Emphasis on the "con" part.
Anyhoo, go to visit Google News this morning. Two major headlines?
US workers feel pain as jobless ranks grow
Reuters –
36 minutes ago
Jobless rolls drop, first time in 20 weeks
msnbc.com –
39 minutes ago
confusion
-
thibodeaux
- Posts: 8121
- Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 7:32 pm
They're both right. They're just talking about different numbers.Malcolm wrote:Emphasis on the "con" part.
Anyhoo, go to visit Google News this morning. Two major headlines?
US workers feel pain as jobless ranks grow
Reuters –
36 minutes ago
Jobless rolls drop, first time in 20 weeks
msnbc.com –
39 minutes ago
It's not me, it's someone else.
Here's something I think is under-reported.
"Experts agree that if nothing is done, the unemployment rate could reach double digits," Mr. Obama said in a January 24 radio address. "If we do not act boldly and swiftly, a bad situation could become dramatically worse." The same month, his economic advisors released a report saying that, without the stimulus, unemployment would hit around 8.5 percent by April 2009, and 7.8 percent with it.
We know what happened next: a Democratic Congress quickly approved the legislation. But what may not be as obvious is that even with the stimulus, current unemployment is far worse than the Obama administration had predicted: it's already 8.9 percent.
It's not me, it's someone else.
The way some economists are talking, the "without stimulus" projection may be looking good around the end of the year. A lot are calling for job losses to continue through to early next year up into the 10% area.
Obama did tell us about the jobs that they saved last month. Of course there's no way to track that so we just have to take his word for it.
Obama did tell us about the jobs that they saved last month. Of course there's no way to track that so we just have to take his word for it.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren