Republicans Draw Economists’ Concern in Budget Fight

That is to say, members of both parties love to cite him whenever his conclusions validate their governing philosophy.
.
The economic version of a pollster, eh, what?

Are you suggesting that some sort of economic expertise is required to realize that the proposed Republican budget-cutting is something other than partisan politics, policy insanity and governing malpractice?

the economy could lose 700,000 jobs by the end of next year if Republicans push through $61 billion in cuts called for in their 2011 budget proposal.

Wow. Big shock there.

In all seriousness, forget Zandi, is there a single economist that would argue that cutting spending wouldn’t lead to job loss? Hell, even Milton Friedman accepted the basic premises of Keynesianism. Government spending is a component of GDP. If you reduce that component, GDP will decline. This is about as close as you can come to a fundamental macroeconomic principle in the field of economics.

How in the hell did we get to a point where both parties, and the vast majority of journalists, are approaching a political consensus to ignore basic economic principles?

Asked something like that a couple of weeks ago.
.
I’d say it’s because you can always find someone to say anything you want them to say, since there is NO over-riding economic law that can’t be manipulated or mis-intepreted.
.
If I drop a quarter, it is going to fall downward, no matter on which planet I am.
.
You are getting to the crux of the matter, when you start discussing WHICH economist subscribes to WHICH economic theory.

The good news that is less than the “independent” analysis by Goldman Sachs who put the job loss number at over 2 million jobs. Following that trend line, a couple more independent analysis like this and we will have job growth of several million jobs and 2-3% in GDP

It seems Mr. Zandi used his analysis” where 8.5 million were created or “saved” on the $750 billion stimulus plan. Seems by dividing $750 b by 8.5 gives you 1.13 multiple. Multiplying $61 billion by 1.13 gives you close 700,000 jobs (691,3330).
.
Convenient. Apparently Zandi wants to stay on the Obama Christmas card list.

…’bout the exact time the Tea Party hit the scene….

“How in the hell did we get to a point where both parties, and the vast majority of journalists, are approaching a political consensus to ignore basic economic principles?”

.
. It was about the time everyone thought the government could supply every whim and that taxes will be in infinite supply.
And spare us the argument that the “wealthy” need to pay more. That already pay 70% of all federal income taxes paid and over 50% of taxpayers has no tax liability.

Ordinary Americans are tightening their belt, government needs to tighten its belt.

Also too, Hayekian principles.

Also too as well, teh librul bias on Wall Street.

Bingo, this is nonsense from a pro-Obama hack. Everyone on Wall Street is a pro-Obama hack. Ditto for the media, academia, Hollywood, and the entire world outside of the United States.

Only TRUE TEA PARTY PATRIOTS can be trusted.

“Hayekian principles”?
.
Selma mad ’cause she didn’t win an Oscar?

Hey, Selma has other “assets” to her credit.

“Selma mad ’cause she didn’t win an Oscar?”
.
Typical ignorant libtard. Hayek is the most important economist in the period after Jesus and before Reagan.

Zandi seems to play the role of Washington’s perennial arbiter of Economic Rightness.

**********************************************************

Mark is after a high profile job in any administration. He was one of those over-promising on the last stimulus. A cut of $61B is peanuts in this budget and won’t have a visible effect on jobs.

When corporations are run like plantations and employees are treated like peasants, that’s the TRUE Road to Serfdom.

Just sayin’….

I will note that despite the hyperventilation of the teabaggers, in comments, they fail to provide a counter-analysis. Where is the report from a teabagger analyst or academic [an oxymoron, I know] that shows that you can cut $61B and it won’t cause a reduction in jobs? Nowhere.

Their comments are long on hot air and short on economic analysis.

Shocking I tell you; just shocking!

When every economic forecast over the past 2+ years has not been close or has been nothing but rank speculation one doesn’t need “a Tea Party Report”. They can just bask in the incompetence glow of the left and their futile (but arrogant) attempt to get the economy to listen to them, because they know better or so they keep telling us.

More hot air.
.
Surely there is an economist with a heart beat that agrees with your claims freeper. If not, you might want to question whether, by studying at the feet of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, you really have gleaned a greater understanding of macroeconomic principles than every economist in the country.

“When corporations are run like plantations and employees are treated like peasants”
.
Your compete lack of any understanding of a corporations and their purpose is not a surprise.
.
But you can look at the education system where the inmates run the asylum to see the huge deficits that are the result as is the pathetic academic results of the students.

There may be. But I need look no further than those who agree with you that have been an abysmal failure in those forecasts as are the policies you condone.
.
We can go back to Obama’s Economic Council and unemployment no higher than 8% while Zandi says in his subsequent analysis the stimulus created 1.5-3 million jobs even as unemployment rose to nearly 10%.
.
One thing these forecasters do serve is at a contrary indicator.

