jump to navigation

The April Numbers Are In – It’s Official May 8, 2009

Posted by geoff in News.
trackback

UPDATE III: September’s update is here

UPDATE II: Corrected graph available here.

[UPDATE I: The May numbers are now in.]

A couple of weeks ago I wrote a post on the predicted unemployment numbers for April. Well, the real numbers came in today, and the result was exactly what they predicted: 8.9% unemployment.

So once again, let’s see how the actual unemployment numbers compare to what Obama’s own economists predicted:

Stimulus-vs-unemployment-april
Oh my. It appears that his economists can’t predict very well (that fills me with confidence), and that his stimulus package is providing absolutely no benefit.

And it certainly doesn’t look like his plan has “saved or created 150,000 jobs.”

[Update: Why is this not a surprise? This is why.]

[Update II: The May numbers are now in.]

About these ads

Comments»

1. Edward Von Bear - May 8, 2009

Well, economics is called the “Dismal Science” for a reason.

2. Winston Smith - May 8, 2009

Where did you get that chart? I need to fix it.

3. t-bird - May 8, 2009

Kinda looks like the “Recovery Plan” has made things worse, if that graph is accurate at all.

See, too, this gov’t link for the “U6″ unemployment (thanks to UGRev at AOS): http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

15.8% Sweet.

4. skinbad - May 8, 2009

It will be funny (in a sad way) if the actual “with recovery plan” line ends up overlaying the “without recovery plan” line.

5. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere - May 8, 2009

You are questioning the Obama Plan and Planners???

*looks around*

Nice Blog. I’m about to make you an offer you can’t refuse…

6. Cathy - May 8, 2009

Thanks for keeping us on this issue, Geoff.

We can’t let up on them. They are raping our nation and getting away with it. For. Now.

7. reason - May 8, 2009

skinbad, it’ll be okay. They’ll just keep tweaking the projected “without recovery plan” line so that it continues to give the appearance that Barry has saved us all.

8. Blerk - May 8, 2009

Let’s face it, only fools believed in the “recovery plan”. It was an ostensible attempt to create something from nothing: an idea with a 100% record of failure.

For it to have worked, the “stimulus” would have created enough taxable income to have recovered its total cost, because the difference eventually has to be paid by shifting cost onto the taxpayer. The only way the “stimulus” could have really worked is if putting an additional $1 “into” the economy in borrowed money creates more wealth than taking an additional $1 OUT of the economy in taxes. Throw in government overhead and interest on the borrowed money, and the formula starts to look pretty implausible.

The “stimulus” is, and always was, a sham, a revenue-and-power grab.

9. geoff - May 8, 2009

Where did you get that chart? I need to fix it.

There’s a link to the original document in the earlier post

10. Anna Keppa - May 8, 2009

Become familiar with these words:

KLEPTOCRACY : the rule of thieves

KAKISTOCRACY: the rule of the worst

We’re in for years of both.

11. So How’s That Stimulus Package Coming Along? : Conservative Cabbie - May 8, 2009

[...] Innocent Bystanders have kindly amended the graph with indicators showing where march and april’s unemployment figures fit into the two different predictions. [...]

12. Plumb Bob Blog » How Well Stimulus is Working - May 8, 2009

[...] Innocent Bystanders. The original post is here, and the follow-up with April’s figures is here. | var addthis_pub = “philwynk”; | Related posts: [...]

13. Captain marvel - May 8, 2009

What scares me is these people are working for us and screwing us at the same time. Thanx Barry you idiot!

14. yournemesis - May 8, 2009

You’re on the wrong side of reality…

Take your assets, enjoy the deflation and we’ll leave you avaricious fucks in the dust of history.

Watch out for the langoliers you tiny minded bean counters!

15. Mrs. Peel - May 8, 2009

I nominate 14 for the Comment Hall of Fame. I don’t think there are any other contenders in its category, whatever that might be.

*returns to counting beans*

16. Lipstick - May 8, 2009

Hey geoff, NRO’s The Campaign Spot just linked this article.

