So we're slashing more government jobs in a Depression

[MannyGoldstein]

We're going to merge government agencies to "cut waste and duplication". That's just brilliant. Hoover-licious. And it seems the the newly neoliberal world of DU loves it, just loves it.

Remember that FDR joker? He started programs to give people makework, just to have an excuse to give them government cash that wasn't welfare. And we can see how that bullshit worked out: unemployment dropped 40% in four years, and the economy grew at 8% a year. Those poor bastards didn't know how awful they had it, what with things getting better and all.

Thank God we don't have to worry ourselves over the prospect of unemployment dropping 40% in four years, and the economy growing at 8% a year. Bank profits would go down or some other bad thing, no doubt.

[JoePhilly]

1. Too late ... some one else beat you to the HOOVER reference !!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002164188

Try to keep up!

[baldguy]

2. You do understand that those jobs aren't simply going to be cut?

They're going to be lost through attrition.


But that wouldn't help you with your Obama-bashing, would it?

[Better Believe It]

4. So jobs are going to be cut via attrition? Why that's just wonderful!

We need fewer decent paying government jobs, not more.

That's the ticket!

How many post office jobs can we "trim" by consolidation?

[baldguy]

5. Try looking up the definition of the word "attrition" first.

[arendt]

9. I did. And it supports the OP, not you.

The unpredictable and uncontrollable, but normal, reduction of work force due to resignations, retirement, sickness, or death.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/attrition.html#ixzz1jP1wXgHK

The definition of attrition includes "REDUCTION OF THE WORK FORCE" = loss of jobs.

You are talking smack.

[baldguy]

10. Yes it's a reduction in workforce - OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS AT LEAST.

If you think choosing not to hire someone ten yrs from now is going to effect the economy TODAY you're an idiot.

I'm sorry, I should have said "Try to understand the definition..." instead. Huh?

[Zalatix]

58. Then count me in as an idiot. Thanks for the namecalling, too.

[TheKentuckian]

13. How is it a benefit to eliminate these openings?

These are desperately needed and desirable positions that can support a family with real benefits.
The jobs are being slowly sucked out and replaced with nothing which means that input is deleted. In a time where we need direct hire jobs programs this is crazy talk. You are rowing the boat in the wrong damn direction!
Each retirement will be a like a light going off rather than a new opportunity.

Over no projectable timeframe will we have too many well paying jobs so the questions becomes who is this supposed to be benefiting and why do you want to feed a frame that sucks demand and decent jobs out of the system?

[baldguy]

14. Having two people doing the exact same job is a waste.

Duplication of effort is a drain on the economy, not a benefit.

[Zalatix]

59. I hope you're still saying that when your boss has you doing the work of 2 people

for the same ol' pay while he's raking in the increased profits.

And please spare me the myth of the lazy unproductive Gov't worker.

[girl gone mad]

74. I'm afraid you've got it completely upside down.

When the government employs people, it puts money into the economy.

Taxation is the means by which the government drains money out of the economy.

[TheKentuckian]

99. Our mission is not to turn a profit, one less well paying job is a far greater drain.

[hack89]

56. Those tax dollars can go somewhere else? nt

[girl gone mad]

76. So where does the government plan to increase spending to make up for these cuts?

Contrary to what you seem to believe, taxes do not fund spending. Cutting federal workers will not "free up" tax dollars to be spent elsewhere. It doesn't work that way.

[hack89]

91. "taxes do not fund spending" - really?

so how are federal worker wages and benefits paid for?

[girl gone mad]

93. At the federal level, worker wages and benefits are paid..

by crediting accounts with a computer. The money isn't taken out of tax receipts. There is no store of collected tax monies (would that even make sense?). In fact, when you pay your taxes, the money you give to the government is simply destroyed - physical cash is mostly shredded and electronic cash is erased from the system.

The US has a sovereign fiat currency. Our federal government spends money into existence and taxes money out of existence. Our government does not need to tax (or borrow) to spend.

[TheKentuckian]

98. Yup, namely to rate cuts for the top 20%

[hack89]

100. I was thinking of education and health care myself. nt

[Systematic Chaos]

6. You show me a couple trillion spent on DESPERATELY needed infrastructure improvements,

in lieu of useless wars, and I'll show you one of the most important reasons to not bash Obama. Until then, he's just the shrub's third term to me.

