Chuck, that is one of the worst articles I've ever read. I work for the Labor Department and used to work for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I know how it all works and that article is as partisan as it gets. And I know that the unemployment rate will hit 11% most likely before we recover. What I'm yet to see is where your quote from Obama is that we would never get higher than 8% unemployment. That's what I'm looking for. Are you really just spouting crap from Foxnews or do you have a legit source that shows Obama making an idiotic statement like the above?

I just dont know what to say. If you know how it works then surely you know what Obama's people are saying about the "jobs saved" or "created" is bunk. The Wall Street Journal is a legit source.

. During a March hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, Chairman Max Baucus challenged Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the formula.

"You created a situation where you cannot be wrong," said the Montana Democrat. "If the economy loses two million jobs over the next few years, you can say yes, but it would've lost 5.5 million jobs. If we create a million jobs, you can say, well, it would have lost 2.5 million jobs. You've given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct."

I suppose you will say that Baucus is partisan and wrong on the subject too?

You might have tried entitling your thread, "The Press Has Become Nonprofessional Amateur Hacks", rather than "Obama Love", if you wanted a discussion about the "new" role of the press rather than about Obama.

or he'll just point out how you avoided answering the question he asked.

we all make mistakes. it's okay to admit them. then the conversation moves on.

or you could throw up another non-sequitur quote.

Yes, I'm an expert on how everyone misuses statistics. I've worked in government the past seven years under both Republican and Democrats and both want to spin the same numbers the same way. I know how silly it is and I know how silly the numbers in the Wall Street Journal were. And if you can find an Obama quote where he said we'd never get above 8% unemployment then I'll laugh my ass off at that. But really I don't think he's that dumb to say that. Anyone with a clue knows the economy may be turning now but there is always an unemployment lag after the recession ends so we will hit 11% before this is all said and done. And for anyone who understands how the unemployment statistics works they will understand that it will actually be a positive thing. That may sound weird but the unemployment rate is the percentage of people seeking a job that cannot get one related to the total labor force. So that means anyone who has given up "or discouraged workers" as they are known, will not count in the unemployment rate. So later this year the economy picks up even though we are at 10.5% unemployment all other signs are positive that we are recovering. So guess what happens? All those discouraged workers suddenly start looking for jobs again, now instead of counting as out of the labor force they count as unemployed. So we wind up with the unemployment rate jumping even though the economy is recovering. It is the way it works and is why I'd be shocked if Obama was on record saying the unemployment rate would never get above 8%.

If the shoe fits...

I didnt write the articles linked, just posted them. I suppose you will remain in denial regardless of any other studies, facts or opinions presented. Has obama ever done anything that you didn't fawn over?

Michelle.

At the beginning of January there were 134,300,000 people employed in the US
At the beginning of May there were 132,400,000 people employed in the US

How is this good?

And how exactly do they measure the amount of "discouraged" workers?

It's not good! No one is saying that. Although if you seasonally adjust the data it isn't as bad as it looks. No one doubts we are in a recession, the question is when we are getting out of it. And the unemployment rate is the worst gauge of it cause of how it is calculated. And is exactly why I think you are making up that Obama ever said it wouldn't get over 8%.

As crazy as it sounds the national unemployment rate is 100% based on the monthly Current Population Survey where people answer questions and are designated as employed, unemployed, or not in the labor force. Further questions distinguish between your reason for not being in the labor force which includes the discouraged worker category.

The Obama administration warned at the height of the stimulus debate that without the recovery package, the jobless rate would hit 8.8 percent in 2010 -- advisers had said the recovery package could hold unemployment to 7 percent.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...lus-criticism/

http://blog.taragana.com/n/white-hou...on-jobs-59484/
The assessment was the same as what Obama’s economists forecast in January, when they predicted that the economic stimulus would prevent unemployment from rising above 8 percent. But unemployment reached 8.9 percent in April and the chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer, said over the weekend that current predictions that unemployment would reach 9.5 percent were “pretty realistic.

The assessment was the same as what Obama's economists forecast in January, when they predicted that the economic stimulus would prevent unemployment from rising above 8 percent. But unemployment reached 8.9 percent in April and the chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer, said over the weekend that current predictions that unemployment would reach 9.5 percent were "pretty realistic.

"http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9849NH00&show_article=1


The quote is from an AP article

And where is your Obama quote? Now anyone who is categorized as an Obama economist by any media qualifies? Come on Chuck, you're better than that.

The unemployment rate is close to 10%. It is bad anyway you cut it. Who said we are getting out of the recession anytime soon?

I never said that Obama himself said it. Reread my post. Stop being petty and admit that Obama's people made this statement. Do you really think the AP and WSJ would print that assertion without it having been said? They made the statement that unemployment wouldnt go over 8% when talking up the stimulus package. If you guys would actually listen to what these people say maybe you wouldn't b so taken with his eloquent speeches.

