The private economy is just fine so now we have to turn our attention to hiring more government workers


I’ve added 547 employees just to maintain my government golf courses and you say I’m not doing anything? It is to laugh.

Private employment down  4.6 million since 2008, federal  locusts workers doing just fine.

Private Sector: 4.61 million jobs lost (-4%)

State Lazers:     407,000 jobs lost       (- 1.8%)

Feds:                    225,000 jobs added   + 11.4%

Why does Obama think the private sector is “doing fine”? “We’ve seen record profits in the corporate sector.” And high corporate profits are good for tax revenues to pay for government programs and government jobs. That’s the main reason Obama cares about the private sector.

And don’t worry about our states: they’re wallowing in the loot too.

According to the Census Bureau, state and local tax revenues climbed 4.5% in 2011 — a year when the overall economy grew just 1.7%. Tax revenues are now above their previous peak of 2008.


Filed under Uncategorized

20 responses to “The private economy is just fine so now we have to turn our attention to hiring more government workers

  1. Anonymous

    Remember when Barack Obama argued last week that the economic problems facing the US stemmed from cuts in the public sector? Turns out that Obama only likes to blame government cuts when he’s not taking credit for government cuts. On Friday, Obama had this to say:
    “The private sector is doing fine. Where we’re seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government — oftentimes, cuts initiated by governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government.”

    Exactly one month earlier, though, Obama took credit for shrinking the size of government:
    “The only time government employment has gone down during a recession has been under me. So I make that point — I make that point just so you don’t buy into this whole bloated government argument that you hear.”

    The juxtaposition prompted the Romney campaign to put the two statements side by side in this web video last night:

    Just remember — Obama was for the $87 billion before he was against it against the government jobs before he was for them. Besides, he’s wrong on both counts. Federal government jobs — the jobs for which Obama is directly responsible — have increased by 29,000 during his term in office. When Democrats controlled Congress in the first two years of his presidency, federal jobs increased by 83,000, and peaked in March 2011 at 89,000 above the level when Obama took office. At that point, Republicans forced him to compromise on the remainder of the FY2011 budget — and by the end of the year, the federal workforce had trimmed 43,000 jobs, with another 12,000 reductions this year so far.

  2. AJ

    There you go again, trying to be contentious again when you should be trying to reach consensus. That is, consensus as in “Yes Mr president the private sector is doing just fine”, just like we used to all shake our heads in agreement every April when every news anchor in America told us that paying income tax was voluntary. I remember from time reading in the paper how some poor tax evader would try the “but it’s vountary” defence in court with always the same result: that’s no defence.

    My favorite kind of consensus is where I agree to disagree. Here’s one of my favorite writers on all things political and finacial, Charles Hugh Smith, with an article about how consensus is at the very root of why change is almost impossible in America:

    The Politics of “Consensus” Is the Politics of Failure (June 11, 2012)

    Persuading those in power to limit their power via “consensus” doesn’t work. Both the legal system and the horse-trading politics of “consensus” have failed.
    How do you get “consensus” in politics? You horse-trade. You give everybody something they want. You cut everyone into the deal. That passes for “consensus” in politics: divide the swag.

    If you want to understand President Obama’s failure as a leader, ask (as my friend G.F.B. did) where did he learn politics? In Chicago. Big-city politics boils down to getting the ward bosses, ethnic-neighborhood leaders, Chamber of Commerce and public unions together and making them all happy with concessions, give-aways or some other slice of swag so they all agree to to support some minor policy tweak of the Status Quo.

    Any constituency left out of the swag distribution squeals like a stuck pig and kills the “consensus.”

    This “making sausage” consensus is passed off as “the only way to get anything passed,” but the truth is that it’s the politics of failure: nothing meaningful can possibly get done in the politics of “consensus” because 95% of any useful reform must be traded away to get everyone willingly on board.

    What you end up with after all the horse-trading “consensus” is 2,319-page monstrosities of self-defeating complexity like the “Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act” or the 2,074-page healthcare bill….. Read more:

  3. Dude

    Why are you including Bush’s unemployment numbers? Most objective economists look to the date after the new administration’s policies kick in , ie sometime around June.

  4. Georgie

    We know the problems….but refuse to vote to correct the obvious. Last night the RTM voted to approve a new Teamsters contract with a 6.5% increase in wages and keeping the rich pension provisions intact. I dont know the vote yet—but I heard it was an overwhelming RTM majority that voted for it.

    So many feel emasculated—their vote just doesn’t count. Well, collectively these votes do count—-and for the worse!

    • The trouble lies in the RTM’s lack of power (demanded by our charter). They can only reject a contract, not amend it and if they reject it the matter goes to Democrat-mandated arbitration, staffed by Democrats, who invariably side with the union the answer is secession from Ct.

