Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner annonced that the nation's 9.7% unemployment is something we might look forward to seeing for a while. That's unfortunate. After about a trillion in "stimulus" and jobs bills, one would think things would improve more rapidly. Hmm...maybe there's something to what others have been saying about the fact that pumping money into the state is not the best way to create jobs.
Actually they claimed unemployment wouldn't go above eight (8) percent.
But outside of that, you are 100% correct. They fed us bullshit, and now they are demanding we like the shit sandwich, or you are a hater, a bigot and a racist.
That isn't working for them, as the polls show.
my anti groupie can't get through life without me.
They declared that it would keep unemployment around 7%.
No they didn't. They didn't even "declare" 8%, which is the number cited in the white paper, which was simply a couple of economists, using past models, determining that unemployment COULD stabilize around the 8% level. They made NO GUARANTEES.
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace
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. In light of the substantial quarter-to-quarter variation in the estimates of job creation, we believe a reasonable range for 2010Q4 is 3.3 to 4.1 million jobs created.
B. Jobs Effects of the Components of the Recovery Package
To estimate the jobs effect of each potential component of the package, we use an analysis similar to what we use to estimate the overall jobs effect. We take an estimate of the amount of spending related to a component and apply the relevant multiplier to estimate the likely overall effect on GDP. The total effect on jobs is then estimated using the 1% of GDP equals 1 million jobs rule of thumb.
We further consider the direct and indirect effects of the program. The direct effects are those coming from the hiring directly caused by the program. Here we include not just workers hired by the federal government under the program, which we expect to be a relatively small number, but workers hired under projects financed by the program and workers hired to produce the goods demanded as the result of tax credits and subsidies targeted to specific activities (such as smart electrical meters and software systems for health IT). The indirect effects are those coming from the fact that the newly employed workers spend more and this stimulates other industries. For core spending programs, we assume the direct output effects move one-for-one with the spending increase. Broad tax cuts have jobs effects, but they stem only from indirect effects: tax cuts only have effects when people go out and spend the money. One dollar of state fiscal relief is assumed to result in $0.60 in higher government purchases (largely averting spending reductions that were assumed in the baseline) and $0.30 in lower government taxes (largely due to preventing state and local tax increases that were assumed in the baseline). The results are shown in Table 2.
#67. To: war (#48) Keep hiding behind the bozo, bozo. (laughing) You've always been a world class pussy. Badeye posted on 2010-01-14 16:12:48 ET Reply Trace