Carney: Obama's New Jobs Plan Would Put Unemployment Below 9%

Here's the answer:

 

Lol

............

 

Please quote the specific text of the words that say that from the report to which you are referring.

I've read the report and I didn't read anything that said unemployment will be below 8%.

 

Romer's actual words, from that article:

Asked about the report, Romer said in an interview: "One could have presented it differently. If we'd only talked about the effect of the stimulus on the change in unemployment [instead of predicting the unemployment rate itself] . . . it would have been better. The thing I obviously couldn't control is the baseline forecast, and that's the thing I'm getting criticized for."

Except for the unexpectedly severe collapse in economic growth, Romer said, the report has turned out to be "very accurate."

 

no wonder the progressives have their panties in a bunch and and are obsessed with splitting hairs

• the U.S. economy netted no new jobs in August,
  
• that is after the creation of only 105,000 jobs between June and July
  
• national unemployment rate at 9.1 percent
  
• Africans-American unemployment rose from 15.9 percent in July to 16.7 percent in August
  
• Gallup’s polls has Barrack Obama down to 50 percent disapproval and 42 percent approval. Down 5 and 4 percent respectively
  
• GOP’s presidential field has narrowed to two candidates, and both are already running even with Obama in the polls

It's been a bad month for the move on wannabe interns

 

What does that chart have to do with the unemployment discussion?

You "claim" the stimulus created 3 million jobs, were they all part time work?

 

Any luck?

I couldn't find much either.

Isn't it amazing, how many times we've heard about how Obama promised the 8% unemployment as a selling point for his Stimulus package, and there is hardly an article that can be found on the internet about it before the stimulus was passed?

Isn't it astounding how so many peoples' belief can be wrong?

Propaganda works. A good lesson to us all.

 

Whose panty is in a knot?

The only panties in knots I see are conservatives, who can't find anything to support the claim Obama promised unemployment would not go above 8%.

 

The question was asked where did the jobs go. That's the answer.

Where did I claim that? Please cite my post you are referring to.

 

Here's Romer's actual words SHE wrote in her Jan 2009 report on the Stimulus.

 

That is correcting, stating the prediction based upon the forecast for the economy based on the data they had in 2008.

And of course, she put many more words in her report, such as these:


It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error. There is the obvious uncertainty that comes from modeling a hypothetical package rather than the final legislation passed by the Congress. But, there is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity.

...

Second, as emphasized above, there is considerable uncertainty in our estimates: both the impact of the package on GDP and the relationship between higher GDP and job creation are hard to estimate precisely.

...

As emphasized at many points in the analysis, there is substantial uncertainty around all of our estimates.

...

Forecasts of the unemployment rate without the recovery plan vary substantially. Some private forecasters anticipate unemployment rates as high as 11% in the absence of action.

...

These estimates, like the aggregate ones, are subject to substantial margins of error. One additional source of uncertainty concerns the impact of the state fiscal relief.

...

It is precisely because of the uncertainty surrounding this type of calculation that we do not do similar calculations for groups that are a smaller fraction of the labor force.


A prediction based upon an economic forecast from 2008 with numerous caveats noting that their estimates and forecasts could have substantial error? Sure.

A promise or affirmative statement that unemployment would not go above 8%? Hardly.

 

Your just too funny. She said without the stimulus unemployment could reach 8.8%, with it there hasn't been a single year with unemployment under 9%. That's more than a significant margin of error, she was flat out wrong.

 

She said no such thing, as you know.

Her report was based on economic forecasts at the time which projected the unemployment rate would would top out about 9%. CBO forecasts at that time projected the same thing.

No one denied that forecasts of the severity of the recession upon which Romer's projections were based were wrong. She admits it herself.

Economic projections are frequently wrong. That is why they are called projections and contain warnings that they are subject to significant error.

And not called "promises".

 

Case in point, from another thread:

It's like Iraq's WMD and corroboration with Al-Queda. Once the propaganda gets it out, it becomes ingrained truth for millions of unthinking people.

 

Imo, you all are wasting your time.

Iriemon has posted 84 times in this thread in less then 24 hours - more then the next 4 posters combined.

The guy is (imo) clearly at least somewhat obsessed about defending Obama at any cost.

There is obviously no changing his mind.

 

Why don't you just leave me alone!



Jeezus H Christ. You whine and (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about me bothering you when I respond to your posts. And you say *I'm* obsessed.

 

From Time magazine

 

No kidding? Thanks for clearing it up.

 

No, its not like that at all. One was a mistake based on avaiable inteligence that turned out to be wrong, the other is a complete leftist loser bald face lie and fantasy land propaganda based on pure incompetence and political buffoonery coupled with a complete inability to see that their previous attemptes at creating jobs and stimulous was a complete and utter failure. So the idiot is going to try it again? Just more of the same.

 

U mad.........

 

Naw, just can't find them jobs.

 

they never promised an employment rate below 8% thats true, but Obama did paint a rosey picture that he would create with his stimulus.......no actual numbers were thrown out but he did give the asumption of great things to come!

 

I remember during the campagn Obama kept pointing the finger at Bush on how large the deficit was, and now his deficits are out of this world!

 

The Romer projection showed unemployment going up, even with the stimulus. I'm not sure I'd describe that as "rosy".

 

Maybe we should try the Republican Tea Party tactic of threatening to shut down the Govt and have it default on its debt. That seems to have worked really well.