Estimates Say Fewer Jobs, Larger Deficits if Republicans Were in Charge

[Pepsi]

• Tweet

"duh" to most of us

Estimates Say Fewer Jobs, Larger Deficits if Republicans Were in Charge

Nothing is more important to Republican politicians these days than jobs and the deficit—at least according to Republican politicians. As House Minority Leader John Boehner put it in a "major economic address" on Tuesday, President Obama is "doing everything possible to prevent jobs from being created" while refusing to do anything at all "about bringing down the deficits that threaten our economy." Elect Republicans in November, Boehner assured his audience, and we will put an end to this insanity.

There's only one problem with Boehner's message: so far, the things that Republicans have said they want to do won't actually boost employment or reduce deficits. In fact, much the opposite. By combing through a variety of studies and projections from nonpartisan economic sources, we here at Gaggle headquarters have found that if Republicans were in charge from January 2009 onward—and if they were now given carte blanche to enact the proposals they want to—the projected 2010–2020 deficits would be larger than they are under Obama, and fewer people would probably be employed. 

The math is pretty straightforward. Let's start with the deficit. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Obama's stimulus plan is projected  to increase budget deficits over the next decade by $814 billion. That's a big number. But Republicans opposed the legislation refused to provide an alternative, and now insist that it's been a total failure. So let's be generous and subtract it from their side of the equation. The Obama deficit: $814 billion. The GOP deficit: $0.

Next up is health-care reform. Obama passed it; Republicans want to repeal it "lock, stock, and barrel." The reason, as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell explained in July, is that "we all know that it's going to increase the deficit." Unfortunately for the GOP, though, nonpartisan experts tend to disagree. Just this Tuesday, for example, the CBO released a letter saying that Obama's health-care-reform legislation would "reduce the projected budget deficit by $30 billion over the next 10 years,” while repealing the law would generate "an increase in deficits ... of $455 billion ... over that [same] period." Factor those figures into the equation and the Obama deficit falls to $784 billion. The GOP deficit, meanwhile, rises to $455 billion. Getting warmer.

The final piece of the puzzle is the Bush tax cuts. Obama wants to extend them for the 95 percent of taxpayers making less than $250,000 a year; Republicans want to extend them for everybody. How will these extensions affect the deficit? Glad you asked. According to data compiled by The Washington Post, "the Democratic proposal would add about $3 trillion to the deficit during the next decade, while the GOP plan would cost $3.7 trillion." That brings the total Obama deficit to $3.784 trillion over 10 years, and its GOP counterpart to—drumroll, please—$4.155 trillion.

continued

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/08/26/on-jobs-and-deficits-republicans-are-worse-than-obama.html

[Observer]

History says otherwise.

Peak unemployment under the Bush Admnistration was 6.7% (some sources say 7.2%). Current unemployment is at 9.5%.

[dagon]

History says otherwise.

Peak unemployment under the Bush Admnistration was 6.7% (some sources say 7.2%). Current unemployment is at 9.5%.

unemployment was 8.7% when bush left office.  so peak unemployment WAS NOT 6.7% under bush.

peace

[Observer]

The Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics disagrees with you.

7.2%, December 2008, President Bush's last full month in office.

Link

[Velleity]

History says otherwise.

Peak unemployment under the Bush Admnistration was 6.7% (some sources say 7.2%). Current unemployment is at 9.5%.

Your history "says" anything you want it to say.

No one is more revisionist than you are. No one.

[Observer]

Vel, get your head out of your ass.

Those figures come straight from the Department of Labor. If you want to accuse them of "revisionism", have at it, but if you are going to accuse me of something, it would behoove you to at least TRY to get your facts straight.

[Velleity]

Vel, get your head out of your ass.

Those figures come straight from the Department of Labor. If you want to accuse them of "revisionism", have at it, but if you are going to accuse me of something, it would behoove you to at least TRY to get your facts straight.

So you're saying that Obama is responsible for increasing unemployment from the minute he took over? You cast zero blame for the catastrophic conditions your moran in chief handed off to him?

No, you're the one being revisionist here. You don't just waive a magic wand and change economic conditions overnight.

You're being utterly ridiculous, as usual.

[Observer]

So you're saying that Obama is responsible for increasing unemployment from the minute he took over?

