Jobless Growth Forecast

[Gaspar]

Kind of odd, I guess. . .

From his STOTU until Wednesday of last week, we kept getting mildly encouraging reports of job growth from the administration.  In fact there was an article that hit on Wednesday claiming that administration advisors were expecting a slight decrease in unemployment by the end of the year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/business/economy/obama-advisers-offer-rosier-jobs-outlook.html?_r=3&ref=todayspaper

Then came thursday when preliminary excerpts of the presidents budget (to be released today) hit the media.   All of a sudden the White House issued a statement lowering expectations.
http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-issue-jobless-forecast-disavows-133307929.html

Among the details released was an explantation that the budget cuts in the document were offset with spending increases, and the rabid use of the new Obamaesque term "Revenue Increases" were only associated with the Bush Tax Cuts expiring.

At 2,403 pages long, the document is two and a half times as big as the bible.  The circular references are so complex that the document has a 1,079 page long appendix requiring the skills of a competent legal cipher to comprehend.  The administration did supply this "heat map" to help figure out spending http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget

Elimination of the tax cuts drops the deficit, but new spending promises that it shoots right back up.  Very non-realistic receipt estimates for 2012 onward are still not enough to hide the fact that this thing is another horrible joke cloaked in a ream of paper to hide the punchline.

                          2010       2011       2012       2013       2014       2015       2016       2017       2018       2019       2020

Receipts               2,163     2,174      2,627      3,003      3,333      3,583     3,819       4,042      4,257      4,473      4,686

Outlays                3,456     3,819      3,729      3,771      3,977       4,190     4,468      4,669      4,876       5,154     5,422

Deficit                 1,293     1,645      1,101         768         645         607        649        627         619          681        735

We really deserve more than this.  Don't we?

[Conan71]

Kind of odd, I guess. . .

From his STOTU until Wednesday of last week, we kept getting mildly encouraging reports of job growth from the administration.  In fact there was an article that hit on Wednesday claiming that administration advisors were expecting a slight decrease in unemployment by the end of the year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/business/economy/obama-advisers-offer-rosier-jobs-outlook.html?_r=3&ref=todayspaper

Then came thursday when preliminary excerpts of the presidents budget (to be released today) hit the media.   All of a sudden the White House issued a statement lowering expectations.
http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-issue-jobless-forecast-disavows-133307929.html

Among the details released was an explantation that the budget cuts in the document were offset with spending increases, and the rabid use of the new Obamaesque term "Revenue Increases" were only associated with the Bush Tax Cuts expiring.

At 2,403 pages long, the document is two and a half times as big as the bible.  The circular references are so complex that the document has a 1,079 page long appendix requiring the skills of a competent legal cipher to comprehend.  The administration did supply this "heat map" to help figure out spending http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget

Elimination of the tax cuts drops the deficit, but new spending promises that it shoots right back up.  Very non-realistic receipt estimates for 2012 onward are still not enough to hide the fact that this thing is another horrible joke cloaked in a ream of paper to hide the punchline.

                          2010       2011       2012       2013       2014       2015       2016       2017       2018       2019       2020

Receipts               2,163     2,174      2,627      3,003      3,333      3,583     3,819       4,042      4,257      4,473      4,686

Outlays                3,456     3,819      3,729      3,771      3,977       4,190     4,468      4,669      4,876       5,154     5,422

Deficit                 1,293     1,645      1,101         768         645         607        649        627         619          681        735

We really deserve more than this.  Don't we?

So we will essentially add almost 2/3 more spending from 2010 to 2020?  What's the extra cost?  Healthcare?  Have we ever had a ten year period like this where outlays increased by 160%, other than war time?

Fortunately, I believe we will have someone else guiding this ship by next January, and hopefully they can steer it away from that iceberg on the horizon.  If predictions I heard over the weekend on gas prices are correct, the consumer economy is getting ready to take another hit and I don't see how he can possibly get re-elected.

[nathanm]

So we will essentially add almost 2/3 more spending from 2010 to 2020?  What's the extra cost?  Healthcare?  Have we ever had a ten year period like this where outlays increased by 160%, other than war time?

Yes. Between 1981 and 1991, federal outlays went from around $700 billion to $1.3 trillion.  Between 1991 and 2001, outlays went up from $1.3 trillion to $1.8 trillion. Between 2001 and the beginning of Obama's term, outlays increased from $1.3 trillion to right about $3 trillion, or 230% in 8 years.