17. Top Posts « WordPress.com - May 8, 2009

[...] The April Numbers Are In – It’s Official A couple of weeks ago I wrote a post on the predicted unemployment numbers for April. Well, the real numbers came in [...] [...]

18. Old Country Boy - May 8, 2009

I seem to recall that Paulson andBerneke told us last year that if we didn’t pass the TARP bill, the Dow Industrials would drop to 8700, down from11,000, and that would destroy us. They suckered many good congress critters, who depended on their expertise, into finally passing the bill. Not only are we below 8700, butwe haven’t been above 8700 in several months. But, you can sleep safe tonight, Obama is awake and guarding the henhouse!

Number 13 is a truly unbelievable product of our goverment school systems. Remember yournemesis, inhale, exhale, inhale, exhale, inhale –. I’m telling you this, because you are too flaming dumb and ignorant to do it without guidance.

19. Michael - May 8, 2009

#15

I second Mrs. Peel’s motion.

By the way, Geoff, aside from Laura’s link at AOSHQ (thank you, you wonderful humpalicious lady), you also got IB linked at NRO. I think that’s a first. We’re also getting hits from some comment-thread links at Hot Air.

I told you IB needed more graphs, did I not?

20. geoff - May 8, 2009

*returns to counting beans*

I’ll keep lookout.

I told you IB needed more graphs, did I not?

Who doesn’t?

Well, I guess I don’t – I’m awash in ‘em.

Michael - May 8, 2009

I just don’t know why you initially doubted me, Geoff, when I appealed for more graphs. That kinda hurts. By now, it seems to me, all you people should not doubt me. It should be evident that anyone who understands Pure Lutheran Doctrine™ and who has a pipeline into Lutheran Millennium HQ™ is in a pretty good position to tell the rest of you what’s what.

21. geoff - May 8, 2009

I just don’t know why you initially doubted me, Geoff, when I appealed for more graphs. That kinda hurts.

I often think back to your advice when I was starting up my blog. I think it was pretty darn good advice for getting on the fast-growth track. I just didn’t feel the need to grow at an unholy rate. Kind of the same attitude I’ve had with my businesses – I was always interested in the work, but not in the profit.

I think I need some sort of management.

22. Michael - May 8, 2009

Geoff, I’ll be your manager, for a reasonable cut (35%). “Big Trouble” could still be a huge intertertubes hit. You’ll have to pose as some godlike figure dispensing wisdom, sorta like Allah or something, but it’s all just jokey, not like a genuine Lutheran who really knows stuff.

People will eat it up.

23. Michael - May 8, 2009

By the way, I have previously plugged Watts Up With That, and I’m going to do it again right now. It’s graph heaven, and a ray of sunshine for real science on the subject of global warming.

24. kevlarchick - May 8, 2009

geoff’s “flow” is back.

STUD.

25. EBuzzMiller - May 8, 2009

That chart is totally bogus! It doesn’t show the thousands – no, MILLIONS – of jobs that Obama has “saved” or “created”.

26. BrewFan - May 8, 2009

yournemesis’ ignorance is now enshrined for eternity, or until a hard drive crashes, in the Comment Hall of Fame.

27. Michael - May 8, 2009

Thanks Brew!

28. Michael - May 8, 2009

Oh Geoff, now you have been linked by Mary Katherine Ham at The Weekly Standard.

29. daveintexas - May 8, 2009

Behind every smart guy there are a dozen goofballs sorting M&Ms to throw blue ones at his head.

*ping*

30. Mrs. Peel - May 8, 2009

These trackbacks are mathematical proof that geoff is teh awesome.

31. Michael - May 8, 2009

Dave, I don’t have M&Ms.

I have jelly beans, and I don’t like the white coconut ones.

*ping*

32. Cathy - May 8, 2009

I don’t like the white coconut ones.

I like them. Hint.

33. Avaricious Fuck - May 9, 2009

I heard someone is giving me a bad name.

34. Edward Von Bear - May 9, 2009

M&M’s are the shit.

But not the ones with nuts.