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf


This is Obama's team's assessment of th stimulus packages effect on unemployment. On page 5 reference the graph. Better than quotes, actual visual evidence.

LOL. You are questioning WHY the press is so in love with Obama and I told you. Is what I said here true, ridiculous or not?

It seems this forum is almost a microcosm of the way the press handles obama. Half of the people on here love him and he can do no wrong. The other half, yourself included, would rather spend your time smearing his minister then actually talking about the issues.

For the record, one wasnt even an article. It was a blog.:)

Obama AND co would imply Obama said it. No getting out of this one Chuckgirvan. Just admit that there is not ONE quote you can find of him saying that or simply find a link to it. Its okay to be wrong.:)

Geez......get a room why don't ya!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090608/...obama_stimulus


For the first time, the administration admitted the economic forecasts it used to sell the stimulus were overly optimistic.

"At the time, our forecast seemed reasonable," Vice President Joe Biden's top economic adviser, Jared Bernstein, said Monday, explaining that the White House underestimated the scope of the recession. "Now, looking back, it was clearly too optimistic."

and i remember reading before the plan was voted on that many economists said it was too optimistic.

then there's this:

Obama’s promise to create so many jobs — a vow Vice-President Joe Biden made last month — quickly drew criticism from oponents and economists who have argued his stimulus plan thus far has not delivered. “I think these estimates are overly optimistic,” said Arpitha Bykere, a senior analyst with RGE Monitor. Bykere said it likely will be later this year before any meaningful job creation occurs from stimulus spending. The administration had always viewed the summer as a peak for stimulus spending, as better weather permitted more public works construction and federal agencies had processed requests from states and others. The government reported last week that the number of unemployed continues to rise; the unemployment rate now sits at 9.4 percent, the highest in more than 25 years. Hundreds of thousands of Americans continue to lose jobs each month, although fewer jobs were lost last month than expected. Just how much of an impact Obama’s recovery program had on the pace of job losses is up for debate. Obama has claimed as many as 150,000 jobs saved or created by his stimulus plan so far, even as government reports have shown the economy has lost more than 1.6 million jobs since Congress approved funding for the program in February.

Critical
Republicans remain critical of the stimulus spending, slamming it as a big government program that ultimately will do little for recovery. With only a fraction of the federal money actually spent thus far, it’s premature to give the stimulus plan credit for economic trends, congressional Republicans said last week. “I think the economy is just as likely to begin to recover on its own, wholly aside from this, before much of this has an impact. So I’m very skeptical that this massive sort of spending binge that we’ve engaged in is going to have much of an impact,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican. Obama initially offered his stimulus plan as a way to put people back to work, a promise that 3.5 million jobs would be saved or created. The administration’s predictions that unemployment would rise no higher than 8 percent already have been shattered, leaving Obama’s advisers to caution that job growth takes time, even as recovery spending intensifies.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/president-...eekly-address/


We begin this year and this Administration in the midst of an unprecedented crisis that calls for unprecedented action. Just this week, we saw more people file for unemployment than at any time in the last twenty-six years, and experts agree that if nothing is done, the unemployment rate could reach double digits.


I know that some are skeptical about the size and scale of this recovery plan. I understand that skepticism, which is why this recovery plan must and will include unprecedented measures that will allow the American people to hold my Administration accountable for these results.

I have never bothered smearing his Minister (though the minister seems to do enough smearing on his own) because i believe Obama to be a religious as myself, aka- not very. The Press is in love with Obama because they are mostly left leaning as he is. That is hard to debate. Are newspaper circulations and liberally slanted tv and radio programs rising because of all this is what the people want to hear theories? I disagree with most of his policies and agenda and the double talk and untruths that he propagates yet is given a pass for.

The blog contained a piece written by an AP writer and I posted another link to the same story afterwards. Wasnt the actual plan written by the administrations economists enough for you?

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf

Please spare me your ridiclousness. Please open the link, look who wrote the paper and look at the chart on page 5. You see the little line that never rises above 8%???

The problem with so many of you apologists is that you want to get caught up in minutia instead of the topic at hand. Once again...

Indeed.
Reagan deserves about as much credit for events that transpired in Berlin and Moscow during his administration as Rutherford B. Hayes deserves for the fact that the light bulb happened to be invented during his administration.

I thought I was all alone.

THis is just not true and you have proven it.
There are plenty of articles questioning the stimulus
package, health care, you name it. I know you have
read them. Even the great devil, the NY Times, "prints"
them.

NPR has a guest almost everyday the past week
voicing concern, and pointing out details of why
the stimulus plan will not work.

People are extremely skeptical about this administration's
fiscal methods. Even his own party has already started
to cut the meat out of the Carbon emissions plan, so much
so that the Democrats are alienating the environmental lobby.


