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.
I'm sure someone's pointed this out already, but the unemployment went up because people who had given up looking for work came back and started looking again (they were not being accounted for in the prior assessments).
It's actually a sign that the economy's improving. I guess a lot of people without economics backgrounds want it to be a simple soundbite, but it's really not.
Obama's opposition first said there'd be no recovery, then the much anticipated double dip, then the jobless recovery... They're running out of reasons to deny that the economy is, actually, recovering.
Next will be: "It was ALWAYS going to happen - forget about the fact that up until just recently we were saying it WASN'T happening AT ALL".
Some of them are ALREADY morphing to THAT position.
Of course it's not about ME - it's about JOB GROWTH - something the Obamabashers on this board are apprently incredibly ignorant about. Don't blame ME just because I've been trying to EDUCATE YOU (to no apparent affect) for the last half-year. People have to be WILLING TO LEARN in order to do so.
Still, I'm not about to give up trying - it's too much fun. Besides, EVENTUALLY it will become apparently to EVERYONE that jobs are coming back (of course THEN the Obamabashers will have changed their tune to "well it was going to happen now ANYWAY" - even though they were denying that jobs were coming back at the time ). Some folks just aren't honest enough to admit when they are wrong. LOL
Ken
Unfortunately your childish spin has little meaning for adults. It is YOUR failing to understand the issue is not about Obama bashing, it is about government interference. It is comical the way you spin things in order to make a point that doesn't exist.
I don't recall anyone saying the jobs were not coming back so it is rather idiotic to spin it that way if you are honest about it. On the contrary people are saying the government policies are interfering with the market corrections that would put us on the right track sooner and without the blowback that comes with government interference.
You speak of honesty yet you don't practice it. If you haven't figured out that the majority of people are against the federal government interference and not just Obama bashers then that is your fault, not others.
Next will be: "It was ALWAYS going to happen - forget about the fact that up until just recently we were saying it WASN'T happening AT ALL".
Some of them are ALREADY morphing to THAT position.
Ken
That's because you are putting a spin on something that doesn't exist. People know sooner or later we'd climb out of 10 percent unemployment. Quit making things up.
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? 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
Sorry...called away just as you were going into incoherent mode. Not much to do to disentangle that mess, but to summarize, all using the same base data, the consensus of various private sector projections (some were higher and some lower) saw unemployment in 2009 peaking at about 8.2% The administration saw it at about 8.7%, but with a stimulus bill, at about 8.0% instead. See how easy that is? Now in actuality, none of the projections had rules and equations that could describe the full power of the downward spiral we had been thrown into. We'd never been in such a thing before. That spiral turned out to be about 2% more powerful than what anybody could have accounted for. That would have moved the two non-stimulus projections to about 10.7% and 10.2%, with the administration's stimulus projection at about 10%. That's all there is to this. Really. You all are trying to make something from nothing again. This may be because you value the way that you wish things were more than the way that things actually are. Notice of course that the implications of the projections are the same either way -- a period of high unemployment lies ahead, but we can ameliorate its effects in some degree by enacting a significant stimulus package. That was the point and the only point of the January 10 paper. Thank goodness enough appreciated that point to in fact get a significant stimulus package enacted. Our difficulties would have lasted longer and been more ssvere had they not...
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.
Schiff is a nobody dressed up in a pretty, and most importantly, telegenic package. He is basically worthless. Roubini has the advantage of at least being an interesting guy. But the things that he was right about were the same things that many others were right about as well. The problem there was that the Bush administration wasn't listening to any of them. They discounted the warnings out of a combination of a general laissez-faire predisposition and a horribly misplaced confidence that the markets would somehow know what was best. Oops. Meanwhile, warnings of what could emerge from growing patterns of abuse of particularly subprime credit markets had already begun to emerge in scholarly and trade publications by late 2003 and became almost common in 2004. Of course those didn't add any sets of glitzy predictions to their analyses to make them more commercially attractive and marketable. They were addressing a serious audience, not a pop audience. Sadly, key players in that serious audience didn't take any of it seriously enough.
Really? That is certainly NOT what the CBO estimated. Here's that report, the very same one you always ignore. You know, the one that said the recession would end late 2009/early 2010 WITHOUT government intervention (the Failed Stimulus).
