Did Obama make economy worse?
whygohome
Posts: 2,305
*****if you click on the url, the article provides some very good links.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... statistics
Did Obama make the economy worse? Not according to most statistics
By NBC's Mark Murray
Over the past two days, Mitt Romney has resurrected this claim hitting President Obama: He has made the economy worse.
Yesterday, when receiving Donald Trump's endorsement, Romney said:
“He’s frequently telling us that he did not cause the recession, and that’s true. But he made it worse.”
And today, according to NBC's Garrett Haake, he said something similar:
"This has been a tough time. And I know the president didn't cause this downturn -- this recession. But he didn't make it better, either. He made it worse. He made it worse because instead of focusing his energy on the economy and getting people back to work, he used his mandate being elected-- he used that to put through a series of programs that he and his base and his friends thought were important but frankly made it harder for our economy to recover. And so we've suffered."
However, most of the economic numbers don't support Romney's claim.
For example, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office found that the economic stimulus Obama signed into law added -- in the 4th quarter of 2009 -- between 1 million and 2 million employed workers and boosted the GDP between 1.5% to 3.5% higher than it would have been without the stimulus.
In addition, a more recent CBO study -- for the second quarter of 2011 -- found that the stimulus raised real GDP between 0.8% and 2.5% and lowered the unemployment rate between 0.5 and 1.6 percentage points, compared with what would have occurred without it.
And another analysis, by economists Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi, estimated that the stimulus raised 2010 real GDP by 3.4%, held the unemployment rate about 1.5 percentage points lower, and added nearly 2.7 jobs to U.S. payrolls.
Looking solely at quarterly Gross Domestic Product, it's gone from -6.7% in the first quarter of 2009 and -0.7% in the second quarter of '09, to positive territory ever since -- including 2.8% the past quarter.
And looking at monthly payroll statistics, the numbers have gone from a loss of 818,000 jobs in Jan. 2009 -- when Obama took office -- to 16-straight months of positive job growth, including a preliminary gain of 243,000 jobs in Jan. 2012.
The one metric that might support Romney's claim that Obama made the economy worse is the unemployment rate. When Obama took office, the unemployment rate stood at 7.8%, and it was 8.3% in his first full month as president.
The unemployment rate later rose to a high of 10.0% in Oct. 2009, and it remained at or above 9.0% for all of 2010 and most of 2011. But beginning in the fall of 2011, it began to decline, and it now sits at 8.3% -- the same percentage as it was in his first full month as president, before his policies went into effect.
When First Read reached out to the Romney campaign to provide additional data to support the claim that Obama has made the economy worse, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul responded: "The economy grew only 1.7% in [all of] 2011, the slowest growth in a non-recession year since the end of World War II. This is worse than growth in 2010 and is worse performance over time."
Also: "In Oct. 2009, 58.51% of the American population had a job. Today, 58.46% of the American population has a job. All that has changed is that fewer Americans are even trying to find a job –- the percentage of Americans in the labor force has declined from 65.0% to 63.7%."
And Saul adds that Obama's economic advisers -- before he took office -- said the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8.0%. And, of course, it still remains above that level.
Interestingly, back in June 2011, Romney used this same Obama-made-the-recession-worse rhetoric. But when NBC asked Romney why he made that claim -- when the data didn't support it -- he replied: "I didn't say that things are worse."
He went on to say:
What I said was that economy hasn't turned around, that you've got 20 million Americans out of work, or seriously unemployed; housing values still going down. You have a crisis of foreclosures in this country. The economy, by the way, if you think the economy is great and going well, be my guest. But the president of the United States, when he put in place his stimulus plan and borrowed $787 billion, said he would hold unemployment below 8% -- and 8% seemed like an awfully high number. It hasn't been below 8% since. That's failure. We're over 9% unemployment. That's failure. He set the bogie himself at 8% ,which strikes me as a very high number and we're still above that three years later.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... statistics
Did Obama make the economy worse? Not according to most statistics
By NBC's Mark Murray
Over the past two days, Mitt Romney has resurrected this claim hitting President Obama: He has made the economy worse.
Yesterday, when receiving Donald Trump's endorsement, Romney said:
“He’s frequently telling us that he did not cause the recession, and that’s true. But he made it worse.”