That comes with sitting in the big chair.



It is a shame your boy never learned that lesson. He might get a little more respect if he actually earned it.

[ivanm]

So you're saying that Obama is responsible for increasing unemployment from the minute he took over? You cast zero blame for the catastrophic conditions your moran in chief handed off to him?

No, you're the one being revisionist here. You don't just waive a magic wand and change economic conditions overnight.

You're being utterly ridiculous, as usual.

FDR's policies did not end the Great Depression so what makes FDR Jr. (self appointed) think he can do it?

[Velleity]

FDR's policies did not end the Great Depression so what makes FDR Jr. (self appointed) think he can do it?

Which part of "things would have been much worse" don't you understand?

It's clear that things would have been much worse. Only rank partisan hacks say otherwise Ivan. But for Bush's bailout the banks would have collapsed, as they did in 1929. That didn't happen this time because everyone, and I mean everyone, looked to Keynesian economics. It's only after the fact that people are saying things like you're trying to say here.

The fact is that FDR did improve conditions. He didn't spend enough, Ivan, but you don't understand Keynes so you don't understand that one of the things he taught was that we ought not to be stupid enough to let the economy get as bad as we let it get.

Ivan, we were 4 years into the Great Republican Depression I before FDR took over. That's 4 years of a liquidity trap. Things were more messed up than they were when Obama took over. Way more messed up.

You can go along with Observer's revisionist crap if you want to, or you can look at the facts.

[Velleity]

That comes with sitting in the big chair.

It is a shame your boy never learned that lesson. He might get a little more respect if he actually earned it.

The real shame is that you let yourself be such an unthinking partisan hack. The job losses peaked while your man, Bush, was on the job. Conditions have improved. We're no longer losing jobs. Yes, the recovery has slowed but if you knew anything about recessions or depressions and you actually weren't only interested in Obama bashing (and if you were actually interested in the truth) you would know that almost all recoveries start this way, with a slow down in the improvement.

The only thing that could have been done to improve the employment picture more than it has improved would have been more stimulus, which of course was impossible because your pukes only want to obstruct.

Yes, the buck does stop with the president but you're the ones who caused all of this and you don't get off the hook so easily.

Why do you hate the American people so much?

[IM2]

Observer,

Bush passed the buck, and you passed it with him gladly. So then don't use Harry Truman as any example. OBTW 7.2 is higher than 6.7. So your peak number is incorrect regardless.

In short, why don't YOU get your head out of your ass?

[Pepsi]

That comes with sitting in the big chair.



It is a shame your boy never learned that lesson. He might get a little more respect if he actually earned it.

Man that's rich coming from a Bush apologist.   That's a guy who never took responsibility for anything ever, in his presidency or in his life.

Do you think Bush left the country in good shape in any way shape or form?   His entire economic achievement was

-increased government spending

-an economy built entirely on a real estate bubble, which collapsed as he was leaving office, resulting in the worst economic crisis we've faced in 50+ years!

[Pepsi]

Boehner's spending-cut savings canceled out by tax-cut extension

Most of the budget savings from House GOP Leader John Boehner’s proposed spending cuts would be canceled out by the extension of upper-income tax cuts also backed by Republicans.

Boehner, who hopes to succeed Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) as Speaker next year, laid out his economic vision in a speech Tuesday, calling for a host of spending reductions and tax-cut extensions that go further than what Democrats and the White House want.

.....

The proposal backed by Boehner and top Republicans would extend the expiring tax cuts for all taxpayers, including those making more than $200,000. That would cost about $3.7 trillion over the next decade — $3 trillion for the middle-class and low-income earners, and another $700 billion for wealthier taxpayers.

“Doing what the Democrats want to do with taxes, will save somewhere between $700 billion and $900 billion, which is more fiscally conservative,” said Roberton Williams, a Tax Policy Center senior fellow.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/116295-savings-in-boehners-spending-cuts-would-be-canceled-by-tax-cut-extension

[Velleity]

What's more is that 40% of the current deficit is due to the slowdown in the economy. It is absolutely imperative that we do things to stimulate the economy but Republicans will never let that happen.

Observer may not be bright enough to understand what Republicans are doing here. I find it absolutely atrocious that they would trade our prosperity for their stupid politics. These people disgust me.