Economy shrunk at twice the rate previously reported

[senseamp]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...01087&sid=aNivTjr852TI

July 31 (Bloomberg) -- The first 12 months of the U.S. recession saw the economy shrink more than twice as much as previously estimated, reflecting even bigger declines in consumer spending and housing, revised figures showed.

The world?s largest economy contracted 1.9 percent from the fourth quarter of 2007 to the last three months of 2008, compared with the 0.8 percent drop previously on the books, the Commerce Department said today in Washington.

Which explains why unemployment rate is higher than predicted and makes the people parading the "with and without stimulus" charts look like complete fools, not that they would ever admit it.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: senseamp
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...01087&sid=aNivTjr852TI

July 31 (Bloomberg) -- The first 12 months of the U.S. recession saw the economy shrink more than twice as much as previously estimated, reflecting even bigger declines in consumer spending and housing, revised figures showed.

The world?s largest economy contracted 1.9 percent from the fourth quarter of 2007 to the last three months of 2008, compared with the 0.8 percent drop previously on the books, the Commerce Department said today in Washington.

Which explains why unemployment rate is higher than predicted and makes the people parading the "with and without stimulus" charts look like complete fools, not that they would ever admit it.

So finally you are calling Obama a fool? It's his chart, afterall--the one you're referring to showing the unemployment impact of with and without stimulus.

But, as I've always thought, if you don't have a handle on the situation it's very hard to predict what your actions are going to result in.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: senseamp
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...01087&sid=aNivTjr852TI

July 31 (Bloomberg) -- The first 12 months of the U.S. recession saw the economy shrink more than twice as much as previously estimated, reflecting even bigger declines in consumer spending and housing, revised figures showed.

The world?s largest economy contracted 1.9 percent from the fourth quarter of 2007 to the last three months of 2008, compared with the 0.8 percent drop previously on the books, the Commerce Department said today in Washington.

Which explains why unemployment rate is higher than predicted and makes the people parading the "with and without stimulus" charts look like complete fools, not that they would ever admit it.

So finally you are calling Obama a fool? It's his chart, afterall--the one you're referring to showing the unemployment impact of with and without stimulus.

But, as I've always thought, if you don't have a handle on the situation it's very hard to predict what your actions are going to result in.

Obama team used data available at the time. That is not foolish. Bashing Obama for not being Nostradamus is.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Obama team used data available at the time. That is not foolish. Bashing Obama for not being Nostradamus is.

Yup, even the CBO got the unemployment forecast wrong. link

Under an assumption that current laws and policies regarding federal spending and taxation remain the same, CBO forecasts the following:

...

[*]An unemployment rate that will exceed 9 percent early in 2010.

 

[Phokus]

Topic Summary: in 2008

Republicans: OBAMA'S FAULT!

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: senseamp
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...01087&sid=aNivTjr852TI

July 31 (Bloomberg) -- The first 12 months of the U.S. recession saw the economy shrink more than twice as much as previously estimated, reflecting even bigger declines in consumer spending and housing, revised figures showed.

The world?s largest economy contracted 1.9 percent from the fourth quarter of 2007 to the last three months of 2008, compared with the 0.8 percent drop previously on the books, the Commerce Department said today in Washington.

Which explains why unemployment rate is higher than predicted and makes the people parading the "with and without stimulus" charts look like complete fools, not that they would ever admit it.

So finally you are calling Obama a fool? It's his chart, afterall--the one you're referring to showing the unemployment impact of with and without stimulus.

But, as I've always thought, if you don't have a handle on the situation it's very hard to predict what your actions are going to result in.

Obama team used data available at the time. That is not foolish. Bashing Obama for not being Nostradamus is.

You put my money where your mouth is and if you call it wrong you better expect some flak. He called it and got it wrong. The "data available at the time" was available to many people, many of whom thought it would get much worse than he did. He fvcked up, it's really quite simple and no need to obfuscate the matter.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Maybe he should have spent 8 trillion this year?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Skoorb

So finally you are calling Obama a fool? It's his chart, afterall--the one you're referring to showing the unemployment impact of with and without stimulus.

But, as I've always thought, if you don't have a handle on the situation it's very hard to predict what your actions are going to result in.

Obama team used data available at the time. That is not foolish. Bashing Obama for not being Nostradamus is.

You put my money where your mouth is and if you call it wrong you better expect some flak. He called it and got it wrong. The "data available at the time" was available to many people, many of whom thought it would get much worse than he did. He fvcked up, it's really quite simple and no need to obfuscate the matter.