As shocking as those numbers seem, they weren't actually all that bad relative to GDP, which accounts for inflation. Even Bush only managed to push up federal outlays by less than 2% of GDP. Thanks to depressed GDP and high unemployment leading to higher than normal spending on entitlements, we had outlays as a percentage of GDP shoot up 5%, then drop back to 24% of GDP last year as the stimulus wound down.

Last time we had a jump like that all in one whack was back in the late 50s.

[Conan71]

Yes. Between 1981 and 1991, federal outlays went from around $700 billion to $1.3 trillion.  Between 1991 and 2001, outlays went up from $1.3 trillion to $1.8 trillion. Between 2001 and the beginning of Obama's term, outlays increased from $1.3 trillion to right about $3 trillion, or 230% in 8 years.

As shocking as those numbers seem, they weren't actually all that bad relative to GDP, which accounts for inflation. Even Bush only managed to push up federal outlays by less than 2% of GDP. Thanks to depressed GDP and high unemployment leading to higher than normal spending on entitlements, we had outlays as a percentage of GDP shoot up 5%, then drop back to 24% of GDP last year as the stimulus wound down.

Last time we had a jump like that all in one whack was back in the late 50s.

I'd love to see the projections for GDP up to 2020.  I don't' see GDP growing at that rate as slow as the economy is recovering.

[Teatownclown]

So, does the Republican controlled House have a finger in this? Wait until 2013 to find out?

[nathanm]

I'd love to see the projections for GDP up to 2020.  I don't' see GDP growing at that rate as slow as the economy is recovering.

Too much black art involved in that, especially with the Eurozone situation as it is. If they manage to pull their heads out of their asses and take a look at what the past couple of years' worth of austerity have gotten them, optimistic GDP projections may not be all that optimistic. If they keep going down this self-destructive path, a stagnant economy may be the least of our worries.

I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see 2-5% a year GDP growth, even with continued less than stellar job growth. Not that the raw jobs numbers are all that bad; the problem is the hole our betters threw us into is very deep, so even pretty good job growth leaves us over half a decade away from getting back to full(ish) employment.

[Gaspar]

So, does the Republican controlled House have a finger in this? Wait until 2013 to find out?

They presented their budget last year.  70 pages with a 3 page appendix. 

[nathanm]

Oh, and much of Gassy's growth in spending comes from Social Security, for what it's worth. Damn boomers.  

I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked(!) that Gaspar would twist the facts to try to make the claim that Obama is somehow responsible for demographic trends and inflation causing a rise in spending. Spending that even his own party isn't willing to come out against except at the edges.

Also, Gassy, what is your obsession with page count. Do you not believe that there are things in this world which are complex or do you just have something against reading?

[Gaspar]

Oh, and much of Gassy's growth in spending comes from Social Security, for what it's worth. Damn boomers.  

I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked(!) that Gaspar would twist the facts to try to make the claim that Obama is somehow responsible for demographic trends and inflation causing a rise in spending. Spending that even his own party isn't willing to come out against except at the edges.

Also, Gassy, what is your obsession with page count. Do you not believe that there are things in this world which are complex or do you just have something against reading?

I have nothing against necessary verbosity, but when you present complexity for the primary purpose of hiding the truth, then I guess I do have a problem with it.  The president claimed that his new plan would reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next 10 years, but just like the Obamacare bill, when you actually look at the numbers, that doesn't add up.  Then when you try to figure out why, you find that he's counting the measures already included in the Budget Control Act from last August.  

Senator Jeff Sessions worked the numbers this morning and the total deficit reduction is actually only $273 billion after you remove the double dipping, and take in consideration the following:

· It does not count the cost of replacing the $1.2 trillion sequester (spending reduction plus interest savings) required under current law. This is plainly true because the president eliminates the reductions required by the law that he signed and replaces it with tax increases. Then he fails to score the cost of repeal, a monumental deception.

· It counts the inevitable winding down of the war costs in Afghanistan—all of which is borrowed—as $1 trillion in spending reduction; and

· It buries the $522 billion cost of freezing the Medicare physician update in the baseline, without identifying any source of funds to pay for it.

So in actuality it only reduces the deficit by $273 billion over ten years and, by his own estimates, increases the gross debt by approximately $11 trillion, on top of nearly $5 trillion that’s already accumulated during his first three years in office.  Deception accounts for $3.7 trillion of the president’s deficit reduction, and the production of a 2,400+ page bill guarantees that it could never be passed because it is an unworkable document.

http://budget.senate.gov/republican/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=a21e7c09-1737-4f05-8b2d-6a2344380ce0&SK=92A349710AB51DAFCF593323726F1D5A

I know that it is your greatest joy to defend President Obama, but how can you defend this?

[Gaspar]

So, with the release of his budget we also get another "youth program". . .

From the makers of AttackWatch, we bring you TRUTH TEAM!


http://www.barackobama.com/truth-team/

Now I'm just confused as to who people need to be reported to?

[nathanm]

So what you're saying is spending cuts aren't actually spending cuts unless they're cuts for the welfare queens? And your next gem ridicules the idea that our national discourse should be based on facts, not lies.

[Gaspar]

So what you're saying is spending cuts aren't actually spending cuts unless they're cuts for the welfare queens? And your next gem ridicules the idea that our national discourse should be based on facts, not lies.

Where you readin that?

I'm saying that you can't count things twice.  You also can't count the savings triggered by the automatic sequester, then eliminate those requirements, then add "revenue increases," to replace the sequester then count those revenue increases a second time.  Nor can you count the elimination of future borrowing as savings in real budget numbers.  

I made no comment about the source or direction of any of the "revenue enhancements" nor did I comment on the source of any of the cuts.  I only made comment on the deception, and the need to build monumental confusion and complexity in order to hide that deception from the American People.  

It's just getting old.  He is well aware that no congress will ever consider a 2,400 page budget layout that is as senseless as the English instructions printed on a Chinese lawnmower. He's just banking (rightly so) on the FACT that the Congress won't consider this budget and he can continue to campaign on a do-nothing congress as his one and only real issue.

[Teatownclown]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Lhxz08kYBT8#![/youtube]



USA you must pay, you must pay! lol

[Gaspar]

Now the fun stuff is beginning to surface about the President's budget.

On page 1,318 he gets rid of the DC voucher program established in 2004 to allow students at failing DC schools to receive vouchers for private schools. The success of this program was so remarkable that over 500 more kids are applying now than there is room for.
http://dcscholarships.org/elements/file/OSP/Program%20Data/DC%20OSP%20Fact%20Sheet%20-%20SY%202011-12.pdf

The Department of Education's own study found that kids who were selected to get the scholarship ended up 3 months ahead of their peers in reading, were happier with their school, and had higher graduation rates. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20094050/pdf/20094050.pdf

Here's the kicker. . .The vouchers cost the government $8,000 per student (the average cost of private schools) compared to the $18,000 cost per student to educate them in the failing DC Public system.  Page 1,318 kills this program, gives an additional $36 million to the DC school system and then says it will save $20 million through some magic math.

Why would he do this???  Easy, this is Boehner's favorite pet program.  He uses it as an example of how we can improve the education system for children all over the country.  It is also the absolute "Nemisis" program for the teacher's unions.  The success and bright futures of these 1,615 students burns like a hot brand onto the backsides of the union bosses.  So the president is willing to pay 3 times as much to force these kids back into a failing system, just so that this program can no longer be used as an example of educational success.

[Townsend]

Now the fun stuff is beginning to surface about the President's budget.

On page 1,318 he gets rid of the DC voucher program established in 2004 to allow students at failing DC schools to receive vouchers for private schools. The success of this program was so remarkable that over 500 more kids are applying now than there is room for.
http://dcscholarships.org/elements/file/OSP/Program%20Data/DC%20OSP%20Fact%20Sheet%20-%20SY%202011-12.pdf

The Department of Education's own study found that kids who were selected to get the scholarship ended up 3 months ahead of their peers in reading, were happier with their school, and had higher graduation rates. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20094050/pdf/20094050.pdf

Here's the kicker. . .The vouchers cost the government $8,000 per student (the average cost of private schools) compared to the $18,000 cost per student to educate them in the failing DC Public system.  Page 1,318 kills this program, gives an additional $36 million to the DC school system and then says it will save $20 million through some magic math.

Why would he do this???  Easy, this is Boehner's favorite pet program.  He uses it as an example of how we can improve the education system for children all over the country.  It is also the absolute "Nemisis" program for the teacher's unions.  The success and bright futures of these 1,615 students burns like a hot brand onto the backsides of the union bosses.  So the president is willing to pay 3 times as much to force these kids back into a failing system, just so that this program can no longer be used as an example of educational success.

Can you cite any of this?  I don't see validation of your claims in the links you provided.