House Republicans Crow Triumphantly After Bernanke Confirms Their Spending Cuts Will Cause Job Loss

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Recently, a slew of economic analysts have put forward estimates regarding the number of jobs that would be lost if the spending cuts approved by House Republicans were actually implemented. Economists at Goldman Sachs estimated that the GOP's proposed cuts would lower GDP growth by two percentage points, while Moody's Analytics estimated that the cuts would cause the loss of 700,000 jobs. The Economic Policy Institute pegged the job loss at closer to one million.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testified before Congress today and was asked about these analyses. He said that, in his opinion, the effect of the cuts would not cause quite as much job loss as Moody's or Goldman estimated. House Republicans are crowing triumphantly that this vindicates their proposed cuts. "Senate Democrats should find new talking points if they're going to continue to stand in the way of House Republican efforts to eliminate barriers to job creation through much needed spending reductions," said House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA).

But the GOP is neglecting to mention that Bernanke actually agreed with the analyses showing that the House GOP plan would cause job loss. He just quibbled over how much:

BERNANKE:

Obviously [the cuts] would be contractionary to some extent, but our analysis doesn't give a number that high.

[...]

SEN. JACK REED (D-RI): What is your impact?

BERNANKE: Several tenths, on GDP. [...]

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY):

Those cuts would create job loss. I don't mean overall job loss, macro, but those cuts could. Do you agree with that?

BERNANKE:

The cuts would presumably lower overall demand in the economy and would have some effect on growth and employment.

SCHUMER:

Good, so the answer is yes?

BERNANKE:

Yes.

So what we're talking about here is not whether the GOP's cuts will cause job loss, but

how much

job loss they will cause. Bernanke, Goldman Sachs, Moody's, and EPI are all united in saying that loss will occur; they just differ on the final number. As Mother Jones' Kevin Drum put it, "Maybe it's a million jobs, maybe it's half a million jobs. Maybe it will cost a point of GDP, maybe it will cost half a point of GDP. But considering that the economy is still sluggish and unemployment is extremely high,

why are we considering budget cuts

that will have any negative effect on jobs and growth?"

The House GOP actually cheering when yet another economist says that their cuts will increase unemployment continues the very cavalier attitude Republicans have had regarding this point. Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) replied "

so be it

" to those pointing out that his party will increase unemployment, while Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-IN) said that GOP lawmakers at all levels of government should carry out spending cuts "even if they end up

seriously costing a lot of jobs

right now."

.......

Update:

The Center for American Progress Action Fund and the Economic Policy Institute released a letter today -- signed by 320 economists -- which stated that "responsible governance demands that we

neither damage the recovery today

nor forsake America's economic future by cutting critical investments."

http://wonkroom.thin...loves-job-loss/

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The Center for American Progress Action Fund and the Economic Policy Institute George Soros released a letter today...

Edited March 2, 2011 by Some Old Guy

[웃 910]

Update:

The Center for American Progress Action Fund and the Economic Policy Institute

George Soros released a letter today -- signed by 320 economists -- which stated that "responsible governance demands that we

neither damage the recovery today

nor forsake America's economic future by cutting critical investments."

http://wonkroom.thin...loves-job-loss/

If you look at the people that signed the letter they are all university professors. After taking a couple econ classes the professor (who was very liberal) who taught the class said we were all economists since we completed the class.

Edited March 2, 2011 by Lord Infamous

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If you look at the people that signed the letter they are all university professors. After taking a couple econ classes the professor (who was very liberal) said we were all economists now after completing the class.

Most economists are professors and if you think it's easy to get your doctorate in economics, go for it. It's either that or work for a private firm or think tank.

[Zero Sum 305]

If you look at the people that signed the letter they are all university professors. After taking a couple econ classes the professor (who was very liberal) who taught the class said we were all economists since we completed the class.

Why is it that learned people are all 'very liberal'? Strange.

Back to this topic- it must be OK to cause higher unemployment. I'm sure the GOP can blame Obama for that with 2012 just next year.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'm sure the GOP can blame Obama for that with 2012 just next year.

That's the idea. Take credit for cutting spending and then turn around and point fingers for the resulting lower GDP and employment numbers which will of course also lower federal receipts and cause yet a larger deficit than we're trying to combat. Look at Ireland - that's exactly where they ended up with their austerity measures implemented at the wrong time.

Edited March 2, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[웃 910]

Most economists are professors and if you think it's easy to get your doctorate in economics, go for it. It's either that or work for a private firm or think tank.

Economics is one of the most difficult subjects. I couldn't get a Master's Degree in econ let alone a Ph.D.

