Did you believe the Obama administration when in January they were selling the stimulus plan to America by stating passing it would keep unemployment from rising above 8%?
When is the next time you expect the number to return to 8%? My guess is late 2010 or early 2011.
A google search of "obama unemployment rise above 8 percent" return many hits referring to this. I don't know which, if any of them, you would be willing to accept. I would suggest you google it and choose which the ones you want to read -- or not.
**********
I didn't like Bush, but that doesn't mean I
have to love Obama.
And just because I don't love Obama, doesn't
make Bush look any better.
A google search of "obama unemployment rise above 8 percent" return many hits referring to this. I don't know which, if any of them, you would be willing to accept. I would suggest you google it and choose which the ones you want to read -- or not.
**********************
Well, I did it, and researched the whole page (not only "speeches in January")... and none of them quoted him as saying that "unemployment would not rise above 8%" .. so, I don't know where you are getting that shit. It ain't from Google. In fact his message about unemployment was consistent about it approaching "double digits". Go figure.
Jim...
[now, if you could point me to one verified transcript, of one verified speech, that verifies that he said that, I'll believe you... otherwise, piss off]
Did you believe the Obama administration when in January they were selling the stimulus plan to America by stating passing it would keep unemployment from rising above 8%?
Was this what Obama said or something the political pundits are saying Obama said? I honestly don't recall him stating that passing the stimulus would keep unemployment from rising above 8%. As I recall many people were chastising him for being too pessimistic, saying that things were sure to get worse before they got better.
When is the next time you expect the number to return to 8%? My guess is late 2010 or early 2011.
I would hope late 2010 but feel it's safer to say late 2011.
stand by me; Andy Madadian , Jon Bon Jovi, Richie Sambora & Friends.
For the record, no I didn't take any of what they stated about the stimulus package as gospel. At the time I believed that they were pandering to the voters and that they were hoping they were correct using their math. As much as some people hate to hear it, that's what all politicians do. As Gus use to like to say, paraphrasing here.... you can't govern if you don't get elected. Nothing different no surprises, just some good old everyday pandering. I doubt anyone based their vote for POTUS on this but I could be wrong.
Page 4 table #1? I was unable to C&P the graph.
*******************************
EMBARGOED UNTIL 6:00 AM SATURDAY, JANUARY 10, 2009 | 4
Table 1
Aggregate Effect of the Recovery Package on GDP and Jobs in 2010Q4
Real GDP (billions
of chained 2000 $) Payroll Employment
Without Stimulus $11,770 133,876,000
With Stimulus $12,203 137,550,000
Effect of Package Increase GDP by 3.7% Increase jobs by 3,675,000
*Source: Authors calculation
The table shows that we expect the plan to more than meet the goal of creating or saving 3 million
jobs by 2010Q4. There are two important points to note, however:
First, the likely scale of employment loss is extremely large. The U.S. economy has already lost
nearly 2.6 million jobs since the business cycle peak in December 2007. In the absence of stimulus,
the economy could lose another 3 to 4 million more. Thus, we are working to counter a potential
total job loss of at least 5 million. 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.
*************************
I believe the authors names are: Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein? ************************* stand by me; Andy Madadian , Jon Bon Jovi, Richie Sambora & Friends.
I'm desparate? That is not just some economic report. That report was prepared to sell the public on the President's economic plans and was peddled on all of the major Sunday morning news programs in mid March by none other than Chair of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, Dr. Christina Romer. You think she just happened to be available? She was sent by the administration to deliver their message of economic hope & change.
Joblessness Hits 9.5%, Deflating Recovery Hopes
By PETER S. GOODMAN
The American economy lost 467,000 more jobs in June, and the unemployment rate edged up to 9.5 percent in a sobering indication that the longest recession since the 1930s had yet to release its hold.
The numbers are indicative of a continued, very severe recession, said Stuart G. Hoffman, chief economist at PNC Financial Services in Pittsburgh. Theres nothing in here to show that the economy and the market are pulling out of the grip of recession.
The Labor Departments monthly snapshot of employment, released Thursday, challenged visions of a recovery already taking root. The numbers intensify pressure on the Obama administration to show returns on programs aimed at improving national fortunes not least its $787 billion stimulus plan.
Some economists are now calling for another dose of government spending to stimulate the economy, though the White House maintains that enough money is in the pipeline already.
Not all the recovery money has been put to work yet, said the labor secretary, Hilda L. Solis. Were making progress.
But Ms. Solis acknowledged that joblessness was already much worse than the administration projected in January when it created its stimulus spending bill, suggesting then that joblessness would peak at about 8 percent.
Asked why the unemployment rate is already much higher, Ms. Solis noted that much of the stimulus money was moving slowly, with construction projects in particular requiring time-consuming government permits.
Over all, its been a challenge, Ms. Solis said. We still have a ways to go.
That explanation echoed criticism that some initially leveled at the spending package when it was debated in Congress: many of the projects would take too long to get going, creating too few jobs in the near term. Still, Ms. Solis portrayed the program as a success.
