NYP, WSJ mock White House's "full of 'bull' " stimulus figures, even though they're similar to private estimates
The New York Post and Wall Street Journal mocked the White House's estimates of the Recovery Act's effects on GDP and employment, calling them "full of 'bull' " and "magical." But the White House's GDP estimates are similar to private estimates, and independent analysts agree that the stimulus has significantly increased employment relative to a baseline estimate of what jobs levels would have been without the stimulus
NYP, WSJ mock White House estimates on effectiveness of stimulus
NY Post article: Biden
"full of 'bull' on economy." A July 15 New York Post article featured the headline, "Joe full of 'bull' on
economy," and stated that "Vice President Joe Biden yesterday claimed the $862
billion stimulus had created or saved as many as 3.6 million jobs." It further
reported: "The new White House figures, including estimates that the plan
boosted gross domestic product by between 2.7 and 3.2 percent, did not impress
Republicans, who have questioned the validity of the job-creation
numbers."
NY
Post editorial: "Jobs snow-job." A July 15 Post editorial titled, "Jobs snow-job," stated: "Here we go again:
Fantasy Time in Obama Job-Creation Land. The White House yesterday sent Vice
President Joe Biden and Council of Economic Advisers head Christina Romer to
tout the sudden, wonderful, magical appearance of some 3.5 million jobs under
President Obama through the end of this year." The Post continued: "Indeed, they say between
2.5 million and 3.6 million positions already have been 'created or saved' --
all as a result of Team Obama's trillion-dollar stimulus." The Post also stated that the "Obama-Biden job
figures" are not "reality-based."
WSJ on White House
stimulus figures: "Seriously?" In a July 15 editorial titled, "Three Million Imaginary Jobs," The Wall Street Journal wrote: "The White
House says the stimulus worked beyond even its hopes. Seriously." The Journal added:
It may be that the last people in America who believe that the $862 billion economic stimulus of February 2009 created millions of net new jobs are Vice President Joe Biden and the staff economists in the White House. Yesterday, President Obama's chief economist announced that the plan had "created or saved" between 2.5 million and 3.6 million jobs and raised GDP by 2.7% to 3.2% through June 30. Don't you feel better already?
But White House's GDP
figures are similar to those of independent estimates
CEA: Recovery Act "has raised the level of GDP as of the
second quarter of 2010, relative to what it otherwise would have been, by
between 2.7 and 3.2 percent." The White House's Council of Economic
Advisers (CEA) released a report on July 14 finding that the Recovery Act "has raised
the level of GDP as of the second quarter of 2010, relative to what it otherwise
would have been, by between 2.7 and 3.2 percent." CEA noted that "[t]hese
estimates are very similar to those of a wide range of other analysts, including
the Congressional Budget Office." CEA also included a chart of private and
independent analysts' estimates of the Recovery Act's impact on GDP, which shows
estimates similar to that of CEA's:
Analysts agree stimulus significantly raised employment over what would have happened otherwise
CEA: Recovery Act "has raised employment relative
to what it otherwise would have been by between 2.5 and 3.6 million."
The CEA report estimated that as of the second quarter of 2010, the Recovery
Act, "has raised employment relative to what it otherwise would have been by
between 2.5 and 3.6 million." CEA also included a chart of private and
independent analysts' estimates of the Recovery Act's impact on employment:
CBO estimates job impact of between 1.4 and 3.4 million. According to the CEA chart, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the Recovery Act raised employment by 1.4 to 3.4 million as of the second quarter of 2010.
IHS/Global Insight estimates job impact of 2.1 million. According to the CEA chart, IHS/Global Insight estimates that the Recovery Act raised employment by 2.1 million as of the second quarter of 2010.
Moody's Economy.com estimates job impact of 2.2 million. The CEA chart shows that Mark Zandi of Moody's Economy.com estimates that the Recovery Act raised employment by 2.2 million as of the second quarter of 2010.
Macroeconomic Advisers estimates job impact of 1.8 million. The CEA chart noted that Macroeconomic Advisers estimates that the Recovery Act raised employment by 1.8 million as of the second quarter of 2010.
AP: "[G]rowing body of independent economic analysis suggests the law has boosted jobs." A July 14 Associated Press article about the White House's stimulus figures stated that while "exactly how many jobs" the Recovery Act has created "is a matter of dispute," "a growing body of independent economic analysis suggests the law has boosted jobs and kept people off the unemployment line."