Why is it that learned people are all 'very liberal'? Strange.

Most econ professors are more conservative than liberal IMO...

Why is it that learned people are all 'very liberal'? Strange.

It also goes both ways. Why are all the uneducated drug addicts, people on food stamps, people that get 6 abortions a year and have 15 stds, collecting government checks every month, why are they all extremely liberal?

Edited March 2, 2011 by Lord Infamous

[Zero Sum 305]

That's the idea. Take credit for cutting spending and then turn around and point fingers for the resulting lower GDP and employment numbers which will of course also lower federal receipts and cause yet a larger deficit than we're trying to combat. Look at Ireland - that's exactly where they ended up with their austerity measures implemented at the wrong time.

That with ludicrously short political memories make for a very interesting November 2012.

[Zero Sum 305]

Economics is one of the most difficult subjects. I couldn't get a Master's Degree in econ let alone a Ph.D.

Most econ professors are more conservative than liberal IMO...

It also goes both ways. Why are all the uneducated drug addicts, people on food stamps, people that get 6 abortions a year and have 15 stds, collecting government checks every month, why are they all extremely liberal?

Exactly. I would say the majority of economics profs are either cynically ambivalent or more conservative than liberal. Which makes the conspiracy of liberals trying to brainwash college kids as pretty much retarded. But on that note, even looking at the college student populations. Think about who's studying econ for the most part. It isn't mostly liberal kids. And it isn't mostly conservative kids. Its a mix. And in that mix lots are more interested in the parties, the hotties, and the hippity hop. Then they move to suburbia, where they vote the way the vote, just like mom and dad.

This part I disagree with:

It also goes both ways. Why are all the uneducated drug addicts, people on food stamps, people that get 6 abortions a year and have 15 stds, collecting government checks every month, why are they all extremely liberal?

I would say they would tend to not vote. Lumping people is pretty lame IMO.

[james&olya 1,121]

It also goes both ways. Why are all the uneducated drug addicts, people on food stamps, people that get 6 abortions a year and have 15 stds, collecting government checks every month, why are they all extremely liberal?

I see a lot of these people. I am always surprised at how conservative their politics are! They seem to have the attitude even more than most that they are just around the corner from becoming wealthy upper class themselves! Look at the statistics. Being liberal correlates with higher educational levels and higher incomes! The pictures I have seen of the tea-party rallies tends to confirm this.

"15 stds" ?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Bernanke is part of the reason why we are in this mess in the first place...

He DOES NOT work for the American people. He works for the Fed & the Banks interest, NOT ours..

[Zero Sum 305]

I see a lot of these people. I am always surprised at how conservative their politics are! They seem to have the attitude even more than most that they are just around the corner from becoming wealthy upper class themselves! Look at the statistics. Being liberal correlates with higher educational levels and higher incomes! The pictures I have seen of the tea-party rallies tends to confirm this.

"15 stds" ?

Sadly, more conservatives probably stand against sex ed in school, so their kids likely are the ones getting preggo, having abortions unawares of mom and dad, and sharing all those stds, since they wouldn't wear protection.

[KaiserD 12]

It also goes both ways. Why are all the uneducated drug addicts, people on food stamps, people that get 6 abortions a year and have 15 stds, collecting government checks every month, why are they all extremely liberal?

6 abortions a year! Not for the weak of stomach, those must be some hard core liberals. I know if I had to deal with severe cramping and passing blood clots the size of apples it would scare me enough to think twice. Guess I'm just not die hard enough for the liberal cause.

Which makes the conspiracy of liberals trying to brainwash college kids as pretty much retarded

I know it wasn't about college kids but what you said reminded me of the whole Texas textbook, editing history/science thing. I am sure there are benefits to changing a curriculum around a specific agenda. Given all the trouble some GA schools have had with cheating and fiddling drop out numbers, the kids might not have been looking at books at all lol

[웃 910]

Being liberal correlates with higher educational levels and higher incomes!

Source?

[Zero Sum 305]

6 abortions a year! Not for the weak of stomach, those must be some hard core liberals. I know if I had to deal with severe cramping and passing blood clots the size of apples it would scare me enough to think twice. Guess I'm just not die hard enough for the liberal cause.

I know it wasn't about college kids but what you said reminded me of the whole Texas textbook, editing history/science thing. I am sure there are benefits to changing a curriculum around a specific agenda. Given all the trouble some GA schools have had with cheating and fiddling drop out numbers, the kids might not have been looking at books at all lol

Got to ensure the next generation continues to vote a certain way.

Source?

Ask Sarah Palin. Those elitist liberals sure are high maintenance.