gbpfan1231 Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 The irony of your post is you're completely missing the point while trying to defend a political talking point. The economic recession was a lot worse than anyone expected an almost everyone's projections (not promises) were wrong. And while the stimulus program was far from perfect, there are many a brighter and more knowledgeable mind than you and me, that claim it prevented a disaster not unlike the magnitude of that we experienced in the 30s. That was the primary goal. This graph probably looks a lot different if we had different economic policies in place. Anything against Obama or criticizing stimulus is a right wing talking point but any posts that support it are just pure facts but the smartest people ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted February 4, 2012 Author Share Posted February 4, 2012 Hope it's real - hope it continues. Really hope to see my unemployed friends find solid work soon. amen to that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice1 Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 :ICE1: Liar, Liar, pant on fire :/ICE1: Surprised by your comment, oh well keep it up if that floats your boat. ___________________________________________________________ The Nations unemployment numbers are absolutely terrible. The Broader U6 Measure is at 15.1%. That said the trends have not been running negative for 9 months now so that is a step in the right direction for the American worker. The real reality however is the economy must add way more jobs than 200K per month or this recovery will take close to a decade. 200K barely keeps pace with population expansion. I doubt the rate dips below 8% by election day given the significant uncertainty of tax rate expiration which is keeping well over a trillion on the sidelines but we have seen nominal movement in the unemployment rate dropping and that is a good thing. The housing numbers are still terrible with way too much inventory so construction is still a major concern which will probably drive up unemployment in coming months towards 8.8 or 8.9 by election day. I will be far more optimistic when we see a long term solution on taxes which will allow business to better plan for expansion and we start seeing additions in the 400K plus range. Still a positive sign but we have a very long road ahead if we do not do way way better. The CBO is not painting a positive picture at all looking at the overall economy and is projecting unemployment to remain above 8%. CBO further projects an additional 1.1 Trillion added to the deficit this year. CBO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Surprised by your comment, oh well keep it up if that floats your boat. ___________________________________________________________ The Nations unemployment numbers are absolutely terrible. The Broader U6 Measure is at 15.1%. That said the trends have not been running negative for 9 months now so that is a step in the right direction for the American worker. The real reality however is the economy must add way more jobs than 200K per month or this recovery will take close to a decade. 200K barely keeps pace with population expansion. I doubt the rate dips below 8% by election day given the significant uncertainty of tax rate expiration which is keeping well over a trillion on the sidelines but we have seen nominal movement in the unemployment rate dropping and that is a good thing. The housing numbers are still terrible with way too much inventory so construction is still a major concern which will probably drive up unemployment in coming months towards 8.8 or 8.9 by election day. I will be far more optimistic when we see a long term solution on taxes which will allow business to better plan for expansion and we start seeing additions in the 400K plus range. Still a positive sign but we have a very long road ahead if we do not do way way better. The CBO is not painting a positive picture at all looking at the overall economy and is projecting unemployment to remain above 8%. CBO further projects an additional 1.1 Trillion added to the deficit this year. CBO RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS!!!!! How dare you!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 . The CBO is not painting a positive picture at all looking at the overall economy and is projecting unemployment to remain above 8%. In CBO’s forecast, the unemployment rate remains above 8 percent both this year and next. As economic growth picks up after 2013, the unemployment rate will gradually decline, but it will still be around 7 percent at the end of calendar year 2015, before dropping to near 5½ percent by the end of 2017 and 5¼ percent by the end of 2022. The long term unemployment forecast sounds pretty positive to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice1 Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS!!!!! How dare you!! The truth is obviously a bad thing.... Never mind euphoria will be here by March! "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLAYER Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Always did want to post in one of these type of threads. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice1 Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 The long term unemployment forecast sounds pretty positive to me. No doubt to some an 8% unemployment figure for another 24 months must sound good. Maybe you can make that statement a campaign bumper sticker....Who knows you could be rich beyond your wildest dreams! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 The long term unemployment forecast sounds pretty positive to me. Didn't you just post a link about 15 minutes ago about how these guys have no idea how to project the future of unemployment but now you using the projections of unemployment to try and prove a point? Good job dude!