Heritage Foundation removes 2.8% Unemployment prediction from Ryan Plan

[Modbert]

Memory Hole Alert - NYTimes.com

You can see the unemployment forecast, with the amazing 2.8 percent prediction, in the fourth set of figures.

But go to the same place right now, and you get this:

Yep — they took the offending number out.

I mean, really, guys — this is all over the blogosphere; did you really think you could get away with pretending it was never there?

But this does bring back memories: during the Social Security debate, Cato tried to expunge all evidence that it had ever used the word “privatization”, when it was easy to show that its project was originally the Project on Social Security Privatization.

And why did they remove the original number?

Weigel : Heritage Has New Unemployment Projections for the Ryan Budget

I just talked to Bill Beach at Heritage's Center for Data Analysis, who tells me that the team re-ran part of its model for the Path to Prosperity. The unemployment projections, which predicted sub-7 percent unemployment in 2012 and sub-3 percent unemployment in 2020, were too low.

"We adjusted the full employment unemployment variable," said Beach. "Nothing else changes as a result of that, but the employment number changes."

The new numbers -- 7.89 percent unemployment in 2012, and 4.27 percent unemployment in 2020.

I wonder if anyone will still try to defend the original numbers, even with Heritage conceding they were unrealistic. Though I will be interested in the thoughts of whether even this new update is feasible as according to the creator of the model that Heritage is using.

 

[8537]

"Nothing else changes as a result of that, but the employment number changes"

This is why no one should take their "analysis" seriously. A 1.5 point difference in unemployment changes a LOT - claiming "nothing else changes" is unadulterated bullshit.

On the back of a napkin, that 1.5 points represents about 2.25M workers.

 

[boedicca]

4.27% Unemployment Oh.Mi.Gawd - we're all gonna die!

 

[ClosedCaption]

Hey they're allowed to lie a Lil bit...they republicans...it's different

 

[Trajan]

Memory Hole Alert - NYTimes.com

You can see the unemployment forecast, with the amazing 2.8 percent prediction, in the fourth set of figures.

But go to the same place right now, and you get this:

Yep — they took the offending number out.

I mean, really, guys — this is all over the blogosphere; did you really think you could get away with pretending it was never there?

But this does bring back memories: during the Social Security debate, Cato tried to expunge all evidence that it had ever used the word “privatization”, when it was easy to show that its project was originally the Project on Social Security Privatization.

And why did they remove the original number?

Weigel : Heritage Has New Unemployment Projections for the Ryan Budget

I just talked to Bill Beach at Heritage's Center for Data Analysis, who tells me that the team re-ran part of its model for the Path to Prosperity. The unemployment projections, which predicted sub-7 percent unemployment in 2012 and sub-3 percent unemployment in 2020, were too low.

"We adjusted the full employment unemployment variable," said Beach. "Nothing else changes as a result of that, but the employment number changes."

The new numbers -- 7.89 percent unemployment in 2012, and 4.27 percent unemployment in 2020.

I wonder if anyone will still try to defend the original numbers, even with Heritage conceding they were unrealistic. Though I will be interested in the thoughts of whether even this new update is feasible as according to the creator of the model that Heritage is using.

Krugman has some nerve playing the memory hole game. what a tool.

and, this is the first time bad numbers , ill considered policy or quotes have been vaporized form a web page? ... dude..grow up.

if they had not change it would have hung there for him and kristoff, rich and dowd and the rest of the harpies to beat up on, hes upset they took the hoe out of his hand and what does this all bring to the table modbert?

I can see we are so serious about having a serious conversation on the budget, it just jumps right off the page...

 

[Wry Catcher]

4.27% Unemployment Oh.Mi.Gawd - we're all gonna die!

You really should be embarrassed by the studity of your comments. They are becoming too frequent and offer nothing of substance; this is an example of one of the many idiotgrams you have posted.
If you can't offer a counter-point, why bother?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Did the Heritage Foundation predict 4% unemployment and a balanced budget 7 years out from the Clinton plan in 1993?

 

[boedicca]

4.27% Unemployment Oh.Mi.Gawd - we're all gonna die!

You really should be embarrassed by the studity of your comments. They are becoming too frequent and offer nothing of substance; this is an example of one of the many idiotgrams you have posted.
If you can't offer a counter-point, why bother?

Here we are at 20%+ un and underemployment, and you loons on the left are hysterical over the prospect of less than 5% unemployment.

There is no point in providing any other comment than pointing out how inane you are.