And today, according to NBC's Garrett Haake, he said something similar:
"This has been a tough time. And I know the president didn't cause this downturn -- this recession. But he didn't make it better, either. He made it worse. He made it worse because instead of focusing his energy on the economy and getting people back to work, he used his mandate being elected-- he used that to put through a series of programs that he and his base and his friends thought were important but frankly made it harder for our economy to recover. And so we've suffered."
However, most of the economic numbers don't support Romney's claim.
For example, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office found that the economic stimulus Obama signed into law added -- in the 4th quarter of 2009 -- between 1 million and 2 million employed workers and boosted the GDP between 1.5% to 3.5% higher than it would have been without the stimulus.
In addition, a more recent CBO study -- for the second quarter of 2011 -- found that the stimulus raised real GDP between 0.8% and 2.5% and lowered the unemployment rate between 0.5 and 1.6 percentage points, compared with what would have occurred without it.
And another analysis, by economists Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi, estimated that the stimulus raised 2010 real GDP by 3.4%, held the unemployment rate about 1.5 percentage points lower, and added nearly 2.7 jobs to U.S. payrolls.
Looking solely at quarterly Gross Domestic Product, it's gone from -6.7% in the first quarter of 2009 and -0.7% in the second quarter of '09, to positive territory ever since -- including 2.8% the past quarter.
And looking at monthly payroll statistics, the numbers have gone from a loss of 818,000 jobs in Jan. 2009 -- when Obama took office -- to 16-straight months of positive job growth, including a preliminary gain of 243,000 jobs in Jan. 2012.
The one metric that might support Romney's claim that Obama made the economy worse is the unemployment rate. When Obama took office, the unemployment rate stood at 7.8%, and it was 8.3% in his first full month as president.
The unemployment rate later rose to a high of 10.0% in Oct. 2009, and it remained at or above 9.0% for all of 2010 and most of 2011. But beginning in the fall of 2011, it began to decline, and it now sits at 8.3% -- the same percentage as it was in his first full month as president, before his policies went into effect.
When First Read reached out to the Romney campaign to provide additional data to support the claim that Obama has made the economy worse, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul responded: "The economy grew only 1.7% in [all of] 2011, the slowest growth in a non-recession year since the end of World War II. This is worse than growth in 2010 and is worse performance over time."
Also: "In Oct. 2009, 58.51% of the American population had a job. Today, 58.46% of the American population has a job. All that has changed is that fewer Americans are even trying to find a job –- the percentage of Americans in the labor force has declined from 65.0% to 63.7%."
And Saul adds that Obama's economic advisers -- before he took office -- said the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8.0%. And, of course, it still remains above that level.
Interestingly, back in June 2011, Romney used this same Obama-made-the-recession-worse rhetoric. But when NBC asked Romney why he made that claim -- when the data didn't support it -- he replied: "I didn't say that things are worse."
He went on to say:
What I said was that economy hasn't turned around, that you've got 20 million Americans out of work, or seriously unemployed; housing values still going down. You have a crisis of foreclosures in this country. The economy, by the way, if you think the economy is great and going well, be my guest. But the president of the United States, when he put in place his stimulus plan and borrowed $787 billion, said he would hold unemployment below 8% -- and 8% seemed like an awfully high number. It hasn't been below 8% since. That's failure. We're over 9% unemployment. That's failure. He set the bogie himself at 8% ,which strikes me as a very high number and we're still above that three years later.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
-
Honestly, I don't know a lot when it comes to US politics, but from an outsider's point of view it seems your government has become so partisan that it is virtually paralyzed. I don't think a different President will make one bit of difference.0
-
republicans think so. the well informed know it's not that simple. he's working towards making it better. has everything worked? nope, but I doubt any one government could fix this mess, dem or rep or tea party. especially when, as blueandwhite said, he can't get anything done when the republicans are blocking everything he does for the sole purpose of ruining his presidency rather than helping the american people.Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 20140 -
i dont think the stats are right. I dont know how you could look at the financial and economic situation on january 19, 2009, the day obama got into the white house, and look at it in 2012, and i dont think their is any question the economy has only worsened. more people losing their jobs. more foreclosures. more lost homes and apartments. more people out of work.
