02-06-2010, 11:45 PM
1) Dennis Kucinich gets his way approximately 0% of the time. He is to the Dems what Ron Paul is to the Republicans - he has no broad support, and almost never influences policy. He is not, in any meaningful sense, a "policy maker". Also, for what it's worth, that's "Congressman Kucinich". He's not a senator.
2) Being wrong about unemployment numbers (or recovery times) does not equal lying about them. Since asking 200 million people about their jobs individually (and verifying their answers) is impossible, all calculations have to be based on assumptions. In a crisis, sometimes those assumptions are harder, and being wrong causes errors much larger than you would see normally. I don't find it staggering at all - just the normal consequence of hitting a fast moving target with the lights out. Remember, the labour market is huge. Being off by 800,000 seems like an impossibly large error, but in a 200,000,000 person market, it's less than half a percent unemployment. Glad to see the error fixed, but once again, what is it you're using these numbers for, that this changes your thinking? Obviously, unemployment is *far* above 4%, and whatever plan you prefer to reduce unemployment should be pursued post haste, regardless of whether it's 10% or 10.5%.
3) You can say the government has not been calculating its statistics properly if you like - feel free to use an alternate set. I think the official methods look pretty good, if you look at the data overall, and not just fixate on the one-number percentage figures. I'm really not sure shadowstats.com provides a "more realistic" set of figures, but I don't have the specialist knowledge to say for certain. Use it if you prefer.
4) The US can currently borrow at almost absurdly good rates. This is not the problem. The increased debt service will not be pleasant, but neither will it be crippling. The problems are short term recovery, and reducing long-run spending. (Hint: Try health care reform.)
-Jester
2) Being wrong about unemployment numbers (or recovery times) does not equal lying about them. Since asking 200 million people about their jobs individually (and verifying their answers) is impossible, all calculations have to be based on assumptions. In a crisis, sometimes those assumptions are harder, and being wrong causes errors much larger than you would see normally. I don't find it staggering at all - just the normal consequence of hitting a fast moving target with the lights out. Remember, the labour market is huge. Being off by 800,000 seems like an impossibly large error, but in a 200,000,000 person market, it's less than half a percent unemployment. Glad to see the error fixed, but once again, what is it you're using these numbers for, that this changes your thinking? Obviously, unemployment is *far* above 4%, and whatever plan you prefer to reduce unemployment should be pursued post haste, regardless of whether it's 10% or 10.5%.
3) You can say the government has not been calculating its statistics properly if you like - feel free to use an alternate set. I think the official methods look pretty good, if you look at the data overall, and not just fixate on the one-number percentage figures. I'm really not sure shadowstats.com provides a "more realistic" set of figures, but I don't have the specialist knowledge to say for certain. Use it if you prefer.
4) The US can currently borrow at almost absurdly good rates. This is not the problem. The increased debt service will not be pleasant, but neither will it be crippling. The problems are short term recovery, and reducing long-run spending. (Hint: Try health care reform.)
-Jester