Jobs Shmobs

According to the Economic Policy Institute, the debt ceiling deal will slow economic growth. Not by much, but some. More importantly, the deal will kill 1.8 million jobs. That’s bad.

The agreement would reduce spending by at least $1 trillion over 10 years, but even the near-term cuts could shrink already sluggish GDP growth by 0.3% in 2012. According to EPI, the plan “not only erodes funding for public investments and safety-net spending, but also misses an important opportunity to address the lack of jobs.” In particular, the immediate spending cuts and the “failure to continue two key supports to the economy (the payroll tax holiday and emergency unemployment benefits for the long term unemployed) could lead to roughly 1.8 million fewer jobs in 2012.”

That’s quite a platform for when the real spending cuts happen in 2013. A year when job creation has been handcuffed followed closely by a serious round of cuts.

Again, this is one of those rare moments when I hope the hope of all hopes that I’m wrong on this. But I don’t see anything positive in this. Nothing.

Print Friendly
This entry was posted in Economy and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

    As I said in another thread, we will experience a double dip so this downturn was probably inevitable. However, I’m sure the debt ceiling debate made it worse. So I don’t know if that makes you feel better, but in a bizarre way it helped me.

  • Scopedog

    Well…in this case, I honestly do not know what other choice the President had.

    He could have either yelled at the Repubs and pounded on the mythical “bully pulpit” and still nothing would have been done. Deadlock.

    He could’ve–or everyone in Washington–could’ve just done nothing, let the default happen, and watch the markets tumble and the whole damned works would have come falling down.

    Or, he could’ve used the 14th Amendment “option” which would have not only set a possibly dangerous precedent, but would have possibly opened him up for an impeachment broadside that would’ve lasted through 2012.

    I’m not very happy about the deal, but honestly…look, let’s be perfectly frank. There was no other option here. None. All the brilliant ideas spouted off in comments on other sites did not mean spit because of the fact that we had a crew of intractable jerkoffs (the Tea Party Repubs) who were going to crash everything.

    What other realistic, practical options were there? I didn’t see them.

    Of course, if one really thinks about it, this was going to hit us. Why? Because in 2010 a good chunk of us stayed home, let these punks win elections because we were pissed off and wanted to “send a message”….and they get in. And still there’s this idea that we’re going to get progressive things done….in a House ruled by bats**t crazy people.

    And now I’m reading on Progressive sites how Obama is f**ked next year and we’re getting President Romney or Bachmann….and that’s somehow a good thing. Or, as one fool said, “….well, things need to fall apart and from the rubble this country will rise again.”

    Christ in a chariot-driven sidecar. No concern whatsoever for those who will suffer unimaginably under a Repub president. Yes, there are people hurting now, but pushing the knife even deeper and twisting it around for good measure ain’t gonna help.

    Is that how we are? We get a few hits, and fall to the floor, but instead of getting up and girding ourselves for the fight, we bawl and go home?

    How do we fix this? By getting the hell out next year and voting these chumps out of office and putting in people that will work with this President, not against him.

    And with that, I’m off.

    • gescove

      I’ve vented elsewhere about the capitulation codified in this deal. With that out of my system, I agree with you scopedog.

      The hard reality is that we have a constitutionally divided government. The Republicans gained 60+ seats in the House in 2010. Their party has been radicalized by a fervent, doctrinaire contingent who are only too happy to ruin the economy to maintain ideological purity.

      What was the President supposed to do when faced with that intransigence? There are a lot of woulda, coulda, shoulda analyses out there. But not much in the way of how you actually can move “No”-yammering asshats to say “Yes.”

      I’m with you. I want the analysis of what to do now and what to do next. How do we pressure Reid and Pelosi to appoint stalwart defenders on the SuperCongress committee? [Side note: Anything with “Gang of”, or “Super” this, or “War on” that, makes me spew. Sheer stupid.] How do we best build genuine progressive muscle to insure a better outcome in November when the committee acts and December when Congress acts? Who are the House asshats most vulnerable in 2012? How best to bring Obama over the finish line in what is shaping up to be a tough slog?

      These are a just few of the next battles. I want Democrats to win them.

      PS – “Christ in a chariot-driven sidecar.” LOL

      • incredulous72

        [Side note: Anything with “Gang of”, or “Super” this, or “War on” that, makes me spew. Sheer stupid.]

        That’s all media/ratings speak, like ‘Bennifer” or “Brangelina”; don’t let bother you.

      • Scopedog

        “These are a just few of the next battles. I want Democrats to win them.”

        Agreed. But we should also be prepared for some losses–that’s just how politics is.

        And as for the “Christ in a chariot-driven sidecar”….well, I sort of stole that from Stephen King. Saw it in one of his books or a short story of his–I cannot remember which one now–and it just stuck in the old brainpan.

  • http://extremeliberal.wordpress.com/ Extreme Liberal

    I don’t quite agree with this part of the quote “also misses an important opportunity to address the lack of jobs.”

    Doesn’t an opportunity have to exist before it can be missed. The Republican’s goal with the entire debt hostage situation was to kill jobs and the economy, not create them. There never was a possibility of creating jobs with this, it was purely trying to prevent the hostage takers from killing even more of them.

    So that statement is ignoring the reality of the entire situation, in my opinion.

    • JMAshby

      I agree.

    • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

      Agreement here, too.

    • Scopedog

      Yep. Agreed.