35. $787 BILLION FAILURE « word of mouth - May 10, 2009

[...] h/t:  Innocent Bystanders [...]

36. Unemployment estimates - with and without recovery plan | Radio Vice Online - May 11, 2009

[...] Bystanders has two (first, second) good posts on the subject of President Obama’s Recovery Plan and what it was supposed to [...]

37. lauraw - May 11, 2009

Hah!

Jim Vicevich is the local radio republitarian here in CT.
Nice.

38. Hot Air » Blog Archive » White House: No job growth for rest of the year - May 11, 2009

[...] annualized basis for the second straight quarter despite the stimulus.  This chart from Geoff at Innocent Bystanders makes the reason for their sudden honesty [...]

39. Moe Lane » White House predicts 3.5% growth by year’s end. - May 11, 2009

[...] (last month’s was 8.9%, thanks largely to government seasonal work*). And then there’s this (via [...]

40. emjem24 - May 11, 2009

#40:

Hahahahahahaha. That’s a good one. Sigh… so will this 3.5% happen before or after a) China stops buying our treasuries, b) Fedzilla raids the 401k and IRA trough, or C) Obummer goes on vacation to work on his shining pecs?

Oh, and if we add in those unemployed who’ve stopped looking for jobs or have chosen to be underemployed (I’m in the “unemployed” category not collecting unemployment benefits). the 8.9% unemployment rate is more like 15+%. I would like to know how Fedzilla is counting those who quit their jobs (like me) or can’t find anything but temp jobs? Are temp jobs suddenly permanent employment?

Geoff, good job. However, if you aren’t Obummer’s biotch all the graphics that contradict his assertions won’t be considered. The collective will just assert that you hate “dishonest,” made-up math.

41. drjohn - May 11, 2009

Good post- really useful and helpful. It shows once more that Obama knows nothing of economics. He has gotten nothing right.

42. Instapundit » Blog Archive » PREDICTIONS TESTED: Unemployment numbers and the “recovery plan.” Apparently, we’re right where Ob… - May 11, 2009

[...] TESTED: Unemployment numbers and the “recovery plan.” Apparently, we’re right where Obama’s economists said we’d be without the [...]

43. BrewFan - May 11, 2009

INSTALANCHE!!1!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!11!!

44. Sobek - May 11, 2009

We’ve been around over three years, and geoff finally starts earning his keep.

45. Tushar - May 11, 2009

Heh! Indeed.

46. Michael - May 11, 2009

Wow — AOSHQ, Hot Air and Instapundit — Geoff just won the Triple Crown of blogging commenting.

This also got linked by Redstate. No ping yet, but they’re sending some hits.

47. er-ic - May 11, 2009

How dare you criticize The One. I hope your kidneys fail!!!

48. Bailout Results | PoliPundit.com - May 11, 2009

[...] So how’s that bailout going? [...]

49. Gazzer’s Gabfest » It seems Barry ain’t “creating” or saving” anything - May 11, 2009

[...] We are in the best of hands.  Also, whilst lurking at Gateway Pundit I cam across this excellent graph from Innocent Bystanders [...]

50. Chuckster - May 11, 2009

This is becoming one ‘funny as hell’ post. Many intelligent commenters with one or two laggards who rode the short buses to school.

51. Captain Quirk - May 11, 2009

Just wait and see. Obama is going to cut the deficit in half four years from now. That’s right, a cool $900 billion shaved off the deficit in only four years. Ahead warp factor 1 ‘yournemesis’. We’ll leave these tools in the dust of history on the wrong side of reality.

52. mesablue - May 11, 2009

I found this site through Instapundit, it seems interesting if a bit boring. Would you be interested in trading links?

Mmmm, graphs. Who’da think?

53. Citizen Paine Blog » A picture’s worth $787 billion words - May 11, 2009

[...] From Innocent Bystanders [...]

54. TGSG - May 11, 2009

cool beans :)

55. White House predicts 3.5% growth by year’s end. | WTF?! Obama - May 11, 2009

[...] (last month’s was 8.9%, thanks largely to government seasonal work*). And then there’s this (via [...]