the occupy wall street movement sure as hell didnt start up because obama was listening to the pleas of those who are hit hardest by the economy.
obama will be viewed in the history books as just as much a failure of a president as bush was. both refused to listen to a populace, and both were clueless.
continuing the wars, threatening to start other wars, bailing out the banks and corporations, continuing the legacy of torture and war crimes of the bush years, all have massive impact on our economy.0 -
Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:republicans think so. the well informed know it's not that simple. he's working towards making it better. has everything worked? nope, but I doubt any one government could fix this mess, dem or rep or tea party. especially when, as blueandwhite said, he can't get anything done when the republicans are blocking everything he does for the sole purpose of ruining his presidency rather than helping the american people.
obama is the president. he can do whatever he wants. if he wants to bring all the troops home from every country, he can. if he wants to set up FDR-esque new deals where he puts millions to work, he can. if he wants to help bail out actual human beings, and not banks and corporations, he can do this.
its obamas presidency, his war and his economy. obama is a centrist democrat, i'd even label him a centrist right democrat. People bought into the idea he was going to change things, partly because people were tired of bush and because obama convinced people ala Nixon's "i have a secret plan to end the war in vietnam", that his presidency would somehow be different and more tolerant. Obviously, people wagered wrong.
When he came into office, Obama had a clear agenda people wanted him to pursue. they wanted an end to the wars. they wanted an end to torture and lies and war crimes. they wanted an end to global hegemony. they wanted jobs, and help and to be able to afford their homes, aprtments, and other items. they wanted a president who was the exact opposite of bush.0 -
You know enough about our politics to make a very accurate observation.blueandwhite wrote:Honestly, I don't know a lot when it comes to US politics, but from an outsider's point of view it seems your government has become so partisan that it is virtually paralyzed. I don't think a different President will make one bit of difference."The stars are all connected to the brain."0 -
I don't think that's ever been true, especially in recent US history.musicismylife78 wrote:
obama is the president. he can do whatever he wants."It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
brianlux wrote:
I don't think that's ever been true, especially in recent US history.musicismylife78 wrote:
obama is the president. he can do whatever he wants.
i'd say bush is an example of my statement being true. Bush did what he wanted. Obviously he had major help by having the tacit approval of most democrats in congress and the house, but still, he's a great example of this.
bush was able to do what he wanted, torture, start illegal wars, spy, etc...
I think its cowardly to say obama doesnt have the power to do the right thing. He has the power. its just people naively thought he was going to be progressive and change the country around.
Obama had all the power in the world to do any number of things when he became president. If he wanted to end the war and bring everyone home, he could have. I think its silly anyone would even argue that. If he wanted to start some national program that would put people to work he could have done that.
I dont get the controversy.
Obamas inaction will be his legacy0 -
He made it ''yes we can!''....Adelaide 17/11/2009, Melbourne 20/11/2009, Sydney 22/11/2009, Melbourne (Big Day Out Festival) 24/01/20140
-
If congress had allowed his jobs bill to pass - or allowed desparately needed spending on infrastructure - we'd be in much better shape.
But when there stated primary goal was not to fix the economy but to prevent a 2nd term for Obama why would they let any of his proposals improve things?
Look at his foreign policy work where Congress didn't have to approve everything - he got Bin Laden and did just enough in Libya.0 -
musicismylife78 wrote:i dont think the stats are right. I dont know how you could look at the financial and economic situation on january 19, 2009, the day obama got into the white house, and look at it in 2012, and i dont think their is any question the economy has only worsened. more people losing their jobs. more foreclosures. more lost homes and apartments. more people out of work.
the occupy wall street movement sure as hell didnt start up because obama was listening to the pleas of those who are hit hardest by the economy.
obama will be viewed in the history books as just as much a failure of a president as bush was. both refused to listen to a populace, and both were clueless.
continuing the wars, threatening to start other wars, bailing out the banks and corporations, continuing the legacy of torture and war crimes of the bush years, all have massive impact on our economy.