We would have done much worse had we not put the recovery plan in place, she said.
In recent weeks, positive signs have emerged that automakers are beginning to see stronger sales, factories are gaining more orders, and housing prices have stopped falling in some markets. But the jobs report injected the sense that paychecks are disappearing so swiftly that consumer spending is likely to be tight, limiting economic activity. The gloomy news caused the Standard & Poors 500-stock index to tumble more than 2 percent.
Indeed, the report reinforced a consensus that high levels of unemployment are likely to afflict American life for many months and perhaps much longer. That will dump more jobless people into a weak job market, making it harder for those already unemployed to find work and pressing down wages and hours.
After a May report that showed the pace of deterioration was moderating, some economists expressed hopes that an economic recovery might finally be emerging. But the June report tempered such thoughts.
For another month, manufacturing jobs disappeared, dipping by 136,000, while construction jobs shrank by 79,000 and retail by 21,000. Health care remained a rare bright spot, adding 21,000.
The losses for June lifted net jobs shed since the beginning of the recession to 6.5 million equal to the net job gain over the previous nine years.
This is the only recession since the Great Depression to wipe out all jobs growth from the previous business cycle, Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the labor-oriented Economic Policy Institute in Washington, said in a research note. She called this fact a devastating benchmark for the workers of this country and a testament to both the enormity of the current crisis and to the extreme weakness of jobs growth from 2000 to 2007.
The June figures did show continued slowing in the pace of job losses. From November to March after the collapse of some prominent financial institutions the labor market lost an average of 670,000 jobs each month. From April to June, the decline slowed to 436,000 a month.
The Obama administration seized on those numbers to argue that its stimulus spending plan was gradually working.
Were seeing a kind of leveling off here, said Ms. Solis, the labor secretary.
Some economists contend that a recovery is indeed in its early stages, cautioning that the job market tends to lag behind progress in other areas.
Michael T. Darda, chief economist at the research and trading firm MKM Partners, pointed to a recent rally in the corporate bond market as a sign that normalcy was returning to the financial system. He asserted that this presaged the resumption of economic growth in the second half of this year and vigorous activity next year.
The labor market is going to lag the recovery process to a certain degree, he said.
But other experts argued that employment was a more crucial source of spending power than in downturns past, given how many alternate sources of cash had been lost.
Consumer spending amounts to 70 percent of overall American economic activity. In recent times, Americans found myriad ways to fuel spending even as incomes for many households stagnated, borrowing against the once-rising value of homes and tapping credit cards.
Now, the paycheck has returned as the primary source of spending. Yet pay is eroding even for those who have jobs.
The average workweek for rank-and-file employees in the private sector roughly 80 percent of the work force slipped by a fraction to 33 hours, the lowest level since the government began tracking such data in 1964.
The so-called underemployment rate which captures not only the jobless but also those working part time because their hours have been cut or they cannot find a full-time job increased to 16.5 percent.
Some economists contend that while unemployment remains high, millions of Americans will continue to watch their spending.
It looks really bad, said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington. There are no green shoots here. People cant spend when they dont have the money.
For another month, the average length of official unemployment increased, this time to 24.5 weeks the highest level since the government began tracking such data in 1948. The unemployment rate, 9.5 percent, is the highest since 1983.
Layoffs have slowed in recent months, but hiring has yet to pick up, meaning that jobless people face a more frustrating search.
In the Brownsville section of Brooklyn, Jeffrey Jones, 40, has found no work since losing his job as a cook at a senior center in October. He worries about paying rent and caring for his four children.
I know Im not supposed to be letting it stress me out, he said. The way Im going now, I wont be able to make it too much longer. I cant go this long without doing something for my family.
Jack Healy contributed reporting.
Take care.
Blessed Be.
Alice
"Politicians are like diapers. They should be changed frequently and for the same reason." From the movie, "Man of the Year"
I never asserted that it was 8% (or less) at present. Nor has anyone else so far as I know.
What I was arguing that President Obama never indicated in any of his speeches that it would never get higher than 8%. In fact, in a speech in January he said that it might well get to double digits.
[hint: really read what I posted, and you will see what I was arguing]
Did you believe the Obama administration when in January they were selling the stimulus plan to America by stating passing it would keep unemployment from rising above 8%?
They didn't say that, but they were wrong anyway. I always thought their predictions were low.
No, we left that up to you and your ilk. And you all performed with remarkable enthusiasm.
*****************************
You know what? I'm tired of your useless stereotypical crap. I gave GWB a full three years to prove himself, and argued against many "liberals" about the way they were dissing him. All to my dismay.
He fucked us. And you were not willing to stand up and be counted.
You know what? I'm tired of your useless stereotypical crap. I gave GWB a full three years to prove himself, and argued against many "liberals" about the way they were dissing him. All to my dismay.
He fucked us. And you were not willing to stand up and be counted.
Jim..
-----------
While I don't recall you arguing for a full three years against many liberals dissing Bush during his first term, and now stating "he fucked us", I had hoped you would have learned a lesson from giving any new president a full three before you have another a-ha, he fucked us, experience.
