Paul Krugman: Obama 'Screwed Up' Private Sector's 'Doing Fine' Line
President Obama made quite a gaffe Friday when just one week after the Labor Department announced horrid jobs numbers for May, he claimed "the private sector is doing fine."
Appearing on CBS's This Morning Monday, New York Times columnist and unashamed Obama shill Paul Krugman covered for the current White House resident saying, "He screwed up the line" (video follows with transcribed highlights and commentary):
Co-host Charlie Rose asked his guest, “How do you define how well the private sector is doing?”
Krugman responded, “That was an unfortunate line. I mean, the President bungled the line. The truth is, the private sector is doing better than the public sector, which is not well enough.”
“The real story about this economy,” he continued, “is that the cut-backs at the public sector are what’s hurting the recovery.”
“By this point in Obama’s presidency, if we had normal public sector job growth, we’d have around 800,000 more people: firefighters, schoolteachers, police officers. Instead, we’ve got 600,000 fewer. So right there, it’s like 1.4 million jobs that we should have had in the public sector. And, of course, those would have translated into more private sector jobs, too. So that’s what he was trying to get at, and of course, he screwed up the line.”
Increased public sector jobs lead to increased private sector jobs? Actually, it's normally the other way around.
As the economy grows and businesses add to payrolls, tax revenues increase thereby giving federal, state, and local governments more money to add public employees.
Not surprising that a liberal economist wouldn't understand this, especially as he had been on This Morning a few weeks ago spouting the same nonsense.
So what's the truth about public sector job growth?
Well, at the federal level - which is really the only thing directly controlled by the White House and the United States Congress - there are currently 29,000 more employees than when Obama was inaugurated.
Attention liberal media members: that's an INCREASE!
At the state level, there are 125,000 fewer employees around the country than there were in January 2009, but that total is equal to what there were in July 2006 about a year and a half before the recession began.
The real decline in public sector employees since Obama's inauguration has been at the local level where there has been a 511,000 reduction back to the number in November 2005 two years before the recession started.
Why? Because local governments around the country have been increasing in size for decades at a rate that has been completely unsustainable.
Is it the federal government's responsibility to make up for this shortfall?
Liberal media members such as Krugman believe so. But should that be a permanent thing?
Let's assume more federal tax dollars are sent to local communities so that they can hire more teachers, firefighters, and police officers. Where does the money come from when those dollars are eliminated?
Have these communities been forced to address their budget problems by matching expenditures to tax receipts, or have they been given a lifeline by Washington to just keep spending more than they bring in?
Won't they just go right back into a deficit and have to lay these people off when those federal dollars are removed?
People like Krugman never have an answer for that.
Also of importance, do we know that these communities need more teachers, firefighters, and police officers? Has Krugman or anyone else advocating an increase in such hiring determined there's actually an inadequate number of these public employees in all localities around the country?
Let's understand that all because these numbers are down from shortly before the recession began, that doesn't mean they need be increased at this time. When it comes to public employees, hiring for hiring's sake just leads to budget deficits in the future.
But folks like Krugman don't care about that.
To them, debt isn't a problem, for we can always just print more money.
To receive my articles hot off the presses follow me on Twitter ow.ly/btalc and Facebook ow.ly/btald.
— Noel Sheppard (@NoelSheppard) June 9, 2012
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Why are we not surprised?
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 10:57am.
Although it is truly a wonder seeing Team Obama trying to spin Obama's 151st Gaffe!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Who
Submitted by NYCMiddle on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 10:59am.
doesn't love this former Enron adviser dispensing economic advice?
How can you ever be wrong if the stimulus is just never big enough?
Mr, Krugman
Submitted by oldfart on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 10:59am.
The wold acclaimed Nobel Laureate. Bending over and grabbing his ankles again for the Pretender in Chief. When is the left going to wake up and realize that they have doubled down on a mental midget who cannot put together two sentences, that are grammatically correct, and actually make sense?
The only one
Submitted by NYCMiddle on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 11:06am.
who is more entertaining to read in the NYT's is Maureen Dowd - who is so nasty and spiteful that she borders on incoherence.
You give her too much credit
Submitted by Now_I_Want_Change on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 11:25am.
Maureen Dowd borders on incoherence even when she's not nasty and spiteful!
Just more proof
Submitted by Conservator on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 11:19am.