Sorry, dude/dudette, but your posts seem inaccurate.0 -
Also - you really can't just pick 2 points - ie, inauguration and now- and get any meaningful comparison from that. You have to look at the trend when he came in - which was a STEEP curve down potentially into another great depression - and the fact that the curve has turned upwards. It may not be where everyone wants it to be, but it certainly isn't worse then it would have been without the actions that were taken.0
-
musicismylife78 wrote:brianlux wrote:
I don't think that's ever been true, especially in recent US history.musicismylife78 wrote:
obama is the president. he can do whatever he wants.
i'd say bush is an example of my statement being true. Bush did what he wanted. Obviously he had major help by having the tacit approval of most democrats in congress and the house, but still, he's a great example of this.
bush was able to do what he wanted, torture, start illegal wars, spy, etc...
I think its cowardly to say obama doesnt have the power to do the right thing. He has the power. its just people naively thought he was going to be progressive and change the country around.
Obama had all the power in the world to do any number of things when he became president. If he wanted to end the war and bring everyone home, he could have. I think its silly anyone would even argue that. If he wanted to start some national program that would put people to work he could have done that.
I dont get the controversy.
Obamas inaction will be his legacy
bush was able to do anything he wanted because of one thing and one thing only: the politics of fear. after 9/11, he could have bombed France and gotten away with it for fucks sakes.
turning the country around economically and starting wars are two completely different things when it comes to having power to do things as commander. america is a society of war. if they fear another culture enough, they'll support military action.
but when it comes to adding money to schools and the health of its citizens, then the rich (rep) fucking hate you and won't let anything get through.
I'm not saying Obama is perfect by any stretch, all I'm saying is that his battle overcoming the past indiscretions and the present partisan bullshit has been astronomical. no one man, president or not, can be expected to overcome all that.
but at least he'll have a second term to give it a shot.Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 20140 -
so the occupy wallstreet movement, in your mind is not related at all to a large portion of the populaces frustration and rage, not only at obama, but all politicians absolute disreguard for caring about the common man or woman? i think its pretty damn clear.
Obamas a one term president. If he had fixed the economy, he'd be the most popular man on earth and would win the 2012 relection by a landslide.
as it stands, he's enormously unpopular, has us engaged in 2 wars the majority of americans view as unneccesary and pointless, and is doing nothing while the economy worsens.
Im not really sure how praising obama solves anything. one he hasnt done anything worthy of being called out for, and two, hes been a complete failure of a president.
the obama and bush administrations, both in terms of actual individuals in his cabinet, and policies and stands are identical.
He's not getting my vote thats for damn sure, and i think its clear, people want a real change.
The republicans hate obama. but what makes obama unique is his own party and the left overwhelmingly despise him. He's a one term president. failure.0 -
I have to disagree somewhat - remember that GM is still here and not bankrupt, and that it may take longer than 3-4 years to fix the economy which was damaged over an 8 year period of time.musicismylife78 wrote:so the occupy wallstreet movement, in your mind is not related at all to a large portion of the populaces frustration and rage, not only at obama, but all politicians absolute disreguard for caring about the common man or woman? i think its pretty damn clear.
Obamas a one term president. If he had fixed the economy, he'd be the most popular man on earth and would win the 2012 relection by a landslide.as it stands, he's enormously unpopular, has us engaged in 2 wars the majority of americans view as unneccesary and pointless, and is doing nothing while the economy worsens.
He inherited these wars. You point out that Americans view those wars as 'unnecessary and pointless', however in 2003 when they were started, Obama voted against going into Iraq, and anyone who opened their mouth against war was denounced as unpatriotic or worse. The majority of Americans did support the war at that time. I was not one of them - never for one day did I agree in the slightest with going into Iraq. It was not a popular position to have in 2003. Also remember that we are now out of Iraq. On Obama's watch. Here is a copy of Obama's speech in 2002 on the subject of the coming Iraq war:
http://lessig.org/blog/2008/01/barack_o ... peech.htmlHe's not getting my vote thats for damn sure, and i think its clear, people want a real change.
The republicans hate obama. but what makes obama unique is his own party and the left overwhelmingly despise him. He's a one term president. failure.
You certainly have a right to your opinion, but what sources can you cite that say the Democratic party and 'the left' overwhelmingly despise him? I don't get that sense at all. I do feel things could have gone better, but he has to deal at every turn, with an obstructionist republican majority in congress who, IMO, would rather see him fail than help the country.R.i.p. Rigoberto Alpizar.