Sorry, just being brutally honest about what I think.

[baldguy]

11. Sorry, I can't fight stupid.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

16. Obviously.

[baldguy]

18. Anyone was says Obama is Bush III has reasoning processes which are questionable, at best.

And isn't worth the effort.

[Systematic Chaos]

89. And I'm not there to yank your blinders off.

So we're even.

[ProSense]

12. It's

"You show me a couple trillion spent on DESPERATELY needed infrastructure improvements"

...not a "couple of trillion," but it will create more than 100,000 jobs.

White House announces job-generating energy-efficiency plan that needs no okay from Congress
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/02/1041791/-White-House-announces-job-generating-energy-efficiency-plan-that-needs-no-okay-from-Congress

[Zalatix]

83. Then who are you voting for? Or are you gonna sit it out and let the rabid GOP really stomp us?

[ProSense]

3. "Thank God"

Obama is President and some of his critics.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002165025

[girl gone mad]

77. Right..

imagine how horrible things would be if he had listened to those idiot critics who warned that the stimulus was insufficient, big finance was out of control, unemployment was a more serious threat than the deficit and trying to compromise with Republicans was a waste of time.

As you might say:

[SantorumAnalFrothyMX]

7. K&R

Kicked.

[2Design]

8. as long as it is part of the militay complex - I am ok with it n/t

[SlimJimmy]

15. Department of Commerce and other related agencies, not DoD. (nt)

[AnotherMcIntosh]

17. K&R

[mmonk]

19. Recommended.

Now back to the hitherlands for me until after the elections. It's hard avoiding comments this long because DU has great sources of info which make perusing without joining in difficult.

[DCBob]

20. The country is not in a depresssion... but of course you knew that.

If it is truly "waste and duplication" then it should be cut. The money can be used better elsewhere to create jobs that are not "waste and duplication".

[MannyGoldstein]

21. 1.5 million more children in *severe* poverty since 2008

And the number's still rising quickly. Call it whatever you want. But we should fix it, not make it worse.

[ProSense]

25. Wow

"1.5 million more children in *severe* poverty since 2008...And the number's still rising quickly. Call it whatever you want. But we should fix it, not make it worse."

...I agree with you.

Obama administration issues report on homelessness in 2011; awards $1.5 billion to local programs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100249786

[MannyGoldstein]

42. Where's the beef?

We need Liberal results, not Third-Way results.

[DCBob]

29. Thats an issue that I think we all agree needs to be addressed.

[girl gone mad]

78. "The money can be used better elsewhere to create jobs that are not "waste and duplication"."

Again, this demonstrates a basic lack of understanding on your part.

It isn't necessary to cut federal employment levels to "free up" money for use elsewhere. These cuts will only have the effect of removing real money from the real economy. There may indeed be "waste and duplication", but large portions of our economy now seem to be built on waste and duplication. Without a plan in place to increase spending in advance of these cuts, the economy will take a hit.

[Odin2005]

101. We're not? Yeah, whatever.

Talk to real people and they would say otherwise.

[SidDithers]

22. We're not in a Depression...

Words have meaning. You don't get to make up your own definitions.

Sid

[Zalatix]

23. That's what they said back in the 1930s, too.

[DCBob]

28. This is not the 1930's.. and we were never in a depression at all.

Not even close. We were in a severe recession and we are just now coming out of it. We could slide back into it if Europe implodes but as of now we are in a slow painful recovery.

[Zalatix]

31. Coming out of a severe recession? They said that in the 1930s, too.

I guess the denial crowd on here doesn't understand the concept of a "Sucker's Rally".

[DCBob]

32. I have lost count..

of the number of wrong predictions of imminent economic collapse on this board over the past couple of years. I suspect yours will be added to the list.

[Zalatix]

55. Uh huh, that's what they said about Greece.

But that's Greece. It could never happen to America, where the national debt is as big as GDP and the deficit is a TRILLION dollars, and HALF of our newborn children are on WIC.

Oh no. I must go stick my head in the sand now. Bye!

[DCBob]

60. America is not Greece.

good grief.