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 No doubt to some an 8% unemployment figure for another 24 months must sound good. Maybe you can make that statement a campaign bumper sticker....Who knows you could be rich beyond your wildest dreams! Well, you stated the "CBO was not painting a positive picture at all" and they are actually projecting the unemployment rate to drop close to 5% in five years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 The long term unemployment forecast sounds pretty positive to me. So the initial projections aren't accurate due to "unusual" circumstances, but we're supposed to take stock in projections for the less predictable long term? For me to believe that, it might help to know that they're doing anything substantial about the real systematic problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 So the initial projections aren't accurate due to "unusual" circumstances, but we're supposed to take stock in projections for the less predictable long term? For me to believe that, it might help to know that they're doing anything substantial about the real systematic problems. Hey give the little tool a break - it was not a right wing talking point so it HAS to be correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) So the initial projections aren't accurate due to "unusual" circumstances, but we're supposed to take stock in projections for the less predictable long term? For me to believe that, it might help to know that they're doing anything substantial about the real systematic problems. One, I'm not even the one who posted the CBO projections. Two, I was solely commenting on Ice Tea's gloom and doom perspective on job numbers that he attributed to the CBO, whose long term forecast was contradictory. Three, they are called forecasts because they don't always come to fruition. It becomes data after the fact. But it's my understanding that the CBO's economic modeling and the average blue chip economic forecasts have historically been the best projections available over time. Regardless of what you think about the CBO, trying to take me to task for commenting on someone else's misinterpretation of CBO information they presented in their own link comes off more than a tad desperate. And when you are barking up the same tree as the spazzy childlike cheeze head you're probably on the wrong track. Edited February 4, 2012 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Political discussions so rule Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 One, I'm not even the one who posted the CBO projections. Two, I was solely commenting on Ice Tea's gloom and doom perspective on job numbers that he attributed to the CBO, whose long term forecast was contradictory. Three, they are called forecasts because they don't always come to fruition. It becomes data after the fact. But it's my understanding that the CBO's economic modeling and the average blue chip economic forecasts have historically been the best projections available over time. Regardless of what you think about the CBO, trying to 'pwn me' for commenting on someone else's misinterpretation of CBO information they presented in their own link is more than a tad desperate. And when you are barking up the same tree as the spazzy childlike cheeze head you're probably on the wrong track. Dude, honestly I was just treating your Obama apologism like you do everyone you disagree with in every other thread. Its clear you can't take it like you dish out it out though, except either way clinging to the ad-hominem. I got no dog in this fight, but glad you can see how annoying you come off to other people with your trolling. I'm happy to let you fight it out with the other ideologues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Dude, honestly I was just treating your Obama apologism like you do everyone you disagree with in every other thread. Unfortunately, you're not near as good at it as I am. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Unfortunately, you're not near as good at it as Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Really Cute. I wouldn't use the word "promise" in that context, because, well, it's just stupid. I used it against wiegie because that incessant rallying cry back in the day, including in the post I dug up. "bush promised 300,000 jobs per month!" bush didn't promise 300,000 jobs per month any more than obama promised unemployment would never get above 8% with his stimulus bill. although the way weegie is going lately, he may just be up to arguing that one is a promise and the other isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 2 Members: Ursa Majoris, Ice1 Looks like there'll be plenty to read in a few minutes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice1 Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) One, I'm not even the one who posted the CBO projections. Two, I was solely commenting on Ice Tea's gloom and doom perspective on job numbers that he attributed to the CBO, whose long term forecast was contradictory. Three, they are called forecasts because they don't always come to fruition. It becomes data after the fact. But it's my understanding that the CBO's economic modeling and the average blue chip economic forecasts have historically been the best projections available over time. Regardless of what you think about the CBO, trying to take me to task for commenting on someone else's misinterpretation of CBO information they presented in their own link comes off more than a tad desperate. And when you are barking