 

[beowolfe]

I've gotten to the point where I only believe numbers from CBO. It seems they are the only ones who haven't taken sides. CBO pretty much says the Ryan budget is fiction.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I don't think repubs like the CBO when it disagrees with them.

 

[Toro]

Memory Hole Alert - NYTimes.com

You can see the unemployment forecast, with the amazing 2.8 percent prediction, in the fourth set of figures.

But go to the same place right now, and you get this:

Yep — they took the offending number out.

I mean, really, guys — this is all over the blogosphere; did you really think you could get away with pretending it was never there?

But this does bring back memories: during the Social Security debate, Cato tried to expunge all evidence that it had ever used the word “privatization”, when it was easy to show that its project was originally the Project on Social Security Privatization.

And why did they remove the original number?

Weigel : Heritage Has New Unemployment Projections for the Ryan Budget

I just talked to Bill Beach at Heritage's Center for Data Analysis, who tells me that the team re-ran part of its model for the Path to Prosperity. The unemployment projections, which predicted sub-7 percent unemployment in 2012 and sub-3 percent unemployment in 2020, were too low.

"We adjusted the full employment unemployment variable," said Beach. "Nothing else changes as a result of that, but the employment number changes."

The new numbers -- 7.89 percent unemployment in 2012, and 4.27 percent unemployment in 2020.

I wonder if anyone will still try to defend the original numbers, even with Heritage conceding they were unrealistic. Though I will be interested in the thoughts of whether even this new update is feasible as according to the creator of the model that Heritage is using.

I don't see it as that big of a deal. It's a modeling error.

Econometric forecasts are absolutely useless anyways.

 

[Avatar4321]

Hey they're allowed to lie a Lil bit...they republicans...it's different

No. They aren't.

But that's the difference between us.

 

[Avatar4321]

Not even sure why anyone things you can predict unemployment levels based on spending.

I don't think it matters anyway. We need to cut trillions from the budget and we need to do it yesterday. Our nation's future is at stake. We can't keep spending money we don't have.

A lesson individuals and families need to start putting into practice in their life.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

4.27% Unemployment Oh.Mi.Gawd - we're all gonna die!

If it takes nine years to get there we're in some deep shit.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I wonder if anyone will still try to defend the original numbers, even with Heritage conceding they were unrealistic.

I didn't buy that number at all. I'm surprised it was ever published to begin with. It was no where in the realm of reality. It think the lowest unemployment has ever been was around 3.5% and I believe that was during Ike's administration.

 

[uscitizen]

Hey they're allowed to lie a Lil bit...they republicans...it's different

Hey they are the end justifies the means bunch. It is fine to lie to us if it is for our own good

 

[Avatar4321]

I wonder if anyone will still try to defend the original numbers, even with Heritage conceding they were unrealistic.

I didn't buy that number at all. I'm surprised it was ever published to begin with. It was no where in the realm of reality. It think the lowest unemployment has ever been was around 3.5% and I believe that was during Ike's administration.

I think it was actually down at 2.8 during the Coolidge admin.

 

[rdean]

I posted this chart from the Heritage Foundation in another post. This chart is based on the Bush tax cuts and Heritage Foundation expectations. Of course, we ended up with a 1.7 million job deficit. Republican economics are based on "imagination", NOT statistics, data or study. Those come from that awful "schooling", which we all know is "just a piece of paper".

 

[8537]

Memory Hole Alert - NYTimes.com

You can see the unemployment forecast, with the amazing 2.8 percent prediction, in the fourth set of figures.

But go to the same place right now, and you get this:

And why did they remove the original number?

Weigel : Heritage Has New Unemployment Projections for the Ryan Budget

I just talked to Bill Beach at Heritage's Center for Data Analysis, who tells me that the team re-ran part of its model for the Path to Prosperity. The unemployment projections, which predicted sub-7 percent unemployment in 2012 and sub-3 percent unemployment in 2020, were too low.

"We adjusted the full employment unemployment variable," said Beach. "Nothing else changes as a result of that, but the employment number changes."

The new numbers -- 7.89 percent unemployment in 2012, and 4.27 percent unemployment in 2020.

I wonder if anyone will still try to defend the original numbers, even with Heritage conceding they were unrealistic. Though I will be interested in the thoughts of whether even this new update is feasible as according to the creator of the model that Heritage is using.

I don't see it as that big of a deal. It's a modeling error.

Econometric forecasts are absolutely useless anyways.

The modeling error is understandable and excusable. Claiming "nothing else changes as a result" is not a modeling error, nor is it excusable.

For one thing, the incomes of about 2.25M people change, with a requisite change in revenues of about 30B dollars.