[Zalatix]

94. History rhymes. You should look that up.

[DCBob]

96. Look up America and Greece.

[SwampG8r]

34. we???

is canada suffering a recession too?

[SidDithers]

37. ...

"Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt." - Pierre Trudeau

Sid

[SwampG8r]

40. but that would in no way make you the elephant

when the elephant says we he speaks not of you
and when you say we you of course dont think yourself the elephant

[SidDithers]

43. wut...

Sid

[SwampG8r]

67. precisely

[girl gone mad]

79. Actually, the term depression does not have a specific, universally agreed upon meaning.

Its usage has varied over the decades, and it continues to be a point of contention among academics, scholars, economists and journalists.

Our current global malaise meets mot of the generic qualifiers for economic depression. It's actually worse in many notable ways than some previous economic downturns which have been widely labeled as depressions.

[FarLeftFist]

24. So now we're blaming President Obama for things he HASN'T even done yet?!

I thought people were innocent til proven guilty.

[Edweird]

33. The conspiracy is just as serious a crime as the act.

[lunatica]

26. It sure would be nice if more jobs were created at the same time

This time in history is perfect for getting rid of excess spending but only if more jobs are being created than jobs being eliminated. It could be done just in combating and adjusting to creating an industry for alternate sources of energy making our dependence on oil a rapidly diminishing reality.

It is so obvious. Even Idiocrats should be able to follow the logic. Sigh...

[Sheepshank]

27. oh Goodie...you are complaning again.

duplication of effort and tasks is a huge waste...WHEN THERE IS SO MUCH ELSE TO BE DONE. How many jobs does any article mention? ANY ARTICLE.

[Wind Dancer]

30. K & R!

[Edweird]

35. That's TOTALLY not RW. If there's one complaint I hear from "progressives" and "liberal Dems" it's

that government is just too gosh darn big.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

38. So you're not one of those "progressives" or "liberal Dems." Got it.

[Edweird]

39. One of the "progressives" and "liberal dems" that spout Reaganisms? Nope, I'm not.

I'm more of an FDR Dem. DLC=GOP

[AnotherMcIntosh]

44. You refer to "'progressives' and 'liberal dems' that spout Reaganisms." Where are they?

Experience has shown that liberals and progressives are loyal to the same principles of FDR, not Reagan.

[Edweird]

49. Not on DU. Here you are a pony wanting irrelevant fringe leftist.

The DLC order of the day for depression/recession is tax cuts, free trade and smaller government. Oh and a healthy dose of union busting.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

50. What you say about the DLC is true, but "DLC" does not stand for Democratic LIBERALS ...

Even then, while the union-busting activities and calls for "free trade" by the DLC have been going on for some time, the call for so-called smaller government in the manner of Republicans is only a recent event.

[Edweird]

52. Post #35 was white hot sarcasm.

DU is over run by DLC/New "dem"/third wayer's. They applaud each and every one of Obama's adoption of RW policies. They have attempted to take the label of "liberal Dem" and "progressive". Some even resort to grade school word games with 'progressive' to twist the meaning of the platform to suit their agenda. I'm sick of it. They need to GTFO out of the Dem party. They don't have to go home (republican party), but they can't stay here.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

53. Glad to hear it.

Too bad that Obama's recent call for a smaller government is not.

[SwampG8r]

36. you are 100% correct

ignore the echo chamber
they exist only to make enough noise to keep people from hearing the truth

[frazzled]

41. Stop twisting: this is about re-organizing and coordination, not cutting jobs

The reason behind it is that since Congress took away the executive's discretion to organize agencies, the powerful committee chairmen have set up a rat's nest of arcane, special interest agencies, under the control of their committee rather than another one, to protect interests of their big donors; the huge corporations can hire the lawyers to negotiate this maze of purposefully confusing bureaus--the accretions of years of individual senators' and committees' actions--but smaller businesses tear their hair out and become totally lost in the shuffle from one agency, with one set of rules, to the next.

With respect to commerce, for example, Obama is proposing the following:

President Barack Obama called on Congress to let him streamline the executive branch and proposed consolidating six agencies dealing with trade and commerce to give businesses a single government contact point.

The plan would eliminate the Commerce Department and consolidate its core functions in a new, yet unnamed department that would include the U.S. Trade Representative, the Export- Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corp., the Trade and Development Agency and the Small Business Administration.