As I have been constantly saying for the past 2 weeks it seems, this isn't about them truly believing what they're saying. It's all about them continuing to try to hurt the opposition party's goals! It's all about their own political survival, and not about what's best for our nation.
They continually have omitted relevant information when discussing the current recession. They virtually never talk about what we would have seen had the stimulus not happened. They continually talk about the job losses we've seen in the past couple of years as that's a figure that should be looked at in isolation! Of course, cherry-picking data is all they've got, since it's clear that Obama's stimulus bill saved or will have created between 3-4 million jobs by the end of 2010, as Obama pledged it would when he was inaugurated.
So, No Sue, they are not "accurate" as you say. You are just swallowing what you want to ingest because it's easier for you to regurgitate the same thing.
It's just a troll post, not intended to further any debate in any way on this topic. You cite the unemployment numbers in isolation, and as I explained above, that's a dishonest way to discuss the subject, yet you do it anyway! Are you really that clueless that you thought that no one would SEE you doing the exact thing I had called out? Really?
Please don't feed this troll post.
We all know it.
As I said in my post to the troll poster above, MMFA had debunked his talking points in this very article, and so there was NO need to repeat that same debunking!
He ignores that undeniable fact.
What a doofus that he STILL thinks people can't SEE previous posts so that they can understand context!!!
1) the Class of 1957-Garff B. Wilson Professor of Economics U.C. Berkeley;
2)the Robert P. Gwinn Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business and;
3) the Theodore A. Wells '29 Professor of Economics and Public Affairs, Princeton (all on leave)
your comment might not be gratuitously dismissive.
Do you honestly believe these three who make up the WHCoEA would risk their reputations by churning out "meaningless spin"?
------------------------------------------------------------
Nice try, thanks for playing.
Which indicators are you talking about?
Another words, you are just throwing rhetoric out there, rather than citing specific figures and sources. The piece my MMFA clearly states "and independent analysts agree that the stimulus has significantly increased employment relative to a baseline estimate of what jobs levels would have been without the stimulus."
This is NOT rocket science, but it IS pretty involved economic study that they do in order to make determinations about jobs saved and jobs created.
Your denial of reality is nothing new.
Really? Says who?
Not to mention that when Romer and Obama first touted this plan it was going to 'save or create' 3.5m jobs AND keep unemployment below 8.5%. Since unemployment is 2% higher it only stands to reason that they could not have saved as many jobs as they innitially proposed. Also, don't you find it a strange coincidence that they somehow exactly matched their jobs 'created or saved' prediction of a year and a half ago? If they are that smart then how did they miss the unemployment number by so much? It doesn't add up.
You are confused about the nature of facts, apparently.
How could anyone make such a stupid statement as that? The mere fact that there is a range shows an absence of some verifiable fact, that's why there is a range and not an actual number.
You're declaring that because it's not an exact science, it can't be a fact. It can. It is.
The numbers are not "full of bull". They are reliable and accurate.
You're the one who's full of bull, and everyone knows it.
And the headline reads "NYP, WSJ mock White House's "full of 'bull' " stimulus figures, even though they're similar to private estimates"
And THESE estimates on jobs created or saves are NOT guesses or daydreams.
The RANGES that they give are accurate and reliable. It's undeniable that they can give us accurate ranges. Yet you deny it. That tells us that YOU aren't interested in a debate where you behave fairly.
Otherwise, you look like a complete fool.
2) from an administration that has missed so many estimates and projections in the past 19 months, I think the equivalency argument is laughable. Their estimates may be many things, but credible as in "accurate and reliable." If we had relied on their estimates, we would have had an unemployment rate of somewhere south of 8 percent, instead of the 9.5 percent we now have after having spent close to a trillion dollars.
2) As I have repeatedly explained on this site, the estimate given in early January was a PRELIMINARY estimate given incomplete info from the 4th quarter of 2008.
As SOON AS they knew that that quarter had been much worse than predicted, they told us.
But they had wanted a bill submitted by Obama's experts, ready to be built by Congress and signed by Obama as soon as possible after his inauguration, and so they had to rely upon incomplete and preliminary numbers!
If YOU think it's advisable to hold someone to PRELIMINARY results, maybe we should declare elections based upon the first few precincts that report, or declare golf tourneys won after only 3 rounds.
Those of us with half a brain know that when someone tells us that results are preliminary, we agree that those numbers might change, and we should not criticize them for estimates that were accurate according to the preliminary result, nor should we later hold them accountable for THAT estimate that's been superseded by a more accurate estimate based upon final numbers.