Maybe Scott left out the minus sign in his promise of 700,000 jobs to the people in Florida?
.
It’s happened before:
.
Anyone remember the Beagle mission to Mars?

Thank you for admitting that your economic views are not based on a single authority.
.
FWIW, there were numerous economists, including Nobel-prize winners, who correctly predicted that the stimulus package that was passed in 2009 was too small. They correctly predicted that it would stave off a more serious depression, but would be unlikely to do more than create a jobless recovery. One of the reasons that a larger stimulus would be necessary, they noted at the time, would be to prevent the numerous lob losses of state employees as a result of state deficits.
.
Republicans have a choice. They can argue that the layoffs of thousands of police officers, EMTs, teachers, fire fighters, etc. is a good thing. Or they can admit that they screwed up by opposing a larger stimulus.
.
What they can’t do is claim, against all empirical evidence and economic understanding, that if the stimulus had been smaller that — MAGICALLY!!!! — states would have had more money and laid off fewer workers. That is an insane claim that can be ignored out of hand.

“Thank you for admitting that your economic views are not based on a single authority”
.
I said no such thing. I merely commented that the results of the lefts economists has been a failure. And of course you jump to the liberal response for every problem—spend more money.
.
“they noted at the time, would be to prevent the numerous lob losses of state employees as a result of state deficits.”
.
They were lost precisely because of the policies of spending more money. ANd they were only a fraction of the loses suffered by the private sector but that did not stop the left from adding more regulations and laws that kept private companies from hiring. What we have now is the stark realization that you can’t spend forever.

It is amusing that your relative perspective of the entire economy centers around state employees. The size and spending of governments is at the heart of the problem not the solutions. Given the spending by them over the past 30 years the economy should have been bullet proof.

If you mean that a corporation’s purpose is profit-making, then I understand clearly. What is lost is the lack of concern for the people who work to make that profit, and it ain’t just the guys
at the top.

I’m not the anecdotal type, but I’ve seen too many people run over for the last several years (pay freezes, loss of benefits, layoffs) because the company needed to reach that bottom line. And, it wasn’t just one company that did it.

“If you mean that a corporation’s purpose is profit-making, then I understand clearly.”
.
Obviously you do not approve of what a corporations purpose is/ I guess every CEO should re-register as 501 (c)(3)s.

.
Maybe you should give some thought as to what causes profit margins to get squeezed and result in layoffs. Hint: is usually isn’t business related

Bingo, this is nonsense from a pro-Obama hack.

So McCain’s preferred economist during his campaign is a pro-Obama hack? That’s really the angle you want to take here? I have to hope this is sarcasm because if it’s not, you’re an idiot.

Typical ignorant libtard.

So I suppose that answers my question at 3.2. You’re an idiot.

Hayek is the most important economist in the period after Jesus and before Reagan

A really, really dumb one at that.

Hey Doug,

So everyone on Wall Street is in the pocket of our Socialist President? I did not really know Wall Street was into Socialism! Who knew?

gee, free, if it is true that 50% of all workers have no tax liability, I’d come to a conclusion that was caused more by our lack of economic mobility, lack of reasonable pay and lack of decent tax code.
.
However, to simply say that 50% of all taxpayers don’t have any liability is misleading because it is not just the low to middle income wage earners who have no liability but mega-corporations as well. In 2009, several oil companies posted profits in the $billions and not only paid no taxes, but actually got refunds from the government. So, yeah, the rich has to start paying more in taxes and stop getting refunds.

Of course Republicans want to lay off 700,000 people and destroy the economy. The worse things are in 2012, the better the chance for a GOP president.
.
They don’t want to govern for all. They just want to get in power to benefit themselves and redistribute wealth upward to the top 10%, as they have for the last 30 years. If wrecking the economy and putting thousands out of work achieves that, then full speed ahead.
.
For example, can anyone point to anything the Republicans have done since taking the House that would create a single job?

“Hayek is the most important economist in the period after Jesus and before Reagan.”

Hey Doug, ever heard of Adam Smith? Heck, I don’t even have to go back that far, how about Milton Friedman?

For some reason some Tea Partyers seem to think we can go back to being an Agrarian Republic of 4 million people.

Ladies and gentlemen, America is an empire! Look at how many military bases and men and women in uniform we have overseas! Every empire in history has relied on heavy taxation. Who do you think pays for all those foreign military bases? They don’t pay for themselves? Do you realize we spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined?

Like it or not, government spending is one third of GDP. Cutting government spending is going to have an impact on the economy. The question is where are you going to cut.

It takes an economist to come up with these numbers?
.
Darn, I should become an economist because I knew cutting programs for the sake of cutting government spending would lead to job losses. I knew it as soon as the tea party folks started talking about cutting.
.
Wealthy business people have a saying: You have to spend money to make money. And the government is going to have to spend some big bucks before the tax dollars will come in again.