Hyperbole

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
You put my money where your mouth is and if you call it wrong you better expect some flak. He called it and got it wrong. The "data available at the time" was available to many people, many of whom thought it would get much worse than he did. He fvcked up, it's really quite simple and no need to obfuscate the matter.

Who correctly forecast the unemployment numbers pre-stimulus package based on the data?

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Hyperbole

I think you used the wrong word

The premise of this thread threatens to rip from me the last remaining intellect I so tenuously hold. Basically:

Obama made an idiotic prediction (many, including me [afterall it was dead-easy], knew unemployment would get much worse than this graph said), the prediction was proven substantially wrong, and then for calling him out on being wrong, we are the complete fools? That really is the premise? Do you guys even remember what it's like not to have the smell of Obama's posterior in your nose?

 

[StageLeft]

Here is the infamous graph, his silly numbers made while unemployment was already steamrolling well toward his upper limit.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Skoorb
ou put my money where your mouth is and if you call it wrong you better expect some flak. He called it and got it wrong. The "data available at the time" was available to many people, many of whom thought it would get much worse than he did. He fvcked up, it's really quite simple and no need to obfuscate the matter.

Hyperbole

I think you used the wrong word

The premise of this thread threatens to rip from me the last remaining intellect I so tenuously hold. Basically:

Obama made an idiotic prediction (many, including me [afterall it was dead-easy], knew unemployment would get much worse than this graph said), the prediction was proven substantially wrong, and then for calling him out on being wrong, we are the complete fools? That really is the premise? Do you guys even remember what it's like not to have the smell of Obama's posterior in your nose?

No, I used the correct Word. One can only Project based upon available Data.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
He fvcked up, it's really quite simple and no need to obfuscate the matter.

There is a reason, it's called deflection.

You did a wonderful job pointing out just how crazy the OP is. To whom we are all fools for insufficient posterior attachment.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Skoorb
He fvcked up, it's really quite simple and no need to obfuscate the matter.

There is a reason, it's called deflection.

You did a wonderful job pointing out just how crazy the OP is. To whom we are all fools for insufficient posterior attachment.

Obama got it wrong. So who got it right?

 

[spidey07]

The apologists are very strong in this thread.

Face it, Obama was clueless and looks like a total fool for his little chart to push the bill. It didn't work, he was wrong, he's a fool for yet again not knowing what he was talking about.

First thing I thought of was "WOW! OP is finally calling Obama a fool, that's progress"

 

[StageLeft]

No, I used the correct Word. One can only Project based upon available Data.

I don't see your point; if everybody had the same projection there may be more to it, but many thought his numbers were crap when he came up with them. And they were right. They didn't even charge billions for it.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Topic Summary: in 2008

Republicans: OBAMA'S FAULT!

Solution : TAX CUTS!

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Skoorb
He fvcked up, it's really quite simple and no need to obfuscate the matter.

There is a reason, it's called deflection.

You did a wonderful job pointing out just how crazy the OP is. To whom we are all fools for insufficient posterior attachment.

Obama got it wrong. So who got it right?

Let me answer that with a question: Who else who spent hundreds of billions got it wrong? Anybody? Nobody else claimed they had it right at the same time as asking for hundreds of billions of tax dollars to spend.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

No, I used the correct Word. One can only Project based upon available Data.

I don't see your point; if everybody had the same projection there may be more to it, but many thought his numbers were crap when he came up with them. And they were right. They didn't even charge billions for it.

There are always varying Opinions and Naysayers. This is especially true concerning Economic matters. You criticism is over the top as Obama used the Data available.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Skoorb

No, I used the correct Word. One can only Project based upon available Data.

I don't see your point; if everybody had the same projection there may be more to it, but many thought his numbers were crap when he came up with them. And they were right. They didn't even charge billions for it.

There are always varying Opinions and Naysayers. This is especially true concerning Economic matters. You criticism is over the top as Obama used the Data available.

How is it over the top? He used the existing data, fed it through his paradigm and came out with a bullsh*t bunch of numbers. Others used the same data and came out with much better ones. Unfortunately, they were not put in charge of spending the money, though.

My criticism is not over the top at all. His numbers were not just a little wrong but hopelessly and shamefully wrong. And now he's basing future projections on other ones, but to date his projections have all been crap, so really he deserves some criticism.

I hate to do it, but can you think of another administration that was completely off base after projections that "used the Data available"? I can. Think 2002/2003.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Skoorb

No, I used the correct Word. One can only Project based upon available Data.

