Bloomberg and economists: Obama's Jobs plan prevents 2012 recession

Billy000

Democratic Socialist
Nov 10, 2011
31,786
12,606
1,560
Colorado
This gold proposal was, of course, blocked by Republicans back in the final quarter of 2011.

The legislation, submitted to Congress this month, would increase gross domestic product by 0.6 percent next year and add or keep 275,000 workers on payrolls, the median estimates in the survey of 34 economists showed. The program would also lower the jobless rate by 0.2 percentage point in 2012, economists said.

Obama’s plan, announced on Sept. 8, calls for cutting the payroll taxes paid by workers and small businesses while extending unemployment insurance. It also includes an increase in infrastructure spending and more aid for cash-strapped state governments.

Tax cuts account for more than half the dollar value of the Obama plan, which also includes $105 billion in spending for school modernization, transportation projects and rehabilitation of vacant properties, according to a White House fact sheet. The proposal includes $35 billion in direct aid to state and local governments to stem dismissals of educators and emergency personnel.

Some 13,000 jobs would be created in 2013, bringing the total to 288,000 over two years, according to the survey. Employers in the U.S. added 1.26 million workers in the past 12 months, Labor Department data show.

The economy will expand 2.2 percent next year, according to a separate Bloomberg survey of economists conducted Sept. 2 to Sept. 7. The same survey said the unemployment rate would average 8.8 percent in 2012.

Obama Jobs Plan Prevents 2012 Recession in Survey of Economists - Businessweek
 
Last edited:
I'm an economist and I say Obama has been poison to long term economic recovery so there.

Appeal to authority ftl
 
It also includes an increase in infrastructure spending and more aid for cash-strapped state governments

Artificial GDP.
 
wouldnt be wise to get out of the original recession before you prevent a second one?
 
I'm an economist and I say Obama has been poison to long term economic recovery so there.

Appeal to authority ftl


You are?

Great!

I look forward to having some intelligent discussions of our macroeonomic problems in future threads.

As I am not an economist, I hope that you'll be able to enlighten me about some of the more arcane aspects of what is currently going on.

For example, I wonder what your opinion is regarding the capitalization of our major FED reserve member banks.

ARe they still going to the FED window and borrowing short term at 0.03% and investing in Treasury bonds at about 3%?

And how many times in your opinion have they rolled over those debts to help them become more solvent?

Bloomberg seems to think the total cash gone though this system is $16 Trillion. Bernake claims the amount has only been (or is currently only, he didn't make that clear) about $1.2 trillion.

I have read a paper suggesting that recapitalization game is more like $26 trillion.

What is your opinion?

Can you explain why this is happening and can you tell us what you think of it, too?
 
Last edited:
Billy is an idiot who proves he can't read.
Note the article cited the "median" of economists predictions. That is only one form of average, "mean" being what we normally think of as average.
So if they have 38 economists and 36 say growth would be 1%, 1 economists says growth would be 3% and one says growth would be 4% then the headline reads "Median of economic predictions say growth will be 3%."
Now, the unemployment situation has been improving some without Obama's crappy Stimulus II. So clearly this is unneeded, except by Democrats in an election year.
Billy, don't be a zero.
 
Billy is an idiot who proves he can't read.
Note the article cited the "median" of economists predictions. That is only one form of average, "mean" being what we normally think of as average.
So if they have 38 economists and 36 say growth would be 1%, 1 economists says growth would be 3% and one says growth would be 4% then the headline reads "Median of economic predictions say growth will be 3%."
Now, the unemployment situation has been improving some without Obama's crappy Stimulus II. So clearly this is unneeded, except by Democrats in an election year.
Billy, don't be a zero.

How exactly is Obama's stimulus not a factor? Can you even explain that? No, because you are just making blind assumptions.
 
Billy is an idiot who proves he can't read.
Note the article cited the "median" of economists predictions. That is only one form of average, "mean" being what we normally think of as average.
So if they have 38 economists and 36 say growth would be 1%, 1 economists says growth would be 3% and one says growth would be 4% then the headline reads "Median of economic predictions say growth will be 3%."
Now, the unemployment situation has been improving some without Obama's crappy Stimulus II. So clearly this is unneeded, except by Democrats in an election year.
Billy, don't be a zero.

How exactly is Obama's stimulus not a factor? Can you even explain that? No, because you are just making blind assumptions.

Um, because it never passed? Just guessing here.
 

Forum List

Back
Top