You know, the shelf-life on your "failed stimulus" bill of goods has expired. There isn't anyone left who doesn't give it significant credit for softening the blow of the recession and hastening the economic turnaround. You are getting very close to a "last doofus standing" sort of situation here.
Meanwhile, just as with all other reports prepared in the same timeframe, the January 2009 CBO report was short the far more horrible than expected numbers from the tail end of 2008 and first months of 2009. And like everyone else, had they known at the time of the extra 2% power of the downward spiral, their forecast would have been more gloomy.
And while we don't "know" yet on account of NBER's traditional slowness in making its calls, most "expect" that the end of the recession will ultimately be marked in July 2009, though some say August and a few say June. I'm not sure that I agree, but that's already well ahead of your "late 2009/early 2010" CBO timeframe which itself did not yet include the most significant of the bad numbers left over from Bush. So how could this miracle have happened? Can you say "stimulus"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
This one too, tells the difference between obama estimates and CBO's. Table 1-1 is a whopper, not unlike all estimates/numbers from obama.
Help! Where is David Hasselhoff? We've got one drowning right-winger over here! This "whopper" of yours (is that with extra onion and mayonaise?) sets out the differences between CBO's baseline projection and its projection including as if adopted the provisions of the FY2010 budget as implemented through the omnibus spending bill. What are the differences? Here's partial list of major elements. Make the Bush tax cuts permanent for those not in the top two brackets. Make the Bush capital gains tax treatment permanent. Make Bush-like estate tax exemptions permanent. Make the MWP tax credit permanent. Make the AMT patch permanent. Make the Doc-Fix permanent. Expand the EITC and ACCC. Expand Pell grants. Sounds mostly like TAX CUTS, doesn't it. You're opposed to tax cuts now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
No, he had hyped up the "crisis" in order to take "opportunities".
So, you're back to where he OVER-estimated the crisis here, but when you talk about "the chart", your complaint is that he UNDER-estimated it. You know, the actual problem here is that you don't know what you are talking about and don't even care. Your only purpose is to spin slime on Obama, and you'll go to any length and stoop to any depth to accomplsih it. There is literally nothing else to be learned from a single word you say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
He used "rosy scenario" numbers in his budget and stimulus projections.
Then so did everyone else. The administration's projections have consistently been in the same range as those of CBO, those of the Fed, and those of the major private sector analytical shops. "Rosy scenario" is just another meaningless buzz-phrase culled directly from a right-wing propaganda campaign that is based on nothing but partisanship. That would be right up your alley though, eh?
If we would actually count EVERY unemployed American, we would not be having this here... Just start counting everybody..I don't care if they "are not looking" right now. Hell, yes they are looking! As soon as something comes up they will take the job. But that's been a problem for decades now...
Direct from the Obama report..
"As Figure 1 shows, even with the large prototypical package, the unemployment rate in 2010Q4 is predicted to be approximately 7.0%, which is well below the approximately 8.8% that would result in the absence of a plan."
Yep, looks like they projected unemployment figures in their report.. Sag, why do you lie so much?
Why do you understand so little? The statement is describing the chart within its own context, a context which includes a Y-axis scale that was dependent upon then-current conditions. That was the only knowable frame of reference at the time. It's getting to a point where it's really VERY hard to identify any VALID reason for your continued inability to grasp the concept. Of course, a dyed-in-the-wool devotion to pure partisan hackery would explain it alright.
Ok, you keep spinning this into, "they didnt know the economy was bad".. Then WHY THE HELL WERE THEY CREATING A STIMULUS PACKAGE?
Brain stuck on binary again??? There isn't just GOOD and BAD. There are all these different states in between. Things PRETTY BAD, VERY BAD, REALLY REALLY BAD, and on over toward CATASTROPHICALLY BAD.
If you think that things are VERY BAD and so decide to implement a stimulus package, but it turns out that things were actually REALLY, REALLY BAD, well then your stimulus isn't going to work quite as quickly or strongly as you might have thought or hoped. It will still of course have been a great idea to have done a stimulus plan. You just might want to give an extra little boost or two somewhere along the line to kick it up and help keep it more or less on track as against the tougher than expected conditions.
See how simple all this is once you understand or don't ignore the basics?
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.
). Some folks just aren't honest enough to admit when they are wrong. LOL