The department also would include a new Division of Statistics housing the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which reports monthly unemployment figures, and the Bureau of Economic Analysis, which tracks data from the gross domestic product and consumer spending to corporate profit to the balance of trade.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/01/13/bloomberg_articlesLXQICL6K50Z001-LXR9Q.DTL#ixzz1jSC2pgJg

We'll still need most all of those workers who run the US Trade Rep's office, the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corp., the Trade and Development Agency, and the SBA: it's just that they won't be run out of different places, uncoordinated one from the other, and under the thumb of various different Congressional committees.

[hughee99]

45. I think the government should hire ALL the unemployed

if they paid them each 60K a year, then he will have fixed unemployment, put a huge dent in poverty, and probably largely fix the mortgage crisis as well. It sounds like such a simple plan, I wonder why they don't do it?

[MannyGoldstein]

46. That‘s roughly what FDR did

And it worked.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

51. In addition to FDR, even Nixon was smart enought to realize that putting money in the hands

of the impoverished not only benefited them but the country as a whole.

Of course, Nixon didn't propose the Guaranteed Annual Assistance in 1969 (aka the Family Assistance Plan) out of the kindness of his heart. He and Congress, along with the Senators who almost passed it, may have been spurred by the Watts' riots of 1965 and other riot-related activities.

We've been told that Obama is smart. His proposal for governmental employment for those who need it in a time of a recession or depression doesn't seem to verify that.

We've seen no evidence that the trickle-down theory works, nor has he. We've also seen no evidence that globalization works. He hasn't seen that either, unless he's looking at it from the perspective of those from the 1% who have served as his chiefs of staffs and other members of the 1%.

[Starry Messenger]

47. +1

Because having a desperate workforce makes corporations happy, is the answer to your question. But I totally agree with your solution.

[former9thward]

82. Why would anyone stay in a job not paying 60k a year?

If the government hired all unemployed then anyone making less than 60k would quit their jobs and get a government job.

[hughee99]

84. So new minimum wage: 60k. Companies that want to continue to do business

will have to pay everyone AT LEAST 60k or they wont have enough employees to do their jobs.

[former9thward]

85. And the economy would totally tank.

Everyone would become unemployed so the government would have to hire everyone and with what money since there would be no one in the private sector. Also there are many jobs in the public sector which would have to raise there salaries -- and with what money? From where? Math and economics are NOT your friends.

[hughee99]

86. Details, details,

The government hiring people fixes all economic problems and has no significant side effects.

Honestly, I posted originally as sarcasm, and was surprised to see people agree with it.

[Dragonfli]

54. At least we are not to emulate the other Hoover, then we'd be required to cross dress to support O

[SidDithers]

57. Welcome to DU...

you're going to fit Right in.

Sid

[Taverner]

61. This is called "How you get a depression that rivals the '29 one.

That time must have been paradise for the 1%

[dionysus]

62. today's outrage...

[surfdog]

63. Calling this a depression

Is a republican talking point

[Honeycombe8]

70. You're the only one who caught the faux pas in the OP. There is no "depression."

Obama and Congress succeeded in preventing the impending Second Great Depression. We entered a RECESSION instead. The recession is over.

You are correctomundo. Mitt wants us to believe that things are worse than they are, and that things have gotten worse over the last 3 years, when in fact they've gotten better.

[MannyGoldstein]

72. The number of Americans in poverty is growing,

and real unemployment is at 15% and stagnant.

Call it whatever you want, it‘s a catastrophe for the 99%.

[Summer Hathaway]

64. I will repeat my response

to a similar OP last night:

"If Obama did it, it must have a down side - a down side which must be proclaimed loudly and clearly, lest someone somewhere give him credit for something.

Had he announced a plan to hire more government workers, we'd be hearing the complaints about where the money was coming from to pay them.

Had he announced keeping gov't workers at the current number, he'd be accused of upholding the 'status quo' that everyone kvetches about.

With some folks, the man can't win. Whatever he does, it's wrong. Thank God DU is not representative of the real world, nor its inhabitants."