56. TORRRR - May 11, 2009

“Barak The Destroyer”!

57. torabora - May 11, 2009

There’s a few places in Commiefornia where the UI is 25% and a small town where it is 41%.

50% of the federal budget is borrowed money.

duh1 is toast and it is only the 2nd 100 days.

hang on, it’s going to get rough.

58. TORRRR - May 11, 2009

Socialism works from the bottom up and then collapses! Dig the European Colonies!
This naive imposter is leading the Great Society down the toilet of oblivion!
He is the self styled personification of the three failures: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, James Carter and he is the third, B.Hussein Obama!
The warm up pitcher, in the bull pen, isn’t a bit less naive, either!
Maybe he’ll spin out of control and be removed from the whitehouse, green garden and all and skip out to Kenya!

59. MCPO Airdale - May 11, 2009

This site would be much better if there were discussions of Lutheran doctrine and maybe a recipe or two.

60. Michael - May 11, 2009

This site would be much better if there were discussions of Lutheran doctrine and maybe a recipe or two.

I don’t think so. What we actually need are links to pictures of somebody’s new puppy.

3. . . .2. . . .1. . . . — VMax!

61. Jim - May 11, 2009

Wow everyone in the world is linking to this post.

62. geoff - May 12, 2009

Wow everyone in the world is linking to this post.

Fortunately I’m not getting a swelled head or anything. No, I’m pretty much taking it in stride as my just due.

But I do think we should spruce up the header with some pictures of, well, ummmm, me, of course.

63. MCPO Airdale - May 12, 2009

geoff – Don’t tempt me. . .

64. Group W Groupie - May 12, 2009

You know, if you extended the curve through and past the March and April data points, it would look a lot like a hockey stick. Hmm…

65. christopher ganiere - May 12, 2009

The recovery plan was not meant to take effect till 2010 – right before the mid term elections. That is when all the spending will kick in and everything will look rosy and the Democrats will be reelected in a landslide.

66. Obama Recovery Plan Worse than No Recovery Plan | 186 k per second - May 12, 2009

[...] The April Numbers Are In – It’s Official « Innocent Bystanders Oh my. It appears that his economists can’t predict very well (that fills me with confidence), and that his stimulus package is providing absolutely no benefit. [...]

67. Don’t quit your day job « Cadillac Tight - May 12, 2009

[...] make matters worse, this graph that has been floating around the Internet today shows that unemployment is exactly where the Obama [...]

68. Archie - May 12, 2009

The Man in the White House lied and lied and lied.

MSM don’t care at all. They love this guy. I mean they want to mess with this Guy in bed…. all kind of stuff.

69. DeserveLibertyDotCom - May 12, 2009

We should pray that soon 51% of Americans will wake up to the fact that Obama intends complete destruction of the US economy, followed by social inversion. He continues to succeed at organizing mob rule. He must be stopped.

70. Jim DeCamp - May 12, 2009

In re #2: Obama’s planners can unfailingly predict the ineluctable future, but can never predict the ever changing past.

71. The Coalition of the Swilling - May 12, 2009

So, While We All Know…

…this is true… …”Blaming George” still makes a tingle run up the legs of all the hymn-singing true believers, but outside the embrace of the cult, that tingle is beginning to sting instead. This is Mr. Obama’s government now. …the……

72. Duke - May 12, 2009

But the MSM told us that Obama’s pork-u-fest was necessary (as was TARP I and II and TALF and …). Clearly you must be mistaken, and in need of mandatory re-education so you may more fully understand the new, post-partisan utopia that dear leader Obama is bringing about for all of us. The Chysler bondholders can attest to how enlightened they’ve become afterward thier re-education.

73. Unemployment numbers worse than projected | Les Jones - May 12, 2009

[...] How much worse? This much worse. [...]

74. zachary - May 12, 2009

I hope we all realize soon that this didn’t start with Obama. It was Bush (and Clinton before, etc.) that gave us this bubble that is now popping.

