Let me rephrase that more simply. Whether BO said it or not, they based their entire key economic policy of their first year on the belief that UE would not go higher than that number.

You guys are missing the point I was making. I was pointing out that Y2HH attributed a quote to Obama which was apparently false. That is all I was saying.

 

Yes he did.

Google and my memory say no, he didn't - but feel free to point it out if I am missing it. I obviously can't know everything he said, but that is a pretty stupid thing to say, and I'd be surprised if he went and said we wouldn't go above some specific number that way.

 

 

Google and my memory say no, he didn't - but feel free to point it out if I am missing it. I obviously can't know everything he said, but that is a pretty stupid thing to say, and I'd be surprised if he went and said we wouldn't go above some specific number that way.

 

 

That was the whole point of the "stimulus" and PASS IT NOW back then, was to make sure unemployment didn't exceed 8%.

Yes he did.

 

Actually, he never said that. Christina Romer authored a report as Chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisers. The report forecasted the recession to reach peak unemployment of 9% in 2010. The report said that unemployment would peak in 2009 with a stimulus act at around 8.5%

 

But the forecast did have a very interesting footnote to it.

 

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.

 

http://www.politifact.org/truth-o-meter/st...ama-promised-s/

Actually, he never said that. Christina Romer authored a report as Chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisers. The report forecasted the recession to reach peak unemployment of 9% in 2010. The report said that unemployment would peak in 2009 with a stimulus act at around 8.5%

 

But the forecast did have a very interesting footnote to it.

 

 

 

http://www.politifact.org/truth-o-meter/st...ama-promised-s/

 

Oh, Romer said it. So that means he gets a free pass because his administration is saintly.

Oh, Romer said it. So that means he gets a free pass because his administration is saintly.

 

Yes, exactly.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60U1PZ20100131

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House predicts that the United States will post a record $1.6 trillion budget deficit in the current fiscal year, a congressional source told Reuters on Sunday.

 

so, i'm guessing it will end up being at least 2 trillion. 2 trillion more debt IN ONE YEAR.

Oh wait... he never said that.

 

yes his administration did

Edited January 31, 201016 yr by mr_genius

yes his administration did

 

 

BUT THAT'S DIFFERENT!

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60U1PZ20100131

 

 

 

so, i'm guessing it will end up being at least 2 trillion. 2 trillion more debt IN ONE YEAR.

 

Yeah, because we still haven't passed any of the new proposed spending plans.

yes his administration did

You guys are amazing.

 

First, I was pointing out that a statement was false - and it was.

 

Second, this is STILL false. Some budget person said their guess was 8 to 9% UE, with the potential for up to 11%. So let's all be honest, and see what REALLY happened here - ONE budget person projected a range that was too low, when they were GUESSING. if you can't see how that's different than claiming that Obama said UE wouldn't go above 8%, then really, there's no point in discussing it. I should have just left it alone and let the poster go on posting falsehoods as facts.

 

You guys are amazing.

 

First, I was pointing out that a statement was false - and it was.

 

Second, this is STILL false. Some budget person said their guess was 8 to 9% UE, with the potential for up to 11%. So let's all be honest, and see what REALLY happened here - ONE budget person projected a range that was too low, when they were GUESSING. if you can't see how that's different than claiming that Obama said UE wouldn't go above 8%, then really, there's no point in discussing it. I should have just left it alone and let the poster go on posting falsehoods as facts.

 

Yep. The messiah (and/or his administration) is always right. Message received loud and clear.

Look, I don't care who in his administration said it, he USED that information to state his case for stimulus concerns, it was wrong, and things are even worse for wear despite the fact that they claim they're saving jobs and focusing on saving jobs.

 

It's safe to say that he, and his administration, have no idea what they're doing right now...they're guessing, and thus far, have guessed wrong.

 

And don't launch into a tirade of "what if's", because there is no way to know. 8% is 8% is 8% with or without stimulus or bank saving tarp loans. To the people in that "8% unemployment" (it's actually more like 20% counting the people who have given up looking for jobs), the system has already collapsed on them.

 

Too bad it's way higher than 8% now...and staying that way for a while. When you guys lose your jobs let's see if you vote for him again...that'll be the true test. Of course, you won't...because when reality hits home, it hurts. When reality is on the news, it's not so bad.

Edited February 1, 201016 yr by Y2HH

Look, I don't care who in his administration said it, he USED that information to state his case for stimulus concerns, it was wrong, and things are even worse for wear despite the fact that they claim they're saving jobs and focusing on saving jobs.

 

It's safe to say that he, and his administration, have no idea what they're doing right now...they're guessing, and thus far, have guessed wrong.

