So on 3 separate news reports this morning...

[vi5]

Either the headline or the commentator/news person announced "This debt deal is not expected to do anything to improve the jobs situation but instead could actually make it worse."

Jeez, you think maybe they could have done a little more reporting on this and asking about this in interviews BEFORE this happened or AS it was being debated?

Yes, I know a lot of more left leaning people and economists and articles pointed this out, but I didn't see it at all reported in any mainstream news stories leading up to this. I could have missed them, but given the media's history and track record.....I doubt it.

[KansDem]

1. Was it said how this "deal" could make jobs worse?

I'm not surprised but am wondering why this wasn't reported on.

[Selatius]

3. A hypothetical and simple example.

Some of our taxes go to support the Food Stamp program. The stamps go to people who have trouble paying for food. They use the stamps in the stores for food stuffs, and the government basically pays for their food.

If the program were, for instance, eliminated or drastically reduced, what that means is the stores would no longer see customers come through their doors who use food stamps. This means less revenue for the store, which could mean fewer hours for employees or even lay-offs. In this example, we see that such a cut may actually worsen the unemployment situation, which would likely provoke many more customers to spend even less if they also start worrying about their own job security, too.

An opposite example would be the WPA, a public works program under FDR which put millions of people back to work during the last depression. By putting all those millions back to work, it put money directly into their pockets. They, in turn, spent it buying food, clothing, and maybe some small luxuries here and there, etc., and the businesses that provided all those products and services benefited by seeing increased demand and revenue, and in order to meet this higher demand, they began hiring more workers. Here, such a program may bring down the unemployment rate.

Because of this, you may often see many people who post here at DU asserting the US desperately needs another Franklin Roosevelt.

[KansDem]

4. Thanks

Sounds like a ripple effect.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. reducing government spending depresses economic activity.

it is really simple.

[DCBob]

2. That the media... but in fairness the deal was not meant to be a jobs program..

the focus was the debt ceiling and budget reforms.

[grahamhgreen]

6. Now they destroy Obama over the deal. I dont know why he doesn't get it unless hes complicit.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

7. It's not supposed to do anything for jobs. It is simply paying for debt that we've already

accumulated. The Corporate Media is trying to confuse you and everyone else!!

[vi5]

10. No, I know that....

That was what many of us were screaming as this whole deal was going down. "It's the JOBS stupid!!! LOWERING THE DEFICIT IS NOT GOING TO CREATE JOBS!! IN FACT IT WILL COST JOBS THE WAY IT'S BEING DONE!!"

But they didn't report on this before hand and it was all kept very vague. Here was this big important thing that was important because they were saying so and it was vaguely tied to the economy.

So rather than pointing out beforehand that this was not going to do anything for jobs and could in fact make the jobs situation worse, when it could have gotten more people coming out against this whole thing, they kept it vague.

And so now that it's done, and now that Dems and Obama have their fingerprints all over it, NOW the media is saying that jobs are important again and this does nothing for that situation.

[SidDithers]

8. Worse than a default?...nt

Sid

[KharmaTrain]

9. No One Really Knows What's In The Bill...

It was written and portrayed in a vague way that can be open to lots of speculation but little more at this point. Those looking to push an agenda are sure to find it objectionable...especially if it comes anywhere near their sacred bull. But there are no real specifics at this point that show of any major cuts in the immediate future to anyone's entitlements and that many of the "savings" are push after the 2012 elections...and that's the key.

Whomever gains control after the next election can, and will, revise this thing to suit their bases. Should the Democrats retake the House and hold its majority in the Senate, I could see a lot of the feared reductions not happening while if the rushpublicans hold their majority and take the Senate the cuts could be more specific and deeper. It all depends on who wins next year.