Unemployment falls again to 8.3%

[trenchfoot]

Agreed, but I think this year's election always was going to be about the economy. If the unemployment rate is comfortably in the 7's come November Obama can say look it was slow, but I've knocked off 3% unemployment and the last president bumped it up by more than that. Stick with me and we'll be down to 5s soon enough. And it will work, whether he is truly responsible or not.

Nah, I hate to disagree with you on this specific point, but like a couple of Repub posters in this thread unintentionally implied, we will all be told to believe that the absolute obstructionism, the concerted effort to discredit and malign Obama's recovery efforts every single possible way and the maximum effort to keep the economy in the doldrums so long as Obama is in office are the reasons for any good news appearing regarding the economy.

And guess what? For some reason I could never understand, millions of clueless voters will believe that constant mezmerizing looping message emanating from the Repub spin machine and like the proverbial lemmings blindly hurling themselves over a cliff, these folks will decide to vote against their own best interests despite having just recently gone through eight agonizing years of the Bush/Cheney/Rubber Stamp Repub led Congress real life tutorial on how to empty out the treasury, max out the Nation's credit card, crash and burn the economy, create millions more poor from the once stable middle class and all this while making the very rich so much richer still.

Because of this hypnotic hold the Repubs have over the gullible and the clueless as well as other disingenuous ploys the Repubs will unleash, it seems to me the election will be too close to call, although I do tend to lean toward an Obama victory.

 

[jpiniero]

The bump is probably just temporary though with the tax increase hit from Obamacare coming soon. The House GOP is obviously going to limit Obama's attempts to raise taxes further however.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by pcgeek11
It looks like the republican congress is dong a good job.

LOL - Unemployment rises - it must be Obama's fault! Unemployment drops - it's the Republicans in Congress! Yay!

This reminds me of the Christian view where everything good in life is attributed to God, and everything bad is the work of the devil.

The mind of radical religious rich Republicans.

One thing clear is how much they hate America.

 

[cybrsage]

As I said, I do not care who fixes the economy, I just want it fixed. We have seen first hand that both a small stimulous failed and a big stimulous failed. Lets not try another one, they simply do not work.

If a President simply does nothing and the economy fixes itself, I will be happy about that too...he was smart enough to stay out of the way.

 

[fskimospy]

As I said, I do not care who fixes the economy, I just want it fixed. We have seen first hand that both a small stimulous failed and a big stimulous failed. Lets not try another one, they simply do not work.

If a President simply does nothing and the economy fixes itself, I will be happy about that too...he was smart enough to stay out of the way.

What do you define as 'working'?

 

[cybrsage]

What do you define as 'working'?

Doing what it was intended to do. Must I bust out the chart created by the Preisdent's staff again?

 

[fskimospy]

Doing what it was intended to do. Must I bust out the chart created by the Preisdent's staff again?

What exactly do you believe it was intended to do? Give me exact figures and outcomes that you would have considered to be 'working'. Be very specific.

 

[TalonStrike]

The economy is improving and nothing could make the Repubs angrier.

 

[BoomerD]

I wish that was the case here...

http://www.modbee.com/2012/01/21/2034806/stanislaus-county-unemployment.html

The unemployment rate in Stanislaus County for 2011 finished 2 percentage points below where it started.

But the year-ending 16.1 percent unemployment rate was driven largely by a shrinking work force and less by an uptick in job growth.

 

[TalonStrike]

I wish that was the case here...

http://www.modbee.com/2012/01/21/2034806/stanislaus-county-unemployment.html

Stanislaus County? What in the world? You find some random county with a high unemployment rate and act like it is somehow representative of the economy as a whole?

????😕

 

[BoomerD]

Stanislaus County? What in the world? You find some random county with a high unemployment rate and act like it is somehow representative of the economy as a whole?

????😕

Some random county? Fuck you...it's where I happen to live.

Can't you read? Where did I say it was representative of the economy as a whole?
You'll notice that I said: "I wish that was the case here..."

 

[TalonStrike]

Some random county? Fuck you...it's where I happen to live.

Can't you read? Where did I say it was representative of the economy as a whole?
You'll notice that I said: "I wish that was the case here..."

lol you. Just move out of Stanislaus County then. Sounds like a pretty awful place.

 

[cybrsage]

What exactly do you believe it was intended to do? Give me exact figures and outcomes that you would have considered to be 'working'. Be very specific.

Are you actually this dense for real? I am starting to believe you are not just being stupid on purpose...

Its purpose was to keep unemployment below 8%:

It failed miserably.

 

[cybrsage]

The economy is improving and nothing could make the Repubs angrier.

Not at all, and I will use a democrat talking point to explain why:

Dems say republicans only care for the rich.
It is well known the rich make a lot of money when the economy is good. They make a lot less money when the economy is bad.

Therefor, the republicans must want the economy to be good, since that helps the rich.

🙂

 

[Matt1970]

Are you actually this dense for real? I am starting to believe you are not just being stupid on purpose...

Its purpose was to keep unemployment below 8%:

It failed miserably.

Almost 3 years to the day later and unemployment is almost to the level we were promised it would stay below.

 

[OrByte]

The right is down right FROTHY because of the good news about the economy.

Listening to the right wing radio loonies has me bustin a GUT all night..

good entertainment.

Mark Levin needs to check his tin foil hat....might be on a little too tight.

 

[TalonStrike]

Romney: Economy bad! Obama bad!

Uh oh. This won't be good for the narrative of the Repubs!

 

[fskimospy]

Are you actually this dense for real? I am starting to believe you are not just being stupid on purpose...

Its purpose was to keep unemployment below 8%:

It failed miserably.

*sigh* Time to educate you about the basics of public policy again. Doesn't any of this embarrass you enough to make you want to go learn something for yourself?

The purpose of the stimulus was not to keep unemployment below 8%. Its purpose was to reduce unemployment, which basically every credible economic analysis says it did. Please provide me with a single official source that says the purpose of the stimulus was to keep unemployment below 8%.

Note, this is not asking for a source that projects the unemployment reducing effects of the stimulus will end up keeping unemployment below 8% as you so foolishly provided, but a source that says that is the purpose of the stimulus as you have claimed. As a plus, maybe this can also serve to help teach you about what constitutes evidence. You've been having some trouble with that lately.

Or...maybe this time you'll admit you said something wrong. (lol, right)

 

[the DRIZZLE]

*sigh* Time to educate you about the basics of public policy again. Doesn't any of this embarrass you enough to make you want to go learn something for yourself?

The purpose of the stimulus was not to keep unemployment below 8%. Its purpose was to reduce unemployment, which basically every credible economic analysis says it did.

You mean like the CBO report that said it cost between 230k and 586k per job? Remember that by definition these are short term jobs the so cost is really staggering.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cbo-jobs-created-and-saved-stimulus-cost-minimum-average-228055-each

The stimulus was bad policy, and not just because the results were poor ex post.

 

[TalonStrike]

Those silly dilly econo-nerds were predicting that the unemployment rate would rise to 8.6% this month. Shows what they know.

 

[fskimospy]

You mean like the CBO report that said it cost between 230k and 586k per job? Remember that by definition these are short term jobs the so cost is really staggering.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cbo-jobs-created-and-saved-stimulus-cost-minimum-average-228055-each

The stimulus was bad policy, and not just because the results were poor ex post.

While I disagree that the stimulus was bad policy, at least you are making valid arguments against it.

I actually believe the stimulus should have 1.) been far larger and 2.) had the tax breaks in it replaced with additional spending. Virtually every independent economist is of the opinion that the stimulus was successful at lowering unemployment, which was its purpose. The question then becomes if the amount of jobs we got for it was worth the price we paid. I am of the opinion that it definitely was, but on that point reasonable people can certainly disagree.

The economic projections used for the stimulus were using data from late 2008 where the economists believed the economy had shrank at a 3.8% annual rate. It eventually turned out that the economy had shrank at an 8.9% rate during that time. So yeah, when the economy is shrinking at a rate that is 234% of what you thought it was, your projections are going to be wrong. That's why the whole argument of 'if unemployment went above X% then the stimulus was a failure' was just stupid.

 

[dmcowen674]

The right is down right FROTHY because of the good news about the economy.

Listening to the right wing radio loonies has me bustin a GUT all night..

good entertainment.

Mark Levin needs to check his tin foil hat....might be on a little too tight.

Levin hates America more than Hannity which I didn't think was possible.

 

[cybrsage]

This chart IS from the administration. We realize you have trouble reading English, but basic counting (at least up to 10) was learned in preschool.

Notice the 8% line they claim the stimulous will keep us below. Notice that unemployment is STILL not below 8%.

I know, I know, you will continue to say that 8% has nothing to do with the chart which was created by the government to show what the stimulous would do...you will continue to say that it did not fail even though it did not do what the chart from the administration claimed it would do.

 

[Matt1970]

While I disagree that the stimulus was bad policy, at least you are making valid arguments against it.

I actually believe the stimulus should have 1.) been far larger and 2.) had the tax breaks in it replaced with additional spending. Virtually every independent economist is of the opinion that the stimulus was successful at lowering unemployment, which was its purpose. The question then becomes if the amount of jobs we got for it was worth the price we paid. I am of the opinion that it definitely was, but on that point reasonable people can certainly disagree.

The economic projections used for the stimulus were using data from late 2008 where the economists believed the economy had shrank at a 3.8% annual rate. It eventually turned out that the economy had shrank at an 8.9% rate during that time. So yeah, when the economy is shrinking at a rate that is 234% of what you thought it was, your projections are going to be wrong. That's why the whole argument of 'if unemployment went above X% then the stimulus was a failure' was just stupid.

It's the same thing Clinton did. Preach it as the gospel because the numbers come from the top economic advisors of the day and then plead ignorance that things were much worse than they thought.

 

[fskimospy]

This chart IS from the administration. We realize you have trouble reading English, but basic counting (at least up to 10) was learned in preschool.

Notice the 8% line they claim the stimulous will keep us below. Notice that unemployment is STILL not below 8%.

I know, I know, you will continue to say that 8% has nothing to do with the chart which was created by the government to show what the stimulous would do...you will continue to say that it did not fail even though it did not do what the chart from the administration claimed it would do.

Yeap. Amazingly enough here in reality programs do not succeed or fail based upon their relationship to graphic projections made from inaccurate economic data. I would ask if you could point to a single independent economic expert who would share your opinion that the stimulus should be judged as a success or a failure based on whether or not unemployment cracked 8%, but I already know you can't.

Meh, your post has already been shown to be bullshit. That's all that was necessary. EDIT: I'm sad to see that you were unable to comprehend my simple explanation of why projections do not equal purpose.