[Sheepshank]

65. amen

[SidDithers]

66. Well said...nt

Sid

[uponit7771]

75. +1! Bashers have NO credibility any longer, it's hard to have open critisim of Obama because of them

[BzaDem]

68. As far as I can see, this wouldn't lower aggregate demand at all. The debt ceiling deal for all

intents and purposes fixed the amount of discretionary spending for the next 10 years.

So if we save 3 billion over 10 years with this proposal, then 3 billion would be spent elsewhere in the discretionary spending budget.

Furthermore, even if this somehow did affect aggregate demand, FDR did what he did when aggregate demand was dangerously low. Obama is doing so over a long 10-year period, where the vast majority of the attrition will be during a time when we are not in a liquidity trap. A time where money spent on X is indeed money that cannot be spent on Y, for which removing waste and duplication is a net plus.

And the idea that the economy would grow at 8% a year is a fantasy. That happened in the depression because unemployment was multiple times what it is now, and the economy contracted by one third. It is much, much easier to hit those numbers when you are 33% below potential output.

Your argument seems to be (and you can correct me if I'm wrong) that it never makes sense to cut waste and duplication. While that is indeed what Republicans accuse Democrats of believing (to great electoral effect), it is not an economically-sound argument. Both Keynes and FDR would be horrified that their work was being used to make that argument.

[MannyGoldstein]

71. More than 500,000 federal jobs have been cut under Obama

This is an important factor in our continuing Depression.

And now he's asking to slash more. Jobs should not be cut during an economic downturn, it helps nobody but the 1%.

When Obama asks Congress for similar power to regulate banks, it will be a happy day.

[BzaDem]

73. These jobs aren't going to be cut during an econmic downturn.

Unless you believe we will still be in an economic downturn for the next 10 years, and that the 3 billion will be put to a non-job-creating use in the federal government.

[girl gone mad]

80. Trying to have it both ways, aren't you?

The official said 1,000 to 2,000 jobs would be cut, but the administration would do so through attrition; that is, as people routinely leave their jobs over time.

The administration said the merger would save $3 billion over 10 years by getting rid of duplicative overhead costs, human resources divisions and programs.

The point, the official said, is not just making the government smaller but better by saving people time and eliminating bureaucratic nightmares. The idea for the consolidated business agency grew out of discussions with hundreds of business leaders and agency heads over the last several months.

If the money is just to be put to another use, then they can't claim to be saving "$3 billion over 10 years". Consolidation naturally implies a reduction in outlays. Why would you assume they plan to spend the money they are "saving" (a completely absurd framing, in and of itself, but I'll leave it alone) on some other project?

[BzaDem]

87. Look at the debt ceiling deal.

It basically set discretionary spending levels for the next 10 years. For example, this year, the amount of discretionary spending was equal to what the debt limit deal said for this year, despite the tea party revolt.

As I'm sure you are aware, discretionary spending is set through the appropriations process. They first decide the total amount spent, and then they decide how that money is distributed. Just because money is saved in one area doesn't mean it isn't spent in another.

[girl gone mad]

90. "Just because money is saved in one area doesn't mean it isn't spent in another."

Doesn't mean it will be spent in another area, either. Or that it will be put toward creating good paying jobs.

[bhikkhu]

81. That's a lie (though if it wasn't, it would be a good rebuke to the repugs)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/how-the-wall-street-journ_b_1206349.html

and a graph from that with the federal employment numbers (in millions):

[MannyGoldstein]

92. You're right, I'm wrong.

We've lost between 500,000 and 1,000,000 public-sector jobs since Obama took office, but these were primarily state and local jobs. I misread the stats, sorry.

[bhikkhu]

97. No problem - and thanks for not taking offense at my wording!

I've certainly misread things myself on occasion.

Likely we would agree on how much better it would be to put those hundreds of thousands of public sector employees back to work, instead of talking about more reductions...

[joshcryer]

69. So Obama is doing what Chavez did?

[bluestate10]

88. You are the king of over statement. Obama prevented a Bush Depression.

There IS NO FUCKING DEPRESSION, DRIVE THAT DEEP INTO YOUR SKULL. Get a damned clue. Departments can be merged without job loss, but there will almost surely be a freeze in hiring.

[Rex]

95. No one cared when the MIC 'lost' a trillion dollars

we are so far up shit creek that what goes on now is just robbing the corpse imo.