Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Biden-speak for back in January everyone was using the same best available data from November 2008, so yeah, everybody's projections looked low by comparison to what the actual data looked like months later. Doesn't matter who you pick...CEA, CBO, OMB, the Fed, the Blue Chip boys...the same effect is visible in everyone's projections.
Your probelm is that you can't manage to take a projection as a projection and use it for what it's designed for. You insist that it must be a prediction and so lead youself to all sorts of unwarranted conclusions. Well, perhaps YOU don't do that. More likely that you actually let some right-wing propagandist do it for you. Nice work...
I don't take any "government" predictions as even valid predictions.
They always come in too optimistic.
But your neat little propaganda piece doesn't list the expected increase in comparison.
The expected increase is up to 4.1% in 2009
up to 3.6% in 2010
up to 1.2% in 2011
As of February 4th CBO director's blog.
Which is bigger.
a possible decrease of up to 0.3%
or
an increase of up to 4.1%, and 3.6% and 1.2%
And since you appear to be arguing (or simply uninformed) that the up to 0.3% decrease is more significant than increases of 4.1, 3.6 and 1.2 I have to wonder at which point in elementary math did you stop paying attention.
Since the reason for the stimulus bill was to remove us from a recession, creating a bill that would possibly result in a decrease, any decrease in the GDP is illresponsible because it means that it could put us back into a recession.
Add to this, that you pulled out two years, and a possible increase in the GDP, but presidents should be more focused on long term economic impact of the plans/programs they pass and passing one for a short term gain, while ignoring the long term consequences proves how incompetent this administration is.
Since the reason for the stimulus bill was to remove us from a recession, creating a bill that would possibly result in a decrease, any decrease in the GDP is illresponsible because it means that it could put us back into a recession.
That possible 0.3% decrease is 10 years down the road.
The possible increase of 4.1% is for 2009
The possible increase of 3.6% is for 2010
The possible increase of 1.2% is for 2011
I'm sure you can work out which is more significant.
Big increase now
or
very small potential decrease 10 years out
Quote:
Add to this, that you pulled out two years, and a possible increase in the GDP, but presidents should be more focused on long term economic impact of the plans/programs they pass and passing one for a short term gain, while ignoring the long term consequences proves how incompetent this administration is.
If you looked at the summary tables of CBO's reports, you'd notice that their high estimate of the stimulus shows 0.0% decrease at the 10 year mark. Their low estimate has the up to 0.3% decrease.
I don't know ANYONE who thinks it would be a good idea to sacrifice a net 8.9% increase in the short term because of a potential 0.3% decrease 10 years from now, as you advocate.
- none of that has happened. And you know it.
Stop playing dumb on this issue.
I couldn't play dumb enough amongst this crowd. You look at where numbers went and never wonder where they might have been. You complain that things are bad, when the only other option was that they would have been worse.
You have $1000 worth of stock. You like that, so you buy $100 more. The value of the stock drops by 20%. Your end-of-month statement shows a balance of $880. You conclude that buying more shares of stock causes the value of your portfolio to go down.
I also read Mish but he was off..he said like 6% tops. Lately though he's got a grudge against Schiff so he's been tending to go the opposite of Schiff with some numbers.
Is there anything that you believe the current administration isn't doing right ? You defend this administration more than the administration does themselves.
I defend them when false charges are brought, as they are day after day, hour after hour, and minute after minute around here by a gaggle of those who are either themselves completely dishonest or who have come under the sway of others who are completely dishonest. Want to state a rational claim that Obama may have overcommitted to Afghanistan? Was moving Chris Hill to Iraq a mistake? Was that whole affair handled sort of badly? No problem. Put up a bunch of manufactured right-wing swill? Problem...
"The economy is in such trouble that, even with passage of this package, unemployment rates are expected to rise to between 8 and 9 percent this year. Without this package, we are warned that unemployment could explode to near 12 percent," the summary said.
That possible 0.3% decrease is 10 years down the road.
The possible increase of 4.1% is for 2009
The possible increase of 3.6% is for 2010
The possible increase of 1.2% is for 2011
I'm sure you can work out which is more significant.
Big increase now
or
very small potential decrease 10 years out
If you looked at the summary tables of CBO's reports, you'd notice that their high estimate of the stimulus shows 0.0% decrease at the 10 year mark. Their low estimate has the up to 0.3% decrease.
I don't know ANYONE who thinks it would be a good idea to sacrifice a net 8.9% increase in the short term because of a potential 0.3% decrease 10 years from now, as you advocate.
But then, everyone I know passed 5th grade math.
You may have passed the 5th grade but obviously you dont care about the next generation and the next recession that could be caused BY THE STIMULUS.. A decrease in GDP, albeit low, is a decrease and thereby another recession.
Its posters like you which has caused this country problems. Only worry about short term, dont worry about long term, who cares about the debt, give me it today, hell, we could be dead in 10 years, why worry about the GDP decreases or the debt we leave for our children.
p.s. your math isnt that great because adding 4.1% + 3.6% + 1.2% does not give you a 8.9% increase, it gives you a 9.142% increase because its compounded.
According to your thought process, we should be happy that we might be technically out of a recession, even if its imaginary due to manipulation of the economy by the government, and ignore the fact that the stimulus will contribute to yet another recession, but then who cares.. thats 10 years from now, we'll have a Republican President you can blame it on again..
I am NOT stimulated, but I am stymied. Does that count?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
