempt to have it both ways. I know what must be done and what eventually be done, until then I am just along for the ride.

State and local spending *as a % of GDP* went down, even as GDP declined also. Only increased federal spending made up for it. Of course it was lower *as a % of GDP* when the economy was doing better.

Spending *as a % of GDP* is now roughly the same as it was during the RR/GHWB years, btw, a time that Righties look back upon as a Golden Age, so maybe their current raving is just political posturing, huh?

What eventually has to be done is finding a way to put Americans back to work at decent wages, restore the purchasing power they've lost in the very successful top down class warfare of the last 30 years. If the ownership class, the financial elite, wants them to work in the private sector, then they need to get going on it, because the only other solution is more govt employment & higher taxes to support that.

The vast reaches of American Suburbia have been built on debt, and the only way to sustain that, let alone pay it down, is with employment. Period. If the financial elite want for their investments in middle America's debt instruments to pay off, they must do their part to make it happen, or allow the govt to do it. Otherwise, they're once again flirting with disaster.

 

[Jhhnn]

Total government spending is still way above 2008 levels in inflation adjusted dollars.

As it should be- we're still in the throes of the greatest repub policy induced balance sheet depression of the last 80 years. There hasn't been anything like this since the early 1930's.

 

[Jhhnn]

Lol, I don't necessarily disagree with any of the above except for your conclusions. I do understand why you came to the conclusion you did, people are quick to defend their own team and will reach as far as they can to throw the other team under the bus.

With that said, we know for absolute fact that the banksters committed countless crimes during their looting spree. Exactly how many of them have Obama's justice dept. brought up on charges? And we are talking about blatantly obvious crimes, not something that is "grey".


PS: Those hordes of looters are still very good friends with the President of the United States. They have done absurdly well the last four years despite everyone else doing pretty bad or stagnant at best. They have got to keep all of their illegally gained loot and not a one has been led off in cuffs. Oh yeah, they are still to this day looting us with complete impunity.

The Dems even passed some multi-thousand page financial "reform" bill that didn't come remotely close to the few dozen page Glass-Stegal bill that they repealed. I know you will disagree until your very last breath but the truth of the matter is that your guy is owned by the exact same people that owned the last guy.

None of that releases the Bushistas from their own culpability & complicity in events as they transpired. Entrusted with the regulatory power to maintain the financial health of the nation, they did the opposite.That's just the truth- get used to hearing it.

Repubs have fought & continue to fight any sort of financial reform tooth & nail, while there are obviously forces on the Democratic side pushing for it, if not unanimously.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/financial-reform-second-obama-term_n_2088279.html

Where do you think it would have gone if Mitt had been elected?

 

[Pr0d1gy]

None of that releases the Bushistas from their own culpability & complicity in events as they transpired. Entrusted with the regulatory power to maintain the financial health of the nation, they did the opposite.That's just the truth- get used to hearing it.

Repubs have fought & continue to fight any sort of financial reform tooth & nail, while there are obviously forces on the Democratic side pushing for it, if not unanimously.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/financial-reform-second-obama-term_n_2088279.html

Where do you think it would have gone if Mitt had been elected?

Agreed on the FACTS you gave about Bush. His administration dropped the ball when it came to regulating the financial industry and we all got stuck with the bill. There is no debating that. The truly scary part is that industry has gone right back to where it was in 2007 and wealth inequality continues to rise.

Financial reform is a must at this point. We have to have heavy regulation in the financial sector because these people have proven they are little more than common thieves with unlimited checkbooks/credit cards.