75. Don L - May 12, 2009

“zachary”
Bush and Clinton?

You forgot about Barney Frank -Chris Dodd -even Hillary and Obama got bucks from FNMA and a host of pols with their big paws in the pockets of what they were supposed to be regulating.

Much of this is because of the CRA (Communism’s Responsible Always)
program that forced lending institutions to give away what people couldn’t afford even though it was free.

Attacking Wall Street is a good way do destroy the wealth makers.

It’s hard to not blame the envy (soak the rich crowd) as well as the greed crowd – the real problem stems from the “look at all those free votes we can buy with someone else’s money” crowd.

76. geoff - May 12, 2009

I hope we all realize soon that this didn’t start with Obama.

That’s not the point. At all. The point is that Obama’s fixes have sucked. Too much money spent with too little focus too late to do any good.

Nobody blamed Obama for this mess (though he’s not blameless). We’re blaming him for making it worse.

77. Mad Bluebird - May 12, 2009

All those millions and millions of dollars blown on pork projects of some of the worse porkers from WASHINGTON D.C.(DISTRICT OF CRINIMALS)

78. ajacksonian - May 12, 2009

Need to look for ternary graphs… and a discussion about regression towards the mean as it pertains to many things… ahhhh graphs…

When we have to break out the log-scale graphs to try to show past defeceit spending against current defeceits, and explain how that works, then people will get a real shocker.

79. skinbad - May 12, 2009

I think that’s a Spurwing sighting. OK, Geoff. NOW I’m impressed.

80. Random Nuclear Strikes » Tag Team - May 12, 2009

[...] done by Geoff at the Innocent Bystanders blog, found via the [...]

81. Richard of Oregon - May 12, 2009

The chart sort of looks like a woman’s breasts, with and without reduction surgery. Am I missing something?

82. Stevend - May 12, 2009

I got directed here from powerlineblog.

This is a very, very sharp analysis that desrves a wide readership.

Thanks for creating and posting it!

83. aaron - May 12, 2009

With the shift from investing in homes and real-estate and productive capital investment to holding commodities, I think the only thing the government might inflate away are people’s retirement savings. Of course, it’s plausible that the government spending is being financed by money that otherwise would have also gone into holding commodities. But that seems aweful risky for people seeking a “risk-free” investment.

It’s strange that so much money would go into holding commodities rather than producing them. Then again, maybe they have reason to believe that “something” might prevent them from making investments that will produce a return.

84. Cathy - May 12, 2009

*oozing with pride for our moron-blog-bud, Geoff*

Kudos, Geoff. Keep it up. We want more.

85. Obama’s Job Stimulus Deception, Illustrated : The Sundries Shack - May 12, 2009

[...] On the other hand, I do have evidence that the President hasn’t saved any jobs. Interestingly enough, the evidence comes from the President himself, thanks to a some nice work done by Geoff at Innocent Bystanders. [...]

86. Stimulus isn’t working « Internet Scofflaw - May 12, 2009

[...] it gives us a benchmark by which to measure how well the stimulus is working.  As noted on the Innocent Bystanders blog (via Instapundit), we are just about where we were predicted to be without the stimulus [...]

87. Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » How Effective Is the Stimulus? - May 12, 2009

[...] one of the many writers at the Innocent Bystanders blog, noted in April, and again last week when the April numbers were official, that the unemployment figures are precisely following the [...]

88. Colossal waste. « True Sailing Is Dead - May 12, 2009

[...] Funny you should ask. [...]

89. Sara Peirson - May 12, 2009

Here’s a good link.

davis

90. Predicted vs. Actual | QandO - May 12, 2009

[...] an interesting little chart I found at Innocent Bystanders.  The light blue line is the Obama administration’s prediction of how terrible unemployment [...]

91. Cliftonchadwick’s Blog - May 12, 2009

[...] site called Innocent Bystanders, with which I was not familiar, has done a real service. Geoff, a contributor to that site, noted [...]

92. nicedeb - May 12, 2009

Oh…Geoff and his silly charts!

