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.
And January 10, 2009 is WHEN??? Is that BEFORE or after Obama was in office? And what is it again that defines the Y-axis scale on that chart? Is it then-current conditions by any chance???
Obamas transition team was created in November 08. Bush was VERY generous with allowing Obama to come in prior to his sworn in date. They had a staff of 450 individuals..
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Stop just making up petty deflections for the sole purpose of not having to admit it when you have been caught dead in the wrong.
So you are going to tell me that Obama projected an imaginary turn around in employment numbers?
The obama administration was telling the nation that we were close to another great depression - can't get any more dire than that. They knew full well the severity, but they fudged the numbers once again.
I doubt that you realize just how weak that is. But maybe you can tell us who it was "fudged the numbers" for all those private sector analysts whose consensus projections were showing at the time that unemployment would peak in 2009 at around 8.2%? And that would be without a stimulus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
Can't have it both ways - on the one hand, saying we were headed for the great depression and then when your stimulus fails miserably, saying that we didn't realize the severity. That's obama talking out of both ends.
Face the simple facts. In January, Republicans were claiming that Obama (and his "uniquely qualified team", I think the propagandists' saying goes) had OVER-estimated the severity of the recession. In April, the same people were claiming that he had UNDER-estimated the severity of the recession. Two trains on the same track headed in opposite directions.
The actual case is that the Obama projections of the time were in line with everyone else's, and that -- as has so clearly now been proven to be the case -- unemployment would peak earlier and at a lower level with a stimulus bill than without. You right-wingers are really left with nothing much to say at this point. And it's only going to get worse for you now, as the months tick by...
Smash..that chart was so far off base they never showed it again after that and they have never uttered one comment about it.
It's like it never existed. They screwed up horribly with that chart and they learned their lesson but good. There have been no more "projections" coming from the WH thank goodness.
Yes the chart was off base, it was off base because it used projections that were made with figures and reports that were known in mid December, a good month or month and a half before we all knew the extent of the recession we were facing.
Everyone was surprised at the extent. We all knew things were bad, but no one was predicted the GDP to decline by the amount it did in the 4th quarter of 08, nor was anyone predicting monthly job losses of 700,000+. Everyone knew we were in trouble, the extent of it took everyone on both sides of the aisle.
There is no fraud...the Dems would just like to see it die and never be shown again because it was so off and used to sell us a bill of goods with a high price tag.
Just like everything else the administration peddles...lies to the public then take a vote and then, finally the truth comes out.
for all those private sector analysts whose consensus projections were showing at the time that unemployment would peak in 2009 at around 8.2%? And that would be without a stimulus.
Fantastic, you now admit that the concensus was that unemploment might have been lower WITHOUT a stimulus. Of course you didnt say this, but lets note YOUR now admission of the 8.2% figure, shall we?
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
The actual case is that the Obama projections of the time were in line with everyone else's, and that -- as has so clearly now been proven to be the case -- unemployment would peak earlier and at a lower level with a stimulus bill than without. You right-wingers are really left with nothing much to say at this point. And it's only going to get worse for you now, as the months tick by...
What? You just just said that the consensus was that unemployment would have peaked around 8.2%, and that Obamas projections were in line with everyone elses.
Anotherwords, YOU ADMIT Obamas chart reflected an 8.2% figure, but you are just arguing with us anyways
You couldn't be farther from the truth if you tried.
The report AND chart was issued in Jan 2009, less than 2 weeks before obama took office. This is what they had been working on. This is what they used to sell the failed stimulus.
The report was released on Jan 10th, however the information predictions in the chart were based off information known several weeks prior to that (generally mid-December). Everyone knew things were getting bad, no one knew how bad until the final Bush job reports came out, until the 4th quarter GDP numbers and 4th quarter earnings reports came out. The majority of which came out from mid Jan to early Feb
Thank you Shirlock Holmes for saying exactly what I said.
Well, yeah...except for the critical part that you left out about the role of the base data that I added and that you then felt compelled to excise again in order to keep from making yourself look even sillier than you have so far. Epic failure on your part once again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
I very much see the shape of a line, not a curve..
Then you don't know much at all about lines and curves. And of course the curve you represented isn't the one from the report that is being discussed. But irrelevancy is your specialty, so I'm sure you'll have something else completely off-track yet to say about this.
PS...
Which of the following occurred first?
A) January 10, 2009
B) January 20, 2009
Yes the chart was off base, it was off base because it used projections that were made with figures and reports that were known in mid December, a good month or month and a half before we all knew the extent of the recession we were facing.
Everyone was surprised at the extent. We all knew things were bad, but no one was predicted the GDP to decline by the amount it did in the 4th quarter of 08, nor was anyone predicting monthly job losses of 700,000+. Everyone knew we were in trouble, the extent of it took everyone on both sides of the aisle.
There were plenty saying things WERE that bad and getting worse.
Schiff, Roubini ring a bell ? Those guys got put down and laughed at by the "economists" who "never saw it coming".
And those "economists" are the ones you are listening to now. Give that one a thought or two.
First off th Stimulus didn't fail miserably. Secondly, he said we were heading for another great depression once the information about the job loss, 4th quarter reports etc were known, the whole 8% figure wasn't used when they knew that info.
Hogwash.
Quote:
The report was released on Jan 10th, however the information predictions in the chart were based off information known several weeks prior to that (generally mid-December). Everyone knew things were getting bad, no one knew how bad until the final Bush job reports came out, until the 4th quarter GDP numbers and 4th quarter earnings reports came out. The majority of which came out from mid Jan to early Feb
The report including that lovely chart is what they used to sell the stimulus.
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.