  5. Al Dente

    History calls those men the greatest who have ennobled themselves by working for the common good; experience acclaims as happiest the man who has made the greatest number of people happy.

    Marx, Letter to His Father (1837)

  6. AJ

    Dude, so what you’re saying is that Clinton is responsible for the first six months of W? The shifting of boundries from other than inauguration to inauguration seems like some sort of partisan trickery to me, to include or exclude whatever reinforces your point of view. But Obama doesn’t even bother with such subtleties: he’s still outright blaming Bush for everything.

    But to the main point of your argument, with an executive order and the stroke of a pen, it is possible to wreak immediate financial havoc, much as Canada’s Prime Minister Harper, without even any discussion, instantly eliminated one class of tax-exempt investments and caused thousands of people to lose tens of, even hundreds of thousands of dollars in the blinking of an eye, before you could even reach for the phone to call your broker. All that’s needed is for the right person to say the wrong thing and the market can drop 500 points in a single afternoon.

    Obama to all extent and purposes is just Bush 2.0, they are both just two sides of the same coin which is being spun by the same foreign banksters who are intent on bring down America and installing the NWO, one world government. What country in its right mind would pack up all its manufacturing facilities and ship them off to its most likely potential enemy in the next great war? Only a country that is run by its enemies. America is being conquered from within and neither the Democrats or the Republicans are America’s friends.

    What if no one showed up to vote? Could we then declare the elections illegitimate, and get to work on ending legalized corruption and restoring the republic. Forget about you’re team: this isn’t a baseball game, and neither the Democrats or the Republicans are on your side, so why should you be on theirs? Boycott the elections; let the results be 0 to 0, and wipe the slate clean.

  7. AJ

    Wasn’t Greenwich going to secede from Connecticut at some point in its early history? I seem to recall reading somewhere that Greenwich was rather wild and not for going along with what everyone else was doing?

    • Greenwich was settled by licentious people who fled from the strict Puritanism of the New Haven Colony and sought refuge here, where the Dutch (that would be my folks) didn’t give a fig about people’s personal lives. The Dutch were driven from America, alas, the Puritans swarmed in and restored law and order and the ultimate result was Hartford and Dollar Bill (who, if he really comes from Huguenot?Dutch stock, as he claims, joined his conquerors in their taste for oppression and blue laws).

  8. Dollar Bill

    Everyone knows that government creates jobs. Why else are Tea Party Republicans and Mitt Romney clamoring for more and more defense spending, as if the budget isn’t already bloated as it is. They know very well It’s because the Pentagon creates jobs for contractors and the war machine. Guess that’s the type of govt spending that’s AOK for the readers of this blog. Spending on those good for nothing teachers and firefighters, those greedheads, well thats a different matter. Oh, and of course, bailouts for bankers and tax cuts for the Galt-heads are always welcome.

  9. Dollar Bill

    Amazing story about the fires raging out of control in Colorado and New Mexico. Turns out all those moronic Tea Party Congressmen from those states, who are now clamoring for help from the feds to battle those fires, were the first to call for deep budget cuts in the Ryan budget to firefighting. Is there no end to the hypocrisy of these GOP jerks? I sure hope one of those greedy, overpaid firefighters risking life and limb chooses to dump a bucket of ashes on all those idiot Randbot Congressmen.

    • DB, I realize that you have no knowledge of economics, but you really do yourself no favor demonstrating that same abysmal ignorance on subjects like wildfires. Really, trust me on this – I actually do know a lot about this subject and, hard as it is to believe such a thing possible, your comment of makes you look even stupider than anyone could have dreamed before.

  10. shoeless

    blah, blah, teabagger, blah, blah, Randbot, blah blah blah, Messiah, blah blah blah tax, blah blah blah spend, blah blah blah corporation, blah blah union, blah blah I know what’s best for you, blah blah blah

  11. AJ

    Real jobs don’t need the government to take money out of one person’s pocket to put it another persons pocket. Real jobs create wealth (out of thin air, e.g., somebody has a house built and pays for it but the money doesn’t disappear: the builder has it. So now both the house and the money exist = doubling of wealth) while the government just sucks people dry just like in that movie “Lifeforce”.

  12. AJ

    Puritanism sucks: bring back the Dutch and let’s party:

  13. Dollar Bill

    The point is this: Tea Partiers rail against “big government”, but when the pork is being distributed, they are the first recipients in line. What’s so hard to understand about that? Again, you misdirect, and pretend not to understand.

  14. AJ

    And why wouldn’t they be the first in line. Wouldn’t anyone who has a chance to reclaim what was stolen from him go for it? Why let the thieves keep all the spoils.

  15. Cos Cobber

    You know matters alot more than who lines up for pork; who creates the legislation to make it all happen.