Keynesian economics depends on a strong federal government dishing out money like Obama's stimulus, lowering interest rates, quantitative easing, etc. Eventually, the money runs out and that's the problem with the present US and European economies. Also, Krugman like Obama actually believe the health of our economy relies upon public employment growth - if that's good, eventually the private sector will rebound as well.
How did Einstein define stupidity? "The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." And that's what the radical leftists want; doubling down on failed federal expenditures that have increased our national debt by over $5 trillion in less than 5 years. Yet, there are 23 million Americans still in the army of the unemployed or underemployed - definitely a sign of stupidity.
Of course, Federal government deficit spending . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 11:42am.
. . . and 'quantitative easing' (also known as 'printing more paper money') keeps interest rates higher than norm, unless there is further Fed intervention. New home buyers and small business entrepeneurs compete with Washington for loans.
Its conservatives fault
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 1:59pm.
if we hadn't voted so many Republicans into office in 2010 all those unemployed people could be safely employed in Obama's civilian style army by now.
Krugman-omics
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 1:51pm.
Pelosi-nomics is premised on the wild idea that for each $1.00 paid out in unemployment benefits, $2.00 is created in the economy.
Krugman-omics proposes that the creation of public sector jobs creates private sector jobs.
And the MSM regurgitates this kind of nonsense without question.
He
Submitted by bobsmom on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 11:31am.
screwed it up so badly, he went and doubled down on it later..............Paul, don't you have a Pot O Gold you should be out looking for?
If there were an olympic
Submitted by MrSnuggles on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 11:32am.
If there were an olympic sport of mental gymnastics this guy would win gold every 4 years.
OUCH!
Submitted by MidAmerica on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 11:32am.
Sorry
I just tried thinking that the reason the economy is so bad is because we aren't spending enough for government.
They need only look back at the New Deal . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 11:57am.
. . . to understand what is happening. Keynesian economics calls for governments to borrow and spend in order to guide a country through a depression or recession, and then once the private sector recovers, the public sector backs off.
But these self-proclaimed Keynsians didn't understand in 2009 -- just as happened in 1936-37 -- that if the private sector hasn't begun substantial recovery, the public sector jobs protected or added by the Stimulus go away as soon as the Stimulus money is exhausted. Understanding that a new Stimulus package could not be referred to as "stimulus," the Obama WH concocted a bill titled "The American Jobs Act," and claimed that the House's failure to pass it prevented over a million jobs from being created.
As Jim Foley explained in FDR's Folly, the result in the '30s was piggybacked-depressions -- the only time in history that it happened. In the mid-30s, FDR began backing off some of the New Deal programs, and unemployment shot back up, meaning that Keynsian economics didn't work.
Even a big Democrat like Chris Matthews has acknowledged that why save the US economy was the Second World War, which created almost 100% unemployment.
More than that ...
Submitted by KC Mulville on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 12:18pm.
I'd argue that the increase in public sector jobs will be followed by, inevitably, more taxes to be expected. And since the reason why investors aren't investing now is because they're afraid of upcoming tax increases, adding more public sector jobs actually hurts the recovery.
Again, liberals seem to live in a world where things happen at random. Teens get pregnant, so that's when we should start being prudent. (The idea of prudence before teens have sex never occurs to them.) Now we see liberals argue that the public sector must keep the economy afloat while the private sector ... for some mysterious reason ... delays its recovery.
Oops
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 1:54pm.
My last sentenced was supposed to read:
"Even a big Democrat ilke Chris Matthews has acknowledged that what saved the US economy was the Second World War, which created almost 100% employment."
Yes. Government spending needs to be bigger.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 12:34pm.
Government spending (Federal, State, County, Municipal) spending as a percentage of GDP was 40.09% in 2011.A 5 percent rise over 2007, the last year of a Republican Congress and Republican President..
President Weepy McOneTerm made it clear that government, uh oh here comes the tears, is suffering and needs our help desperately. Please everyone, your charity dollars, send them now..
.
President Obama: Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government. Oftentimes cuts initiated by, you know, Governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government and who don't have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in..
.
Let's get it up to 50%, maybe more. Please. Give 'til it hurts. Government workers are wandering the streets looking for scraps and stealing stuff out of shopping carts of the homeless.
saaaay....
Submitted by MidAmerica on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 11:35am.
I don't know anything about economics either. Where's my Nobel prize?
