This blog originally founded by Blogger who holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Monday, September 10, 2012

368,000 AMERICANS GIVE UP ON FINDING WORK

368,000 AMERICANS GIVE UP ON FINDING WORK

President’s Policies of Overspending and Imminent Tax Increases are Wrong Match for Economic Recovery
WASHINGTON, DC – Congresswoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC) today released the following statement upon the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ announcement that only 96,000 jobs were added in the month of August while nearly four times as many Americans left the workforce altogether:
“Last month, 368,000 of our fellowAmericans lost their confidence in the job market and gave up their search for work, making August the 43rd straight month with national unemployment above 8%.
“Sadly, not since the Great Depression has an economic recovery been so delayed and hampered by misguided government policies.  The 12.5 million Americans still actively looking for work, to no avail, deserve better from their government than the adventures in overspending, overtaxing, absent budgets, and bureaucratic bloat that have defined this Administration.
“President Obama’s
lack of understanding with regard to the private sector has led him in the wrong direction at every turn. His “Stimulus,” Obamacare, heightened regulations, and squandering of taxpayer dollars on crony-capitalist ventures such as Solyndra have brought us to this point. And as today’s unemployment numbers show, a different strategy is needed to turn the economic tide
“Rather than doubling down on the same wrongheaded policies of spending more and raising taxes on nearly 1,000,000 small businesses, which will cause an additional loss of 710,000 private sector jobs, the President should let go of his tax fixation, commit to tax stability for all Americans, and demand action on the 36 Republican jobs bills being ignored by his friends in the Senate.”
 # # #

14 comments:

matt said...

I understand what she is getting at. But can we really say that "368,000 gave up their search for work" ? Are there numbers that separate those retiring from those who have used up their 99 weeks of unemployment? I have heard that 10,000 baby boomers are retiring every day. That means 310,000 last month which accounts for nearly all that.

Also, you can call out obamas spending all you want, but I don't think that is a reason for high unemployment. If may not be the most efficient money, but it does certainly fund a large number of jobs. Take away the governments money and our economy would be in pretty rough times. Look at what happened in Japan in the 90s and early 2000s when they slashed the budget while in a recession. There is a time for slashing spending, it's not in the middle of a recession when interest rates are at all time lows and the demand to buy u.s. government debt is at an all time high.

guy faulkes said...

Matt, from what I have read, Obama's stimulus spending did not create jobs. Most of it was wasted, misused, or even outsourced to companies that moved their operations to foreign countries.

Even Obama admitted his shovel ready jobs were not shovel ready. Take for instance the failed green energy companies that wasted millions of taxpayer money.

Government spending is always wasteful just as private companies always do a job more efficiently than does government. Government has a hand in building infrastructure, but the actual work is done by private companies that are awarded bids. This process works well if the companies are chosen on merit and not for reasons of political connections.

You make a couple of good points. One is about spending, It does take spending to get us out of a recession, However, this spending has to be the efficient investment in goods and services provided by the private sector that encourages more spending on goods and services (from the private sector) rather than government waste. You achieve this with reasonable regulations instead of regulations run amuck and tax cuts, not tax increases.

The point about baby boomers retiring is interesting, except that for every one that retires, there should be a job left that someone should have to fill. In a healthy economy, it would be a net wash. In this economy that is not the case as employers are not rehiring when possible because of uncertainties caused by government taxation increases, over regulation, and wasteful spending.

Happily Married said...

Guy,

Please explain to me the attached if the stimulus was a complete waste:
http://zfacts.com/book/export/html/319

The jobs chart is pretty standard and not disputed. Is it just coincidence that the turnaround happened at the same time as the stimulus?And then you provide a broad brush statement: Government spending is always wasteful just as private companies always do a job more efficiently than does government. I have worked for both the government and for private companies and your black and white view is simply not true. Government provides a service and a lot of government provides that service as efficiently as the public will let them. The constant need to verify every penny spent and prevent some sort of fraud is what makes the government less efficient. Companies are chosen on low bid - except in defense - where it is wasteful and political. I know this from direct experience. The biggest gov op that needs to be cut due to waste is defense - not infrastructure or education. the only tax increases being proposed is to those making over $250,000. The next post should be interesting.

Happily Married said...

North carolina, with its Republican majority enacted a significant tax cut for all businesses for this year - the first $50k is tax free for allo. This little gem slipped by most and will cost the state $336M. If lowering taxes on businesses is the answer, why is NC not the litmus test. Why are we lagging behind in unemployment compared to the rest of the country. The US has lowered its unemployment by a full percentage over the last year - not NC. If lowering taxes achieves job growth - why is this not happening here, where it has been done? http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-vs-romney-economy-2012-6

guy faulkes said...

Lowering taxes is only one third of the solution, HM. You also have to cut spending and to get rid of strangling legislation. You also need a diversity of types of employment.

Locally tourism is God and nothing is allowed to challenge this. Every time some type of manufacturing project is considered, there is a loud hue and cry about it killing tourism.

I will give you as an example of the inefficiency of government versus private employment, the ASU physical plant. At times the employees there really have to work hard. However, according to many of my friends that work there, they do not work nearly as hard as they did when they were privately employed nor do they get as much done.

I too, have worked both for the private sector and the government. It has been my experience that merit pay increases are much more rare with a government job. Everyone gets a raise or no one does. This lessens to a great extent the desire to do a outstanding job. You are not rewarded for it.

Just which parts of the country are we lagging behind in the employment field? I will grant you we are not doing nearly as well as the parts of the country that are drilling for oil, but we seem to be doing as well or better than the rest.

I will read your link as soon as I have time. I am very busy right now. I look forward to some adult conversation.

Happily Married said...