I don't see your point; if everybody had the same projection there may be more to it, but many thought his numbers were crap when he came up with them. And they were right. They didn't even charge billions for it.

There are always varying Opinions and Naysayers. This is especially true concerning Economic matters. You criticism is over the top as Obama used the Data available.

How is it over the top? He used the existing data, fed it through his paradigm and came out with a bullsh*t bunch of numbers. Others used the same data and came out with much better ones. Unfortunately, they were not put in charge of spending the money, though.

My criticism is not over the top at all. His numbers were not just a little wrong but hopelessly and shamefully wrong. And now he's basing future projections on other ones, but to date his projections have all been crap, so really he deserves some criticism.

Every Economist has their own way of doing things. You take the Data(aka Facts-albeit not Concrete), then you make Projections based upon a number of things. It is the "number of things" where different Economists will come up with different Projections. That's because most of those numbers are merely Projections themselves and will have a certain degree of Inaccuracy.

You are making a Mountain out of a Molehill...aka Hyperbole.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Skoorb

No, I used the correct Word. One can only Project based upon available Data.

I don't see your point; if everybody had the same projection there may be more to it, but many thought his numbers were crap when he came up with them. And they were right. They didn't even charge billions for it.

There are always varying Opinions and Naysayers. This is especially true concerning Economic matters. You criticism is over the top as Obama used the Data available.

How is it over the top? He used the existing data, fed it through his paradigm and came out with a bullsh*t bunch of numbers. Others used the same data and came out with much better ones. Unfortunately, they were not put in charge of spending the money, though.

My criticism is not over the top at all. His numbers were not just a little wrong but hopelessly and shamefully wrong. And now he's basing future projections on other ones, but to date his projections have all been crap, so really he deserves some criticism.

Every Economist has their own way of doing things. You take the Data(aka Facts-albeit not Concrete), then you make Projections based upon a number of things. It is the "number of things" where different Economists will come up with different Projections. That's because most of those numbers are merely Projections themselves and will have a certain degree of Inaccuracy.

You are making a Mountain out of a Molehill...aka Hyperbole.

Because I point out the graph at all or because it was not wrong enough? The graph is indicative of an entity that had no idea how severe the unemployment figures were going to be.

Tell me, have you ever tried to ask for a million bucks from your boss for a project because it would increase sales by $1.5M but in the end it only did it for $750k? And if your boss said I'm pissed off you screwed up, what's your reaction then, that you just used the data at the time? Ignoring the fact that one of your co-workers disagreed with the project to begin with and said that sales wouldn't even hit a million bucks? How do you think your boss would react?

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Topic Summary: in 2008

Republicans: OBAMA'S FAULT!

Idiots: While the stimulus package that we rolled through in mere days so far isn't near the success we imagined it would be, it still isn't Obama's fault. In fact, we're willing to place the blame on anyone else possible.

Now replace "idiots" with "Phokus/party liners"

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Phokus

Topic Summary: in 2008

Republicans: OBAMA'S FAULT!

Solution : TAX CUTS!

Goes both ways.

Democrats: BUSH'S FAULT!

Solution: TAX THE RICH!

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Because I point out the graph at all or because it was not wrong enough? The graph is indicative of an entity that had no idea how severe the unemployment figures were going to be.

Tell me, have you ever tried to ask for a million bucks from your boss for a project because it would increase sales by $1.5M but in the end it only did it for $750k? And if your boss said I'm pissed off you screwed up, what's your reaction then, that you just used the data at the time? Ignoring the fact that one of your co-workers disagreed with the project to begin with and said that sales wouldn't even hit a million bucks? How do you think your boss would react?

Skoorb is right here. So far, the data we have says that the stimulus package is not working nearly as well as Obama thought it would. It certainly is pumping billions into the economy, but not nearly as efficiently as previously touted, and at what cost? We are spending near a trillion dollars we don't have to artificially inflate the economy. While it might work in the short run, in the long run that trillion dollars will have to be paid back, and especially considering the trillions more Obama wants to spend on UHC, one can only conclude that when payment day comes, the government will have to drop many, many things to repay tomorrow what it borrows today. And when that happens, all this artificial buffering the economy is getting will vanish and who is to say that we won't be in the same place we are now; only years later and with a much higher deficit.

I will say this though. What Obama originally did in bailing out the banks was the right thing to do, whether we had the money or not. We were looking at the possible end of our economy as we know it. But this stimulus, it's not working.