93. The Greenroom » Forum Archive » Unemployment numbers the WH-MSM don’t want you to see - May 13, 2009

[...] [...]

94. Gary - May 13, 2009

Whoever came up with those Fedzilla and Obummer monikers is to be congratulated. Actually, the site shadowstats.com pegs unemployment at around 20 percent, perhaps higher, if you count all the unemployed categories ignored by the government to gloss things over.

95. Unemployment Higher than Projected….WITHOUT Stimulus Spending | Chicago Daily Observer - May 13, 2009

[...] Unemployment figures come in a bit higher than projected by the Obama administration.  In fact they are even higher than projected WITHOUT the stimulus bill.  More at Innocent Bystanders [...]

96. Don’t quit your day job | louis caldera - May 13, 2009

[...] make mat&#116&#101&#114s worse, this graph that has been floating around &#116&#104&#101 Internet today shows that unemployment is [...]

97. The Administration Gives Itself an A+ on Stimulus Spending. The Reality is Much Worse. - AIP Blog - American Issues Project - May 13, 2009

[...] The real kicker in Biden's assessment is that we've created or saved 150,000 jobs with the $88 billion we've "obligated" (which comes to $586,667 per job created or saved. Such a bargain!). Let's look at what the administration was telling us before the Stimulus Bill was passed about how much we needed it. Here is a chart (pdf link) put together by the President's economic team and added to by Geoff from the Innocent Bystanders blog. [...]

98. Hot Air » Blog Archive » AIP Column: Was Porkulus irrelevant? - May 14, 2009

[...] look at the stimulus package, its aim, and its poor marksmanship.  In particular, this graph from Innocent Bystanders tells the story of not only how Porkulus failed, but how it wasn’t necessary in the first [...]

99. Jon Claerbout - May 14, 2009

Let us replace the finance “industry” run by law and econ grads of Harvard and Yale. People are too corruptable! Let us replace it (most of it) by a computer program written by grads of Stanford and MIT!

100. Stimulus Shmimulus « The Loud Talker - May 14, 2009

[...] by cann0nba11 on May 14, 2009 This graph tells us what most rational people already knew about the Stimulus. IT WASN’T NECESSARY. Billions of dollars, OUR dollars, were thrown down an [...]

101. geoff - May 14, 2009

Well, MIT at least.

102. Michelle Malkin » Washington can’t meet the Cheerios Standard - May 15, 2009

[...] Well, how about the bogus marketing of the fiscal “stimulus?” President Obama and the Democrats promoted the trillion-dollar package as job creation salvation. The White House claims 150,000 jobs have been “created or saved.” But since February, the nation has lost more than 1.3 million jobs. The current 8.9 percent unemployment rate in the wake of stimulus passage is worse than the 8.8 percent unemployment figure Obama’s economists darkly predicted if Congress didn’t immediately adopt their recovery plan. (See Innocent Bystanders.) [...]

103. The Obama administration doesn’t meet the standards of breakfast foods « Urbin Report - May 15, 2009

[...] Obama’s economists darkly predicted if Congress didn’t immediately adopt their recovery plan. (See Innocent Bystanders.) … Washington told us the “stimulus” projects were “shovel-ready” and would provide [...]

104. Adam Smith - May 15, 2009

Here’s something to consider:

What is the likely consequence for the economy of electing a President who is economically ignorant and/or controlled by ideology? Wouldn’t managers start hunkering down, positioning themselves for the prospect of a mismanaged economy?

Now, think back to when the recession went from so-mild-it-was-barely-noticed to near depression levels in what amounts to a few days: Exactly at the point where it became obvious that Mr. Obama would be elected.

If the prospect of Mr. Obama’s election is the reason why the economy has gotten so bad, then doesn’t it follow that recovery will not happen until his presidentcy ends?