Krugman and Keynesian Economics
Submitted by acaiguana on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 11:38am.
Krugman and his ilk are simply wrong.
Nowhere in the world have their theories worked.
What I can't understand is why they don't 'get' it.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)
ACA -- what I don't get . .
Submitted by Gary Hall on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 2:30pm.
. . is why you can't get why they don't get it?
hehe
(;~/ gary
Jeff Dunham should have an
Submitted by ray johnson on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 11:51am.
Jeff Dunham should have an economist ventriloquist dummy that looks like and says the same old dumb things as Krugman. How and why people listen to that crackpot is waaaay beyond me.
Klug
Submitted by mmilesll on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 12:07pm.
This sideshow freak should be working the counter at Burger King. Anybody that thinks this idiot is smart doesn't live in the real world.
So, he's just an actor?
Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 12:20pm.
"That was an unfortunate line. I mean, the President bungled the line."
So, Obama's just an actor reading the lines that have been prepared for him? And he's not even that good of an actor because he bungled even the simplest line? Glad you cleared that up for us. For a minute there, I though he may actually have been capable of independent, even if mistaken, thought.
By the way, Paul, if the private sector is doing fine, and you seem to think that it is, then we really don't need to increase employment amongst the public sector, for it is apparently doing a fine job governing the private sector just the way it is.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Obama bungles
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 12:35pm.
Is that racist?
"Democrat economic policy" is an oxymoron.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
TOTUS did it. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 12:14pm.
.
actually...
Submitted by MidAmerica on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 12:15pm.
What the lefties see if you were look at the world through their eyes is different than most people. They think America, the part that's really important, is the government.
We tend to think America is all the different types of people and how they live. They just see an ant farm when they look at us.
To them if a private busines lays off 5,000 people and moves out of the country because of a bad business climate imposed by government they see a greedy corporatist. But if they see 500 government workers layed off they have spasms of agitation and anger at the citizens for not providing for the needs of government.
They see government as the most vital componant of society because without a strong government providing detailed guidance then they only see chaos. For example free markets are chaos to them because it is directed by constantly changing market forces. That just drives them insane. Someone should be in CONTROL.
Public Sector Jobs
Submitted by CJohnson on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 12:32pm.
Public jobs will keep dwindling as we need less inspectors, less pipeline coordinators, less OSHA inspectors, less worker comp claims filers, less planning officials, less daycares, less DMV people, less of any jobs which rely on having an activity or revenue to 'govern'.
I like the sound of that,
Submitted by killa37 on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 2:34pm.
I like the sound of that, especially as it relates to 'regulators', 'inspectors', 'OSHA' types, and others who operate under the delusional illusion that they know more about what we do than we do!!! And I know that these types of jobs are neccessary, to a degree - but I think the people who do these jobs should be subject to OUR approval and OUR judgement as to how well they do their job, since we are the ones paying them. What a concept, huh????
Government is just,firefighters, schoolteachers, police officers
Submitted by upcountrywater on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 12:34pm.
This small percentage of the huge government keeps getting repeated over and over again. As if that is all that is in the government. Maybe in 1912... not 2012...
Personally I'd like to see the Paper work reduction act put into play....
Anybody in the gov that sends out any quaintly of paper, to be filled out by We the People Citizens of America will be fired.
Save the trees, (for the next forest fire) er some such line, er no save them for printing money..
As I mentioned before, the public sector is forced to hire folk that is only used to fend off the avalanche of gov paper. In other countries these jobs do not even exist.
You Didn't Build That.
Cartooning the moment
Submitted by Tooner on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 12:38pm.
Sometimes you just have to understand someone's perspective.
http://www.thecartooniststudio.com/Contestant/10/Al-Goodwyn
I think comrade O wanted to say that the private sector is doing
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 2:12pm.
...exactly what he intended for it to do (shrivel up and die), but he cannot actually say it publicly.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
If only...
Submitted by taznar on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 4:18pm.
"By this point in Obama’s presidency, if we had normal public sector job growth, we’d have around 800,000 more people: firefighters, schoolteachers, police officers."
Don't you mean more "regulators, rulemakers, bureaucrats." I don't remember any more firefighters, schoolteachers or police officers being hired around here.
What a shock-SHOCK!
Submitted by NJRightWinger12 on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 7:34pm.
I always knew this guy had a brain-didnt know where he hid it all these years! FINALLY, he says something worthwhile, and true!