R.i.p. My Dad - May 28, 2007
R.i.p. Black Tail (cat) - Sept. 20, 20080 -
musicismylife78 wrote:so the occupy wallstreet movement, in your mind is not related at all to a large portion of the populaces frustration and rage, not only at obama, but all politicians absolute disreguard for caring about the common man or woman? i think its pretty damn clear.
Obamas a one term president. If he had fixed the economy, he'd be the most popular man on earth and would win the 2012 relection by a landslide.
as it stands, he's enormously unpopular, has us engaged in 2 wars the majority of americans view as unneccesary and pointless, and is doing nothing while the economy worsens.
Im not really sure how praising obama solves anything. one he hasnt done anything worthy of being called out for, and two, hes been a complete failure of a president.
the obama and bush administrations, both in terms of actual individuals in his cabinet, and policies and stands are identical.
He's not getting my vote thats for damn sure, and i think its clear, people want a real change.
The republicans hate obama. but what makes obama unique is his own party and the left overwhelmingly despise him. He's a one term president. failure.
1) he ended the Iraq war and brought your troops home.
2) Osama bin Laden was captured and killed under his command. remember him? that guy that killed thousands of your civilians? the guy that Bush used as an excuse to go after Saddam's oil? if that had been done under Bush you all would be praising him as the second coming of Jesus. Bush failed miserably. yeah, he got Saddam. big whoop. Saddam had nothing to do with anything in the first damn place.
3) you are not sure how praising obama solves anything? aren't people, including you, allowed their opinion on the topic at hand? :?
4) you think occupy wallstreet was directed at Obama? Obama is as disgusted at the 1% as everyone in that movement is!
5) he might be a one term president if the republican party had some decent competetion for him. they're all schlubs.
6) do you HONESTLY believe that ANY PRESIDENT could possibly fix Bush's debt in one term? HONESTLY??Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 20140 -
These arguments make me puke. Read the title of the article. “Did Obama make the economy worse? Not according to most statistics”… then they go on to recite nonsensical claims, some of which aren’t even “statistics”. But, even the “statistics” are nonsense.
(P.S. I don’t want to bash Obama here. I want to bash the article and it’s points).
1) They say the CBO says we would’ve lost more jobs without the stimulus. So, in other words, they start by using a “counterfactual” (look it up if you don’t know what that means) “STATISTIC” as their evidence. One could easily set up a model to say, and produce another counterfactual statistic that say we would’ve lost less jobs without the stimulus. It’s a counterfactual statistic, not produced as a unit of measurement.
The CBO also made a lot of forecasts, saying that GDP growth is going to be horrid in 2012 and 2013 (could this be partially due to us blowing our load on stimulus?)…. And the unemployment rate will increase this year and the next. Why don’t they mention that?
2) Next they cite my old boss’ paper, which used “couterfactuals” to say the unemployment rate would’ve been worse without the stimulus. More counterfactuals. Up until now, the article hasn’t used one real statistic that’s not a forecast or estimate.
3) The third statistic they mention is GDP growth. They explain that Real GDP “growth” is no longer negative; so therefore, things are better. First, let’s just focus on growth. The average GDP growth rate under President Obama is 1.4%. This is very very much below average and undoubtedly the worst of any President in recent times. Certainly worse than Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr. and Reagan.
But, more importantly… growth is probably not the fairest measure. Although GDP growth is important in determining “recessions”… does it really help with determining if we’re better off? Probably not. Instead, I would look at Real GDP in totality. This measures the “size” of our economy. According to this statistic, up until in the fourth quarter of 2011 (the last measure recorded) our economy was “smaller” under President Obama then his predecessor. That means it took the man 3 years to get the economy to slightly bigger status than it was in 2008. Can you argue that GDP is better now than 2008? Yes, ever so slightly. But, could every President in recent times argue it was better after their Presidency? Yes. Who’s differential (GDP at the beginning to end) will be the worst in recent times? Obamas.