105. Ed Driscoll » Not To Be Confused With The Pepsi Syndrome - May 15, 2009

[...] Well, how about the bogus marketing of the fiscal “stimulus?” President Obama and the Democrats promoted the trillion-dollar package as job creation salvation. The White House claims 150,000 jobs have been “created or saved.” But since February, the nation has lost more than 1.3 million jobs. The current 8.9 percent unemployment rate in the wake of stimulus passage is worse than the 8.8 percent unemployment figure Obama’s economists darkly predicted if Congress didn’t immediately adopt their recovery plan. (See Innocent Bystanders.) [...]

106. Greg - May 15, 2009

It looks to me like the results are tracking the projections very well indeed. There is no “recovery plan”, is there?

107. The Waterglass » Give Me Just a Little More Time… - May 15, 2009

[...] Well, he just needs more time!  I mean, it’ll all turn out right in the end, right?  So far it hasn’t. [...]

108. Stimulus Act appears to be complete failure in creating / saving jobs › The Right Issues - May 16, 2009

[...] via Innocent Bystanders [...]

109. Accountability? - Economics - - May 17, 2009

[...] above is from page four that report, together with the actual results over the past couple months. (Source.)What does this mean? One interpretation is that the fiscal stimulus has failed to achieve what [...]

110. Obama’s Unsustainable Debts « Nice Deb - May 17, 2009

[...] to Geoff’s now famous chart, which is simply the Obama administration’s chart with their own projections of the [...]

111. wilsonrofishing - May 17, 2009

I posted my analysis of the stimulus today, along the same tack as yours, and even borrowed your wonderful chart (which you borrowed/modified from the administrations little Stimulus marketing pamphlet!), so I am going back to revise my post and give credit where credit is due.

I expanded a bit on your analysis though, and argued that if you do not live in the Metro DC area and/or have no desire to be a federal employee, there is not much of a stimulus where job growth is concerned. . .

112. No Unemployment Stimulus, Thus Far « Acre of Independence - May 17, 2009

[...] Script: I lifted the chart juxtaposing the actual unemployment numbers from this site HERE. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Stimulus Math Not Adding UpExplaining Economics [...]

113. JTHM - May 17, 2009

Funny, ok not, but they are now saying we reached the bottom most likely in April. That means only about 6% of the stim-pak funds have made it’s way into the economy. The screams that this INCREDIBLY horrible Crisis required TRILLIONS RIGHT NOW to save the country from certain doom.
So can we ask that they give back the reamaining 94% and call it over?

114. EckerNet.Com » Blog Archive » Deep Thoughts With Kevin - May 18, 2009

[...] by the Obama administration’s own figures, their stimulus plans have been a collosal failure.  In fact, according to their own figures we’d have been better doing nothing and letting [...]

115. Measuring Success - May 18, 2009

[...] Here is an interesting graphic. [...]

116. It’s Hard To Make Predictions « Political Math - May 18, 2009

[...] May 18, 2009 This graph has been going around a good deal in the last week. (Source) [...]

117. It’s Tough Making Predictions… « Political Math - May 18, 2009

[...] May 18, 2009 This graph has been going around a good deal in the last week. (Source) [...]

118. The Unmysterious Unemployment Rate « Innocent Bystanders - May 19, 2009

[...] Unmysterious Unemployment Rate May 19, 2009 Posted by geoff in News. trackback The previous post containing a plot of actual unemployment vs. what was predicted by Obama’s economic team [...]

119. Sarah Palin en Español - May 20, 2009

Transición de Obama: política económica (VII). Los números son tozudos….

El paro se aleja de las previsiones
Las cifras del paro en Estados Unidos en abril han sido bastante duras. Según un comunicado del 8 de mayo del Bureau of Labor Statistics, más de 600.000 empleos se destruyeron en el sector privado en abril, poniend…

120. Michigan Still Better Off than California « Cynical Synapse - May 21, 2009

[...] to 8.5% nationwide. Imagine where we’d be without the stimulus. But wait; it appears the recovery plan has no effect on unemployment. So where’s all that money [...]

121. Obamanomics: How’s It Doing So Far? | No Bull. news service. - May 27, 2009

[...] site called Innocent Bystanders, with which I was not familiar, has done a real service. Geoff, the proprietor, noted this [...]

