PDA

View Full Version : Economics Where can I get this job? Spending $450 billion with no accountability. Awesome.


mlyonsd
09-13-2011, 08:19 AM
White House Wary of Jobs Predictions

by Kelly Chernenkoff (http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/contributors/kelly-chernenkoff) | September 12, 2011

Members of Congress now have in-hand the full text of President Obama's jobs plan, but one key ingredient is missing: how many jobs the White House (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/white-house.htm#r_src=ramp) expects it to create.

If you ask the White House (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/white-house.htm#r_src=ramp), that is by design.

"I think there's a danger of ever predicting unemployment rates, because... there's a lot of things that determine what the unemployment rate is and will be," Office of Management and Budget (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/office-of-management-and-budget.htm#r_src=ramp) Director Jack Lew told reporters in a briefing Monday.

The White House learned that first hand after the incorrect January 2009 predictions of then-president-elect Obama's advisors were revisited in the press with a fury. Mr. Obama's economic advisors at the time; Christina Romer (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/obama-administration/christina-romer.htm#r_src=ramp) and Jared Bernstein, both of whom later worked for President Obama, predicted that passage of a stimulus bill for would keep the unemployment rate below 8%. The Recovery Act passed. The unemployment rate currently stands at 9.1%.

Perhaps it's the lingering bruises from those predictions that has the White House wary; not to mention the potential for campaign fodder.

"I think we'll see the reference to Dr. Romer and Dr. Bernstein's estimates many times in political advertisements coming forward, many times from candidates and political committees," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said at the briefing.

"I think it ought to be incumbent upon people who are journalists to at least acknowledge in their writing, if not in the phrasing of their question...which is that the forecasts made in early 2009 were based on the economic data available to any economist inside or outside the administration."

It is the lack of appropriate data that misled all economists and kept them from knowing the true depths of the recession, says the White House. In fact, the Recovery Act, they say, performed as it was expected to and so will this one.

In an excerpt of an interview on NBC News, which aired Monday night, President Obama was less shy about predictions. "[T]his package, it's estimated, would help the economy grow by as much as an additional 2%. That could mean an additional 2 Million jobs," he said.

Still, the White House did not do any of its own analysis.

"I think we are very comfortable looking at the estimates that outside experts have done, which very much support the importance of this package as an engine of economic growth, in terms of faster GDP growth, in terms of job growth, in terms of bringing down unemployment," Lew said.

"And, you know, I think that the American people don't want us to be standing here kind of arguing over estimates, but getting the job done to create jobs."

Much as they tried, reporters could not get the administration to bite.

A reporter pushed, "But there will no more predictions of what the figures will --"

Lew interrupted, "I'm not making any other predictions."

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/09/12/white-house-wary-jobs-predictions

HonestChieffan
09-13-2011, 08:23 AM
Absurd.

A JOBs bill. With no objective? No goals?


Imagine running a business that way. Ask Banker for a mil to expand. But tell him you cant predict how much the business will grow but you just know it will.

Tell your boss you need to hire 3 new salesreps. But its just to hard too tell if they will actually sell anything.


This is reason enough to say flat out no.

Mr. Kotter
09-13-2011, 09:22 AM
Goals are one thing; expecting precise predictions? Give me a break.

Hell, weather folks can't predict how much rain we are gonna get--even with today's technology. And yet somehow politicians are supposed to be able to predict the willy-nilly, haphazard, and whimisical choices of business and corporate leaders (many with record "profits" over the last few quarters) to hire workers and truly invest in their businesses.... when they've demonstrated pretty cautious (to be kind) behavior of late? Duh.

Saul Good
09-13-2011, 09:29 AM
Weather forecasters don't spent trillions of tax dollars, either. Nice analogy, though.

ChiTown
09-13-2011, 09:31 AM
Weather forecasters don't spent trillions of tax dollars, either. Nice analogy, though.

Yeah, but if they are wrong, I COULD GET WET, DAMNIT!:cuss:

Donger
09-13-2011, 09:32 AM
Goals are one thing; expecting precise predictions? Give me a break.

Okay, what is the goal for the number of jobs created by this latest stimulus? I don't think that is too much to ask.

mlyonsd
09-13-2011, 09:34 AM
Weather forecasters don't spent trillions of tax dollars, either. Nice analogy, though.He'll be back to tell us he posted that just to be contrary, not stupid as it came across.

Cave Johnson
09-13-2011, 09:34 AM
There's a thread where various economists has estimated the impact on GDP and jobs. I suggest you look there for answers.

FD
09-13-2011, 09:41 AM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=249691

Also, the majority of the jobs bill is tax cuts, which I wouldn't call "spending" like the thread title does.

Donger
09-13-2011, 09:43 AM
There's a thread where various economists has estimated the impact on GDP and jobs. I suggest you look there for answers.

No, I'd rather hear Obama's numbers. This is HIS plan.

Mr. Kotter
09-13-2011, 09:49 AM
He'll be back to tell us he posted that just to be contrary, not stupid as it came across.

Man, you've just really gotten knee-jerk silly when it comes to reacting to me.

The point is....economics is much tougher to predict than weather--and we can't even do that.

mlyonsd
09-13-2011, 09:51 AM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=249691

Also, the majority of the jobs bill is tax cuts, which I wouldn't call "spending" like the thread title does.

Well we could argue that but if you'd rather I'll go with either 'squandering' or 'adding to the deficit' instead.

You pick.

Cave Johnson
09-13-2011, 09:57 AM
No, I'd rather hear Obama's numbers. This is HIS plan.

Well, the Obama administration (Christine Romer, specifically) looked pretty silly by predicting unemployment would stay under 8%. She didn't know the GDP numbers would later get revised significantly to the downside. But, hey, they've got a crystal ball, right?

So you can understand their reluctance in throwing out a number.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080606271.html

Donger
09-13-2011, 09:59 AM
Well, the Obama administration (Christine Romer, specifically) looked pretty silly by predicting unemployment would stay under 8%. She didn't know the GDP numbers would later get revised significantly to the downside. But, hey, they've got a crystal ball, right?

So you can understand their reluctance in throwing out a number.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080606271.html

Sure, I understand their reluctance. They've already been wrong before. But I'm sure that this time will be much better.

Jenson71
09-13-2011, 10:05 AM
I have to initially agree with those who are criticizing the Administration if they are refusing to forecast job prospects. It's a pure politically-calculated move used as a cushion, but much more than a reelection stands to gain or lose from our economic troubles.

mlyonsd
09-13-2011, 10:31 AM
Man, you've just really gotten knee-jerk silly when it comes to reacting to me.

The point is....economics is much tougher to predict than weather--and we can't even do that.I don't have to pay for the weather.

HonestChieffan
09-13-2011, 11:17 AM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5u_XNOurt-o/Tm8qhy4GLzI/AAAAAAAA008/FMLttGPrFkc/s400/theo4.jpg

Chief Faithful
09-13-2011, 12:24 PM
Based on the Stimulus of 2009 resulting in $272,000 per job maybe we can predict this jobs bill will result in 1,654,411 jobs. I just want to know if these are new jobs or jobs saved. :moon:

go bowe
09-13-2011, 02:59 PM
Based on the Stimulus of 2009 resulting in $272,000 per job maybe we can predict this jobs bill will result in 1,654,411 jobs. I just want to know if these are new jobs or jobs saved. :moon:

new jobs at mcdonald's, maybe...