4) Then they go to jobs. Once again, they start talking job losses in one month (January 2009), as if one month changes dictate a constant reality. The easy response to this one is this – more jobs have been lost under President Obama than have been gained. In other words, in January 2009 we had 133561000 employed. In January 2012 we have 132409000. That’s a lot less. We’re certainly worse off here.
This wasn’t to pick on Obama. It’s to say these arguments are terrible arguments.Here's a new demo called "in the fire":
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="0 -
JaneNY wrote:
I have to disagree somewhat - remember that GM is still here and not bankrupt, and that it may take longer than 3-4 years to fix the economy which was damaged over an 8 year period of time.musicismylife78 wrote:so the occupy wallstreet movement, in your mind is not related at all to a large portion of the populaces frustration and rage, not only at obama, but all politicians absolute disreguard for caring about the common man or woman? i think its pretty damn clear.
Obamas a one term president. If he had fixed the economy, he'd be the most popular man on earth and would win the 2012 relection by a landslide.as it stands, he's enormously unpopular, has us engaged in 2 wars the majority of americans view as unneccesary and pointless, and is doing nothing while the economy worsens.
He inherited these wars. You point out that Americans view those wars as 'unnecessary and pointless', however in 2003 when they were started, Obama voted against going into Iraq, and anyone who opened their mouth against war was denounced as unpatriotic or worse. The majority of Americans did support the war at that time. I was not one of them - never for one day did I agree in the slightest with going into Iraq. It was not a popular position to have in 2003. Also remember that we are now out of Iraq. On Obama's watch. Here is a copy of Obama's speech in 2002 on the subject of the coming Iraq war:
http://lessig.org/blog/2008/01/barack_o ... peech.htmlHe's not getting my vote thats for damn sure, and i think its clear, people want a real change.
The republicans hate obama. but what makes obama unique is his own party and the left overwhelmingly despise him. He's a one term president. failure.
You certainly have a right to your opinion, but what sources can you cite that say the Democratic party and 'the left' overwhelmingly despise him? I don't get that sense at all. I do feel things could have gone better, but he has to deal at every turn, with an obstructionist republican majority in congress who, IMO, would rather see him fail than help the country.
Musicismylife78 has some very valid points. I mean look at how half assed the healthcare bill Obama got in was. It's basically a huge scam to further make insurance companies even more money. Progressives wanted real change. Single payer style change.
But although liberals and progressives are unhappy with his performance, they will still come out in droves to support him over any of the idiots in the GOP that he will be facing. Except for maybe Ron Paul.
If Obama does get a second term, hopefully he uses it to enact some real change. I'm not holding my breath though.0 -
November's a long way off."It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0
-
Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:musicismylife78 wrote:schlubs
Word of the week for me overhere!
YOU SCHLUBS!
woop woop
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?0 -
inlet13 wrote:These arguments make me puke. Read the title of the article. “Did Obama make the economy worse? Not according to most statistics”… then they go on to recite nonsensical claims, some of which aren’t even “statistics”. But, even the “statistics” are nonsense.
(P.S. I don’t want to bash Obama here. I want to bash the article and it’s points).
1) They say the CBO says we would’ve lost more jobs without the stimulus. So, in other words, they start by using a “counterfactual” (look it up if you don’t know what that means) “STATISTIC” as their evidence. One could easily set up a model to say, and produce another counterfactual statistic that say we would’ve lost less jobs without the stimulus. It’s a counterfactual statistic, not produced as a unit of measurement.
The CBO also made a lot of forecasts, saying that GDP growth is going to be horrid in 2012 and 2013 (could this be partially due to us blowing our load on stimulus?)…. And the unemployment rate will increase this year and the next. Why don’t they mention that?
Maybe some "key points" from the CBO need to be highlighted again:
"For example, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office found that the economic stimulus Obama signed into law added -- in the 4th quarter of 2009 -- between 1 million and 2 million employed workers and boosted the GDP between 1.5% to 3.5% higher than it would have been without the stimulus.
In addition, a more recent CBO study -- for the second quarter of 2011 -- found that the stimulus raised real GDP between 0.8% and 2.5% and lowered the unemployment rate between 0.5 and 1.6 percentage points, compared with what would have occurred without it."
So you want to reference the CBO when it says the economy is going to get worse, and then want to bash the CBO when it says jobs were saved by the stimulus.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help