The reason he is being given a "pass" is that there is
NO UNIFIED alternative. The Republicans have done
a horrible job of presenting their own coherent recipe
for recovery. They just know what won't work.
Republicans basically have no idea what will work.
And thats understandable, we are in a very difficult mess.

Obama has used this financial crisis as an opening to
try some extremely bold moves. He obviously thinks there
are some things the government should take on, and
some things that the government can do well, all of which
makes Republicans are very nervous because the government
clearly does nothing well. And should just stay the hell
out of everything. The country can run itself...

Somalia has done such a dandy job
without a government.

The NYT and NPR are the voices of dissent? You are delusional.

Thats a great line!:tro:

Where did I say they were the voices of dissent?

Of course they are not your beloved FOX news.
But take a look at the articles and listen.
They present some very good articles/guests that
present highly critical views with coherent explainations.

OK, I'll bite. The Soviet Union and Eastern bloc just collapsed on its own?:zz:

No of course not.

Their economic systems worked so well
that Reagan had to drive them to bankruptcy
with the Star War program...

This is clearly the reason Communists countries
have a difficult time. If they stay with the tried
an true ecomonic methods (not the Chinese version
of Capitalism) they will survive forever. It takes
a man like Reagan to force these strong systems
into finacial ruin.

Look what Bush and Cheney have done to North
Korea. North Korea was never in trouble until Bush/Cheney.
The people were oh so healthy and happy until Bush
forced their hand.

THis is just not true and you have proven it.
There are plenty of articles questioning the stimulus
package, health care, you name it. I know you have
read them. Even the great devil, the NY Times, "prints"
them.

NPR has a guest almost everyday the past week
voicing concern, and pointing out details of why
the stimulus plan will not work.

Uh here? The press has been overwhelmingly supportive of Obama despite obvious occasions that they would have jumped all over had someone else been in charge. Why anyone disputes this especially with the results of the recent Pew study on the subject is beyond me. And the Fox news thing is so overdone that it is just stupid. Is that the only thing that you can fire back at a Conservative? It is telling that people are unwilling to examine the issues without resorting to the same old tired crap.

Somehow or another Reagan is now a bad guy who did nothing. Riot has yet to respond how exactly Carter "got it" in terms of the middle east.

carter "got it" alright chuck ----------by getting shipped back to the peanut farm:D :D

Yes, the Camp David Accords were a complete failure. Read his current book about the middle east, then we can talk about it.

yeah tell those hostages that he "got it". The middle East became far more dangerous on his watch.

Okay. You win.

So the Iran hostage situation wasnt a big deal? Did he not "get" Iran? C'mon tell me with a straight face that the rise of the mullahs in Iran hasnt been the single most destabilizing force in the region.

Gets it like this?

CARTER: So the persecution of the Palestinians now, under the occupying territories—under the occupation forces—is one of the worst examples of human rights deprivation that I know. And I think it‘s—

SHUSTER: Even worse, though, than a place like Rwanda?

CARTER: Yes. I think—yes. You mean, now?

SHUSTER: Yes.

CARTER: Yes.

SHUSTER: The oppression now of the Israelis—of the Palestinians by the Israelis is worse than the situation in Africa like the oppression of Rwanda and the civil war?

CARTER: I‘m not going back into ancient history about Rwanda, but right now, the persecution of the Palestinians is one of the worst examples of human rights abuse I know, because the Palestinians—

SHUSTER: You‘re talking about right now, you‘re not talking about say, a few years ago.

CARTER: I‘m not talking about ancient history, no.

SHUSTER: Rwanda wasn‘t ancient history; it was just a few years ago.

CARTER: You can talk about Rwanda if you want to. I want to talk

about Palestine. What is being done to the Palestinians now is horrendous

in their own territory, by the occupying powers, which is Israel.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15951792/

I know right-wing msnbc

You might also mention Reagan putting up 200 marines
in a hotel in Lebanon as a show of force in the region
against the advice of a number of generals.
200 marines died in that hotel.

The hostage situation in Iran was bad but we did not lose 200
good people in one swift action. Iran was going to crumble.
The writing was on the wall before Carter. Carter did not help
the situation however. The Shah just fell faster than under
Carter than he would have anyway.

As any new president is and more so because he is black.
Or he says he is black. But overwhelming supportive of his
economic policies... no frggn way. The press is interviewing
numerous economists and bankers etc... that are all pointing
out what they think to be huge flaws. Almost everyday.

And its easy because Obama is moving at lightning speed.
Car companies, banks, carbon emission standards, so much
is taking place... its all over. Including criticism.

If you think the average Joe in the US is just fine okdokie
with all these new things being rushed through I dont think
you are reading the public or the press that I am reading.

They clearly are fawning over him and family personally.
But NOT his economic policies.