Near the end of this AP analysis of sorts of Obama and the economy, we read the following…White House economic advisers estimated in January that if Congress passed the president's economic stimulus bill, unemployment probably would rise no higher than 8 percent this year. Congress did and unemployment now stands at 9.4 percent.And if you haven’t heard that line yet, don’t worry. I predict that our dear corporate media will hang this one around Obama’s proverbial neck ad nauseum (particularly in light of this story, which tells us that White House spokesman Robert Gibbs confirmed that the unemployment rate “could be 10 percent within months”).
I would only ask that you also consider the following on that from Media Matters here…
As the (L.A.) Times reported, in a January 9 report, (White House economic advisors Christina) Romer and (Jared) Bernstein had predicted "that with the stimulus spending, the U.S. unemployment rate this year would not exceed 8%. It now stands at 9.4%." However, at no point did the article report that during a June 8 press briefing, Bernstein responded to a question about the initial projection by saying: "[W]hen we made our initial estimates, that was before we had fourth-quarter results on GDP, which we later found out was contracting on an annual rate of 6 percent, far worse than we expected at that time."Perhaps that should not have been surprising when you consider the following from this September 2008 post...
The increase in the jobless rate sent the misery index, which adds unemployment to inflation, to 11.7 percent, the highest level since 1991.And we know who was president in ’91, don’t we (talk about the apple not falling far from the proverbial tree; Poppy Bush was paying the price for his predecessor’s “voodoo economics,” but still).
And when it comes to failing to crunch the numbers properly on the unemployment rate, I give you the following from here (in January, before Obama was sworn in).
Reflecting the current drop in GDP, the White House said it expects the unemployment rate to rise to an average rate of 7.7% this year from 5.7% in 2008.They had eight years to get it right, and they still screwed it up (I realize, though, that we’re talking about Bushco). How could we expect Obama or anyone else to do substantially better in five months?
Besides, as this tells us, the actual rate is a lot closer to 15.8 percent anyway (and what Atrios sez here, by the way).
1 comment:
How many times are we told that the president and his/her administration drive the economy?
Look to the idiots in Congress, both republicans and democrats who continually stifle this nation with ridiculous self serving and lobbyist serving legislation. Aren't they supposed to lookout for the interest of their constituents?
Wise up folks, the so called "Cap and Trade," "Tax and Steal" - whatever you want to call it was passed without one single member of the House reading the bill as reported by the main-stream media. Let me repeat not one single member read it. Same thing happened during the September 2008 bailout bill; it was not read by one single representative or Senator including the two major party presidential candidates.
Isn't it time, we add an amendment to the Constitution that every bill must actually be read by our members of Congress before voting on it? How about suing our Representatives for not fulfilling their constitutional duties of representation by not having read a bill before voting?
How about what B.H. Obama stated while campaigning that there would be a 48 hours or such review period for the American public to read these bills in their entirety on the internet before they went to a vote?
Please telephone your Representative and Senators and let them know you want them to read before voting, and that the American public should have the option of reviewing any non-national-security bills before a vote as well. Ask them why this would be so unreasonable?
Folks, elections have consequences...
Post a Comment