Yet, you, word parser extraordinare, think that it's OKAY to condemn them for the accurate estimate based upon inaccurate preliminary data and FAIL to acknowledge the later updated info.
And that's because you're entirely and unendingly dishonest.
Really? And your evidence of this statement is what? And who do you mean by "us?" If your job was saved, it certainly would have real meaning.
I have no idea, just as I have no idea how the mass of an atom is measured. But I assume an atom still has mass, just as I assume that jobs have been saved, as Krugman, who has won a Nobel prize in economics, has pointed out.
But you defend the concept anyway? Ok
It's idiotic rightwingers who refuse to trust expertise when it contradicts their preconceived notions.
It's not rocket science.
They do it. They CAN accurately provide ranges for the estimates of jobs created or saved.
And I skimmed it and saw nothing about how jobs "saved" is calculated. Can you direct us to that formula Sue?
But it's not hard to understand that you couldn't figure it out - you didn't even want to try, doofus, since it would destroy your argument!
They don't count every unemployed person in the USA to come up with an unemployment number, you know - they make an estimate (that's preliminary and sometimes changes a small amount), and from then on we say that the unemployment rate is whatever number they threw at us. It's a fact, even though it's done by extrapolation with available info. They use historical numbers that were also estimates to say that in June, typically we should see X number of new jobs in certain fields and Y number of job losses in other fields and Z number of new entrants to the job market, plus tons of other data, and they spit out a number at the end.
Your argument here that the lack of a hard, exact number means that they don't have an accurate and reliable range of numbers that we can fairly call a FACT is contrary to any logic and reason.
But that's because you're a weasel troll who is also a word parser and a legendary liar who posts under multiple screen names.
But it's UNDENIABLE that they can accurately give us RANGES!
If that's the case, you're too ignorant to be typing on a keyboard.
So, you don't REALLY not understand why a politician would put the best possible spin on a topic.
Which means you're being totally insincere, like the weasel troll you always are in either this screen name or as Wesley.
But thanks for showing everyone that you are 100% dishonest all the time, even when you ask what looks like an innocent question.
That was why my following commment was in response to. I heard it again this morning from Romer. No range. No estimate....stated as FACT, which is contrary to your earlier assertion. Do you not read what you post when you have been challenged or is that beneath your omniscience?
You did NOT hear a firm number.
You heard "up to X number of jobs created" or "The Recovery Act has increased real GDP, relatively to what it otherwise would have done, by between 2.7 and 3.2%", and "It increased employment, relative to what otherwise would have happened, between 2.5 and 3.6 million."
UP TO. RANGES.
If YOU can't understand plain English, then the failure is YOURS.
Said Romer, "We estimate the impact of the Recovery Act on job creation in two ways... model-based approach [and] the projection approach... [By using the latter approach] the Recovery Act has met the President's goal of saving or creating 3.5 million jobs - two quarters earlier than [he] anticipated."
She added, "There's obviously a lot of uncertainty about any jobs estimate, and I expect the true effects of the [Recovery] act will not be fully analyzed or fully appreciated for many years."
So you LIED about what she said. And we can see directly what Biden said in MMFA's article above.
You are NEVER an honest broker of the truth, weasel.
I resent being called a liar when I now what I heard.
That pretty much sums up thier respone to EVERY issue:
Global Warming, Green Energy, Sarah Palin, The Tea Party...
They can admit they're wrong or they can scream about "liberal bias" in the evidence.
------------------------------------------------
And you KNOW they'll never admit they're wrong!
Friends, Marxists, countrymen give me your lands...no that is not correct either.
Liberals, Progressives, Marxists, give me your children's future. I come not to praise America but to bury it.
Of course not - they use samples, interviews, etc to come up with their "facts". But these tend to be fairly accurate.
In regards to jobs saved, I would agree the actual number is "soft" due to the nature of trying to determine what constitutes a saved job. However, given the analytical nature of those people who compile these numbers (I've worked with stat/quant types), you can be assured they are directionally accurate.
One can argue the number, but it's safe to say jobs were saved.
There is no way to know for sure how many jobs were created or saved, but it certainly safe to say jobs were saved and probably millions of them. Did all the repaving save jobs for the asphalt company? I would say probably and because they were working did it save jobs for the suppliers of the material to mix the asphalt, etc. etc.? Again, good possibility. All that said, more stim I say. We need more. Don't know about you guys, but I love driving on nice smooth roads.