Guy,

I absolutely agree that regulations need to be simplified - not eliminated. One unfortunate reality of capitalism is that people will do whatever it takes to make money - put out unsafe products - take advantage of the unknowing, etc. so I am not in favor of eliminating regulation - especially for the banking industry. A variety of employment is another good solution that takes education for the employment - now is not the time to reduce education spending. I go back to the tax breaks provided by NC. All things being equal, NC should at least have the same job growth as the rest of the country, if not more because of the tax break. The concept that reducing taxes creates jobs is false based on the local example and here is an interesting article: http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/do-lower-taxes-create-more-jobs/
History has shown no correlation between lower tax rates and job creation.

guy faulkes said...

HM, when taxes are lowered, this puts money in the pockets of the people, not the government. The people then use this money to purchase goods and services, save fo the future, or invest it in their private businesses. This is much better than allowing the government to waste it.

Your education comment is an example of my point. Throwing money at a problem does not fix it. If we were serious about fixing education, we would eliminate tenure so that teachers would be retained or fired due to their performance and we would encourage competition in schools through charter schools and the voucher system.

"History has shown no correlation between lower tax rates and job creation." I beg to differ. Reagan's tax cuts produced the best economic recovery of recent times. This ended the Carter "malaise", high unemployment, and high inflation.

All things are not equal. N.C. had to suffer the veto power of one of the most over regulating governors in the country. If we had Wisconsin's governor, thing would have improved much more than they have.

Happily Married said...

Guy,

When the government spends money, where do you think that money goes? If you say it goes overseas, i would argue it stays in this country just as much as consumers buying crap made from overseas. Infrastructure and improvements to it are always necessary and it puts people back to work - it is not simply wasted - it does not simply vanish. I do not believe you even looked at the data I provided. Yes - Reagan's term created jobs - but then it stalled. Clinton raised taxes and job growth went up. So which is it? I said there is no correlation. Groups that have analyzed Obama's plan versus Romney's plan have indicated the analysis shows Romney's plan will actually increase the deficit as tax revenue is reduced.

guy faulkes said...

HM

Clinton inherited the great economy Reagan handed him. The inertia carried him through his first term. He was then forced to move to the center by a Republican Congress to the point he made the statement "big government" is over.

The difference in the claim that Obama inherited his problems is that he has made the problems worse. There was no change except negatively.

The difference in Romney and Obama is only in rhetoric. They are both big government socialists.

However, that being said, other groups say just the opposite about Romney's plan and what Obama claims to be a plan.

A large amount of the wasted money went into the pockets of Obama campaign supporters and other cronies.

You have a point about buying goods made overseas. It is a shame government policies and the unions forced manufacturing and the jobs over there.

I looked at your two links, but did not find anything substantive in either of them. I do not know the author of the first one, but it matters little as they are opinion pieces that lack objectivity. I will admit you found two that back up your opinion, but there are many more that do not. While you are free to believe them, I am free to not do so.

I enjoy hearing your opinions although I disagree with almost all of them.

Happily Married said...

Guy, I really wish i could import pictures into the blog. My links were not to opinion articles but rather data driven charts based on government employment information. If you look at the chart provided in the "Do loer taxes create more jobs" the graph based on information provided by the bureau of labor statistics clearly shows the job engine sputtering prior to Bush and Clinton raising taxes which resulted in a clear 8 years of jobs strength. His job growth petere out as well - which is why I conclude there is no clear correlation between the two. There is a direct correlation between lowering taxes and lowered federal revenue: http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/does-cutting-taxes-increase-or-decrease-government-revenue/
I have tried to find credible (non partisan)sites that offer Romney's plan as the better economic alternative - but cannot find any - please point them out. Try Politify to see how the plans impact you personally. I try to make decisions based on actual data - the basis of my entire argument - rather than opinion. When faced withe the absence of data from one side I can only conclude the other must be right.

Nobody said...

HM,
You said, "Yes - Reagan's term created jobs - but then it stalled. Clinton raised taxes and job growth went up."

Try this article, with "data driven facts" and "charts" that you seem to be obsessed with. An analysis of the Clinton economy from the WSJ. These paragraphs are especially enlightening:

"As for economic growth, Mr. Clinton inherited an economy that grew 3.4% in 1992, including 4.3% in the fourth quarter. The expansion stumbled in the first nine months of 1993, no doubt in part due to the uncertainty of the Clinton tax hike. In 1994 stocks were flat and interest rates actually rose throughout the year, peaking on the very day in 1994 that Republicans took Congress. As the nearby chart shows, that's when the real 1990s boom began...

Mr. Clinton did raise the top income-tax rate to 39.6% from 31% in 1993, and Democrats credit that with shrinking the deficit. But even two years after that tax hike, the Congressional Budget Office was estimating annual deficits of $200 billion a year. Only as rapid growth continued in the later part of the decade did the deficits vanish.

Meanwhile, Mr. Clinton agreed to cut the capital-gains tax rate to 20% from 28% in 1997. Revenue rushed into the Treasury as investors cashed in their pent-up gains.

guy faulkes said...

HM, as Nobody posted much better than I was able to do, opinion pieces do not matter. Historically, the facts about improving an economy are on the side of cutting taxes, cutting spending, and educing regulations.

I do not care what someone with a mistaken opinion thinks will happen because of subjective reasoning about what will happen to me. I fail to understnad how you could care either, as their opinion flies in the face of history.

Happily Married said...

Guy

Nobody's article was an opinion piece - you might want to do more research and actually read what I put out there. The data is from gov sources - not from opinion pieces like nobody's.

guy faulkes said...

I read the opinion pieces that referred to government sources and what they meant in their opinion to which you linked, HM.

Yes, Nobody's post was his opinion as my post was my opinion and your post was your opinion. You are the only one that has claimed any of them to be factual.