122. Unemployment predictions for May « Innocent Bystanders - June 1, 2009

[...] the week. But for those of you who are as impatient as I, we can jump the gun a bit and update the infamous unemployment chart with the projected value for May of [...]

123. The May Unemployment Numbers are Here, and Worse Than Predicted « Innocent Bystanders - June 5, 2009

[...] The April Numbers Are In – It’s Official « Innocent Bystanders – June 5, [...]

124. Jiang Gong - June 5, 2009

Good God man!

125. Edward Von Bear - June 5, 2009

^that’s what she said!

126. Conservative Compendium » Unemployment At 9.4%, New York Times Hopeful - June 5, 2009

[...] 9.4% unemployment figure released today was not supposed to happen.  That was the point of the Porkulus Bill, was it [...]

127. Stimulus Not Putting a Halt to Unemployment | Conservative Patriot HQ - June 6, 2009

[...] post included a chart from Innocent Bystanders that updated the figures put forth by the Obama [...]

128. Question: Expecting too much? | Blackinformant.com - African-American culture, news commentary, politics - June 8, 2009

[...] This is what Obama’s own economists predicted (h/t: Innocent Bystanders) [...]

129. Correction to the May Unemployment Chart « Innocent Bystanders - June 8, 2009

[...] Several commenters both here and at other blogs have asked if the monthly markers show for April and May are lined up correctly. I had thought about it when I first made the chart, but I’ve [...]

130. Unemployement Worse if We’d Had No Stimulus « Rantings of mine - June 8, 2009

[...] The April numbers [...]

131. Frank’s Case Book » Blog Archive » By the Numbers - June 21, 2009

[...] the Recovery Plan at all. The economic predictions were way off even over the very short term. The blog Innocent Bystanders has been following the numbers carefully. The plot below is a reproduction from The Job Impact of [...]

132. By the Numbers « Frank’s Case Book - June 21, 2009

[...] the Recovery Plan at all. The economic predictions were way off even over the very short term. The blog Innocent Bystanders has been following the numbers carefully. The plot below is a reproduction from The Job Impact of [...]

133. Unemployment: June Projection and a Dire Warning of Posts to Come « Innocent Bystanders - June 30, 2009

[...] was that unemployment would increase by 0.2% in June. Last month they predicted 0.4%, and we got 0.6%, but they were dead on with their April guess. We’ll see how they do this [...]

134. The Jury Talks Back » Well thank god we passed the Stimulus bill… - July 21, 2009

[...] Oh wait… [...]

135. July Unemployment « Innocent Bystanders - August 7, 2009

[...] The April numbers [...]

136. Doctor's Support Group - August 22, 2009

Doctor’s Support Group…

The members of the DSG have extensive personal experience of suspension, exclusion, NHS Trust and GMC investigations….

137. Stimulating the Dead - October 28, 2009

[...] some stimulus. Not only has spending billions of dollars actually increased unemployment faster than President Obama’s economic advisors projected, but it’s raising the dead in [...]

138. » An Industry by Industry Look at the Stimulus Failure - Big Government - September 5, 2010

[...] of the rapid passage of the massive $787 billion stimulus bill in February 2009. (Geoff at the Innocent Bystanders blog deserves everlasting credit for being the first to point out this [...]

139. wpolscemamymocneseo - January 11, 2011

There is perceptibly a lot to identify about this. I believe you made various good points in features also.

140. Stimulus Shmimulus | The Loud Talker - March 2, 2011

[...] graph tells us what most rational people already knew about the Stimulus. IT WASN’T NECESSARY. Billions of dollars, OUR dollars, were thrown down an [...]

141. andygillette - August 21, 2012

Sorry if this was already answered in one of the many comments, but where does the initial estimates from Obama’s economists come from? I’m just looking for the source of his estimates, and when they were made (before the bill was changed a lot, or after it had been passed with final revisions, etc.).

142. geoff - August 21, 2012

The initial estimates were published here, 2 weeks before the bill was passed.

andygillette - August 21, 2012

Awesome. Thanks.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 203 other followers

%d bloggers like this: