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.
What does that make Obama's Economic Team, then? THEY are the ones who predicted unemployment would not go higher than 8% if Obama's stimulus was enacted.
The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate rose from 4.2% in January 2001, peaking at 6.3% in June 2003 and reaching a trough of 4.4% in March 2007. After an economic slowdown, the rate rose again to 6.1% in August 2008 and up to 7.2% in December 2008.[55] From December 2007 when the recession started to December 2008, an additional 3.6 million people became unemployed.[56] And, in January 2009, his last month in office, the nation lost 655,000 jobs, raising the unemployment rate to 7.6 percent, the highest level in more than 15 years.[57]
What does that make Obama's Economic Team, then? THEY are the ones who predicted unemployment would not go higher than 8% if Obama's stimulus was enacted.
Remember this?
See, if you'd actually read the economic report you wouldn't be looking so foolish right now because if you actually read it you would have seen this:
Quote:
Criticism of the ARRA has also been strident, focusing on the high price tag, the slow speed of delivery, and the fact that the unemployment rate rose much higher than the Administration predicted in January 2009.
While we would not defend every aspect of the stimulus, we believe this criticism is largely misplaced, for these reasons:
The unusually large size of the fiscal stimulus (equal to about 7% of GDP) is consistent with the extraordinarily severe downturn and the limited ability to use monetary policy once interest rates neared zero.
Regarding speed, almost $500 billion has been spent to date (see Table 2). What matters for economic growth is the pace of stimulus spending, which surged from nothing at the start of 2009 to over $100 billion (over $400 billion at an annual rate) in the second quarter. That is a big change in a short period, and it is one major reason why the Great Recession ended and recovery began last summer.7 Critics who argue that the ARRA failed because it did not keep unemployment below 8% ignore the facts that (a) unemployment was already above 8% when the ARRA was passed and (b) most private forecasters (including Moody’s Analytics) misjudged how serious the downturn would be. If anything, this forecasting error suggests the stimulus package should have been even larger than it was.
This study attempts to quantify the contributions of the TARP, the stimulus, and other government initiatives to ending the financial panic and the Great Recession. In sum, we find they were highly effective. Without such a determined and aggressive response by policymakers, the economy would likely have fallen into a much deeper slump.
Read it, son. Reread it as I suspect it will take you several times to understand it. These aren't partisan spinmeisters saying this but real professional working economists including the former #2 of the Federal Reserve. Seriously, you badly need a education in basic economics because you're posting nonsense in this thread.
See, if you'd actually read the economic report you wouldn't be looking so foolish right now because if you actually read it you would have seen this:
Read it, son. Reread it as I suspect it will take you several times to understand it. These aren't partisan spinmeisters saying this but real professional working economists including the former #2 of the Federal Reserve. Seriously, you badly need a education in basic economics because you're posting nonsense in this thread.
Hmmm... YOUR OWN QUOTE says they were woefully misinformed.
Quote:
Critics who argue that the ARRA failed because it did not keep unemployment below 8% ignore the facts that... (b) most private forecasters (including Moody’s Analytics) misjudged how serious the downturn would be.
Your link also claims the recession is over. In fact, it's the title of their paper.
Here's reality:
Quote:
The second quarter was the fourth consecutive quarter of rising GDP. Prior to that, the economy had contracted for four quarters, including declines of 0.7% and 6.4% in the second and first quarters of 2009, and a 5.4% contraction in fourth quarter of 2008. But despite those four straight quarterly GDP gains, officially, the recession is not over. While many observers say the economy is recovering, the National Bureau of Economic Research, the official determiner of the economic cycle, has not put a date on the end of the downturn.
Seriously, you badly need a education in basic economics because you're posting nonsense in this thread.
You have no clue what's going on. Sadly, neither do the vast majority of Americans.
This analysis describes the worst recovery in history, touches on the complete disconnect between the bond world and the imaginary equity surreality, and provides countless evidence the economy has not only not left the recession but is getting progressively deeper into it... GMI August
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.
