Why are you pimpin for Krugman - idiot.
By then the death panels will have you kilt off by the time you are 60, not matter what your health status, so 2.8% would be achievable.
PathToProsperity...here...
http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PathToProsperityFY2012.pdf
HOORAY Paul Ryan!
If the criticizing Paul Ryan is coming from Paul Krugman, Ryan must be on to something
Ryan’s so-called “plan” was a farce from the gitgo
Keep going after unemployment Joe, it only makes our present 17% or so all the more real. IMO, it’s in the left’s responses to Ryan’s budget where we’ll eventually win on the issues.
If this is where REVENUE projections are from, Krugan is being ridiculous. If this is where EXPENDITURE projections are from, Krugman is dead on.
In the former case, what would REALLY happen is that the labor pool would expand, as certain members from the following groups would be enticed back to work: retirees, stay-at-home moms, frustrated jobseekers, etc. (Let’s hope he’s not counting on increased immigration). IN this case, “unemployment rate” really means “100-(workers/workforce*100)”, and not any real unemployment rate.
Krugman and the Lefties are counting on the Illegals being legalized. And lots of anchor babies.
The Largest AMERICAN population Baby Boomers are beginning to leave the workforce.
If the illegal problem is solved Ryan is right.
But as usual with the mental midgets like Krugman, they NEVER consider the fact that Americans are sick and tired of the invasion.
“As Paul Krugman points out, the only time we’ve been at this level was briefly, during the Korean War.”
I take that as an admission that Eisenhower was one of the greatest Presidents of the 20th Century.
The thing that jumps out of this chart is that the two highest unemployment numbers were during carter and obama.
DEFUND the HIVE...
The collective is toxic..
“The Paul Ryan deficit-elimination plan assumes that unemployment will drop to 2.8% by the year 2028.”
In all fairness, that’s not what the table says. The table is entitled “How the budget resolution would affect economic indicators.”
That said, I cannot tell if revenue assumptions feed back the optimistic unemployment numbers into the model. It was probably not a good idea to publish such unrealistic numbers. I suspect someone didn’t do a good job proofreading. Noone caught such an obvious mistake.
The other obvious problem is the 5.2% number in 2021 without the budget resolution. Does anyone think we will be at such a low unemployment rate if we continue with 1.5 trillion dollar deficits for ten years. Something will break if we do and the result will be much higher unemployment.
a.k.a. Democrat Party Insider.
Business Insider is to economic news what HuffPo and Kos are to national and international news.
Not credible.
Whether there is any solid basis for either projection is unclear, but I imagine just about anybody but Krugman would conclude that reducing tax rates, deficits, and government spending would lead to improved economic conditions relative to a continuation of the current administration's policies.
The bigger question is what basis does the CBO have for projecting an unemployment rate of 5.3% in 2016.
Look, 2028 is 17 years away. If Krugman wants to mock that, he ought to come up with his own numbers—which will also be mocked.
Why not, instead, mock BO’s piss poor prediction of UE below 8% when HIS window was only a year and a half? And it cost $1 Trillion in “stimulus”?!
Ryan’s vision, bottom line, is of a smaller federal footprint in our lives. And that is better than anything Krugman or BO has proposed. Ever.