up the same tree as the spazzy childlike cheeze head you're probably on the wrong track. "misinterpretation of CBO information" Wow, you must have not read or understood the report. Anyone that reads the Congressional Budget Office Report can clearly see the economic picture painted given the current government policy in motion. It is stunning you would think NO projected increase in employment for the next two years is somehow good news? It is stunning you think only a 1% improvement over 36 months starting in month 24 is good news. It is stunning when you look further out you do not even mention the caveats laid out by the CBO and think this a good report on the economy today or the projected economy over the next 3 years only to hail it as good based on 3 percentage drop 5 or 10 years out that even the CBO questions due to external factors. We actually have seen the jobs numbers getting better over the last 9 months yet the indicators are showing it will now take 36 months to see another 1 percentage drop in unemployment and you think this is good news? Regardless of party, no citizen should be happy with this report. What it is showing is the small recovery we have seen on the jobs front is stalling out. You are in a party of one if think this is good news. BTW, I had nothing to do with the report. The Congressional Budget Office wrote it. This is what I said about the CBO: Still a positive sign but we have a very long road ahead if we do not do way way better. The CBO is not painting a positive picture at all looking at the overall economy and is projecting unemployment to remain above 8%. CBO further projects an additional 1.1 Trillion added to the deficit this year. Note the tense! Edited February 4, 2012 by Ice1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 "misinterpretation of CBO information" It is stunning you would think NO projected increase in employment for the next two years is somehow good news? On the subject of misinterpretation, if unemployment is steady at 8% over the next two years, doesn't that constitute an increase in employment due to workforce growth? Shouldn't you be saying "decrease in unemployment" instead? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice1 Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) On the subject of misinterpretation, if unemployment is steady at 8% over the next two years, doesn't that constitute an increase in employment due to workforce growth? Shouldn't you be saying "decrease in unemployment" instead? Are you somehow trying to debate the word "IS" or are you trying to justify the CBO report as good news? 8% is 8% That is not misrepresentation but if you think it is write the CBO. Rise above Ursa, your petty grammar police shtick is getting old. Interesting how you use this when unable to defend a position. Thanks for playing! Edited February 4, 2012 by Ice1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Are you somehow trying to debate the word "IS" or are you trying to justify the CBO report as good news? 8% is 8% That is not misrepresentation but if you think it is write the CBO. Rise above Ursa, your petty grammar police shtick is getting old. Interesting how you use this when unable to defend a position. Thanks for playing! I am only interested in accuracy. IIRC, it takes about 150,000 new jobs to accommodate population increase per month. Not sure if that's still the case but in any event a decrease in unemployment is not the same as an increase in employment. Employment can increase while unemployment remains the same. There is another recent exacerbating factor, BTW. Due to the collapse of the financial world, many would-be retirees put off retirement indefinitely, so the slots they would have opened up remain closed. This makes the most recent figures even more encouraging and also makes decreasing unemployment that much more difficult. I'll leave it to wiegie to judge whether that last paragraph is significant or not. Unlike you, I'm willing to entertain expert analysis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) I'm not sure why the unemployment rate at the end of this year being projected 8.9% is more important than it being 5.5% at the end of 2017. Methinks it's obvious ice didn't want to mention anything that could put things in a more positive light. God forbid Glen Beck's lovechild would have to give Zobama's economic policies credit. Regardless, the CBO paper mentioned that the projections could change over time based on factors like yesterday's job reports: An article from this morning. The Congressional Budget Office has predicted 8.9 percent unemployment for the year; the Federal Reserve has predicted between 8.2 and 8.5 percent. Likewise, Moody's Analytics had expected the unemployment rate to be at 8.5 percent at the end of the year. Moody's Analytics, for one, now is reconsidering its predictions. Edited February 4, 2012 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice1 Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) Unlike you, I'm willing to entertain expert analysis. The Congressional Budget Office is a Federal Agency. It is non partisan in nature. Douglas W. Elmendorf is the Director with both a Masters and PHD in Economics from Harvard. I actually posted the the CBO link as they are in fact considered expert and the federal government relies on them extensively. It seems you are arguing that 8% unemployment is somehow a good thing if it remains stable. That is a poor argument on your part regardless of how you frame it with minutia. The number of unemployed using the United States Department of Labor is 12.8 Million. Good Luck with that. Edited February 4, 2012 by Ice1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.