 

And don't launch into a tirade of "what if's", because there is no way to know. 8% is 8% is 8% with or without stimulus or bank saving tarp loans. To the people in that "8% unemployment" (it's actually more like 20% counting the people who have given up looking for jobs), the system has already collapsed on them.

 

Too bad it's way higher than 8% now...and staying that way for a while. When you guys lose your jobs let's see if you vote for him again...that'll be the true test. Of course, you won't...because when reality hits home, it hurts. When reality is on the news, it's not so bad.

 

It's more likely that they were using the best of the best of the best information, and just hoping that the name brand of Obama convinced people that things would be OK.

It's more likely that they were using the best of the best of the best information, and just hoping that the name brand of Obama convinced people that things would be OK.

 

I'm sure the 20% of the people not working are convinced.

 

I'm also sick of them claiming unemployment is 10%, when it's 20%. The methods used to count the unemployed in this country are criminal and ignorant.

I'm sure the 20% of the people not working are convinced.

 

I'm also sick of them claiming unemployment is 10%, when it's 20%. The methods used to count the unemployed in this country are criminal and ignorant.

This part is true (not sure I'd go so far as Criminal), but its the number that every administration has used for quite some time. And more importantly, its the one the media chooses to focus on.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60U1PZ20100131

 

 

 

so, i'm guessing it will end up being at least 2 trillion. 2 trillion more debt IN ONE YEAR.

For reference, this # is approximately 11% of GDP. Historically, the WWII deficits ran up to 20% in single years.

This part is true (not sure I'd go so far as Criminal), but its the number that every administration has used for quite some time. And more importantly, its the one the media chooses to focus on.

 

While saying criminal is going too far, we let them get away with this decade after decade. When they get to toss out numbers like 5%, it seems low...hell, even 10% doesn't seem all that bad. After all, if it's 10%, that must mean the other 90% of the country is at work! I blame previous presidents/administrations as much as I blame the current one for continuing to focus on this fake number, however, previous governments didn't go out of their way to claim transparency, this one did. So I'm holding him accountable for being, once again, as transparent as the Hoover dam.

While saying criminal is going too far, we let them get away with this decade after decade. When they get to toss out numbers like 5%, it seems low...hell, even 10% doesn't seem all that bad. After all, if it's 10%, that must mean the other 90% of the country is at work! I blame previous presidents/administrations as much as I blame the current one for continuing to focus on this fake number, however, previous governments didn't go out of their way to claim transparency, this one did. So I'm holding him accountable for being, once again, as transparent as the Hoover dam.

If you want this addressed, honestly, the best way is for journalists to actually be journalists. The UE number currently reported is what most people understand and expect. No President is going to make that shift - the only way to make the shift is for business writers to have a brain about it. I am surprised how often the writers, even in respected papers like WSJ or Crain's, don't do this.

If you want this addressed, honestly, the best way is for journalists to actually be journalists. The UE number currently reported is what most people understand and expect. No President is going to make that shift - the only way to make the shift is for business writers to have a brain about it. I am surprised how often the writers, even in respected papers like WSJ or Crain's, don't do this.

 

That's a whole different can of worms. I despise modern journalism, it's a complete bastardization of what journalism once stood for. Nobody reports news anymore, they report their version of it and try to pass it off as 100% unvarnished fact.

...because when reality hits home, it hurts. When reality is on the news, it's not so bad.

 

“A recession is when your neighbor loses his job; a depression is when you lose your job”

 

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan says that Hurricane Katrina was "the best thing that happened to the education system in New Orleans.”

 

 

 

Any wackos on MSDNC want to call him a racist for this comment?

 

 

 

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan says that Hurricane Katrina was "the best thing that happened to the education system in New Orleans.”

Helps if you have the full quote:

"That education system was a disaster, and it took Hurricane Katrina to wake up the community to say that 'we have to do better.' And the progress that they've made in four years since the hurricane is unbelievable. They have a chance to create a phenomenal school district. Long way to go, but that -- that city was not serious about its education."

 

He said Katrina allowed them to "reboot" the education system.

Helps if you have the full quote:

"That education system was a disaster, and it took Hurricane Katrina to wake up the community to say that 'we have to do better.' And the progress that they've made in four years since the hurricane is unbelievable. They have a chance to create a phenomenal school district. Long way to go, but that -- that city was not serious about its education."

 

He said Katrina allowed them to "reboot" the education system.

 

LMAO at you talking about context. Oh the irony.

LMAO at you talking about context. Oh the irony.

But in this case, he's right - the full quote is not anything like the out-of-context version.