Of course Republicans want to lay off 700,000 people and destroy the economy. The worse things are in 2012, the better the chance for a GOP president.

A succinct and accurate summation. It sounds a lot like a conversation I had with a friend concerning the Repubs motives for governing as they are now with an eye on 2012. Campaign on the inefficiency of government and, when elected, set about proving it. More of the same.

For example, can anyone point to anything the Republicans have done since taking the House that would create a single job?

Well, that d-bag Issa wants to put hundreds to work investigating the WH….oh, wait a sec…..that would just put more people on the guv’mint dole……..I suppose it’s okay if it’s a Repub that is expanding the size of government. Irony’s not their strong suit.

I asked if there was a single living authority to support your position. You replied that there “may” be. IOW, you do not even know if there is, much less the name of anyone. IOW, your position is not based upon the analysis of any authority. Again. Thank you for admitting it.
.
Unfortunately your ideological rant is unsupported by any FACTS.
.
They were lost precisely because of the policies of spending more money.
.
Again, is there a single study that shows that because the government spent more money — including providing direct funds to states for the purpose of hiring and retaining workers — that jobs were lost? One single study?
.
did not stop the left from adding more regulations and laws that kept private companies from hiring.
.
What specific regulations kept companies from hiring?
What is your method of calculating job losses?
If the regulations that you claim cost jobs were made in particular industries, can you show that those industries suffered greater job losses than on average? If not, how do you know what cost the job losses?
.
You obviously simply start with a bunch of vague preconceptions: “The government spends too damn much!” “There are too many regulations!” “Taxes are too high!”
.
And you simply refuse to even question whether these assumptions are correct. You do not look at historical spending as a % of GDP. You do not look at historical tax rates. You do not look at where the government spends its money. And you do not ask why every economist in the country disagrees with you.
.
You are blinded to facts and impervious to reason.

RDW56,
.
Why do I have a strong suspicion that you are one of those out of shape middle aged guys who shout at the screen during football games saying every time your favorite team does badly “I could have done better than that [singling to wife] – honey, help me get out of this chair – my damn knee.”
.
You are not an economist.
.
You,thankfully do not even make a false claim to be an economist.
.
So, making a random statement based upon nothing is worth nothing.
.
I, RDW56, wish to believe thata cut of $61B won’t have a visible effect on jobs.
.
That would be factually correct.

“Darn, I should become an economist because I knew cutting programs for the sake of cutting government spending would lead to job losses.”
.
No.
.
The Economists role isn’t at this point to say if it is a dumb idea but, instead to say how dumb of an idea it is in terms of numbers.
.
It’s like I don’t consider myself an expert on academic abilities, but know that the Tea Party philosophy is dumb. I would need a professional to give these Tea Partiers IQ tests to see exactly how dumb they are . I can’t tell the difference between the IQ of 85 and 60, but, am leaning towards believing that the IQ of the average Tea Partier is about 60.
.
So, professionals tell us how stupid they are in exact numbers.

“Stimulus” spending:

$787B/3,500,000 jobs = $224,900/job

Cutting spending

$100B/700,000 jobs = $142,900/job

I’m just sayin’…

“You do not look at historical spending as a % of GDP. You do not look at historical tax rates. You do not look at where the government spends its money
..
I have mentioned exactly that in several different threads today.. Amazing how ignorant of these facts liberals are..

Federal taxes as percent of GDP has averaged around 18% over the past several decades. Spending however has average 20% over the same time . And this has been consistent regardless of where tax rates were. I also noted that when federal income taxes as percent of GDP hit 19-20, recessions followed. In 1969 it was 19.7% in 1982 it was 19.6% and 2000 20.6%
.
So the liberal tirade raise taxes first doesn’t produce more revenue in relationship to GDP and second it is a precursor to slowing economic growth.
.
“Again, is there a single study that shows that because the government spent more money — including providing direct funds to states for the purpose of hiring and retaining workers –”
.
And yes it was produced by Romer, Obama economic adviser. Jobs were temporary and she calculated that for every $1 in government spending reduced private spending (where real jobs are) by $3

“So, professionals tell us how stupid they are in exact numbers.”
.
You are 100% stupid. How is that for exact numbers

“You are 100% stupid. How is that for exact numbers”
.
Perfect example!
.
100% is not exact number in it’s own right. It if a fraction of another, unknown number.
.
Would you care to do anything else which proves you have the IQ of dead slug or are we done for now?

The net spending of all government is an important number and much of the stimulus was tax breaks.
.
So Federal stimulus – decrease in state and local spending – amount of stimulus actually a tax break = real $s of stimulus.
.
Obama went too far to the right by attempting to use tax breaks as a stimulus even though they are proven failures.