Nope. I’m pretty clearly pining for a world in which the media questions conservative desires and their likely outcomes based on real world observations. How’s austerity working out in the UK? How’s government-based job loss affecting our larger economy, re: the jobs chart? Why do you think more job loss at the hands of state and local cutbacks will magically create jobs when, in fact, more people will be out of work and have no money to spend in the broader economy? That sort of thing.
I’m also saying that in a world with larger implementation of “Democrat policies” that the jobs graph would look better than it does. That’s not “partisan dexterity,” it’s cold reality. Government funded jobs are jobs. Period. People are employed to do something and receive a paycheck. That money feeds back into the larger economy. As the private economic situation improves, those government backed jobs can begin to taper. It’s no coincidence that the steepest climb in that chart is also the period of highest government stimulus and the graph flattens as the stimulus ends.
Predictably, we’re also seeing exactly this model play out in the auto industry. Government directly funds US auto companies. Those companies and their suppliers remain in business. People are employed. Conditions improve. Companies repay government and go their merry way. And but also: no Serious People seem to notice. Ever.
Far from it. The conservatives and their media enablers act as if none of this has transpired. Cuts today, cuts tomorrow, cuts forever! Couple that with some high income tax breaks and a ban on abortions and the country would start to grow again! Huzzah!
There’s a lot I simply don’t understand here, but let’s talk for a second about the thing in bold. Forget all of the problems with the chart and sustained unemployment and people dropping out of the job market and people accepting lower pay or benefits and everything else that your red and blue chart doesn’t address. That “steepest climb” you’re talking about … that climb doesn’t show job growth. Every one of those months shows continued job losses. And the time when the stimulus end?—that’s the time where there is actual job growth. The chart, in other words, can tell a story that’s exactly the opposite of what you’re saying in bold.
Now, you can argue that the stimulus resulted in smaller job losses than there would have otherwise have been, or that the job growth at the tail end of the chart was sparked by the stimulus that preceded it—you can argue these things, but the chart doesn’t prove these things. The chart is just data, with its flaws and limitations.