• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GDP Contracted at 1% Pace in First Quarter

Ah, so every one is a couple people saying marginally related things. Got it.
 
Ah, so every one is a couple people saying marginally related things. Got it.

Read again. It is not a couple people, nor is it "marginally-related" as it explicitly concerns how much impact they estimate weather had.
 
I'll tell you what.... You live in that wonderful republican owned economy of 2008 then.

PS... I did not vote for Obama in 2008.

Let's see if I have this right, Bush with a Democrat Congress in 2007-2008 is responsible for the results but with Obama and a Democrat Congress from 2009-2011 and a split Congress from 2011 to the present isn't responsible for the economy and its Congress's fault? When exactly does the Economy become Obama's? Would love to have an answer but doubt I will get one
 
Let's see if I have this right, Bush with a Democrat Congress in 2007-2008 is responsible for the results but with Obama and a Democrat Congress from 2009-2011 and a split Congress from 2011 to the present isn't responsible for the economy and its Congress's fault? When exactly does the Economy become Obama's? Would love to have an answer but doubt I will get one

When it comes to holding Obama responsible, Libbos are roaches and the light just got turned on.
 
Well this is what we get when our conservative scotus tells us corporations are people and money is speech. The too big too fail "people" become the only speech our politicians can and want to hear.

Like GM, you mean? The UAW was too big to fail, but you don't seem to mention that.
 
Like GM, you mean? The UAW was too big to fail, but you don't seem to mention that.

That is because GM is now owned by the Democrat Operatives in the union. Liberals certainly have double standards.
 
Not true, Reagan inherited double digit interest rates, poverty rates were at a all time high, and Unemployment rates were higher and you're STILL 6 years in blaming Bush.

Its getting childish.

Double digit interest rates? lol. I thought conservatives loved high interested rates. And reagan didn't have to inherit the worst housing recession in american history. Im still wondering what kind of idiot would think that that using the taxpayers money to give a minimum wage mcdonalds worker a $500,000 loan is a good idea. Oh this guy/
 
the terrible April departure of people from the labor force

Yeah, who said people should be allowed to retire? Lazy bums!

>>economists have manipulated data to work with

Hey! Don't go around telling people about that.

Everything I read says people are giving up looking for work in droves.

The decline in labor force participation in recent years has been widely "employed" to criticise Obama's economic policies. I'd say it's also widely misunderstood. I'm reluctant to post a link to another of my posts, but I'd also like to avoid simply repeating stuff, so you can absorb my wisdom on LFP trends here.

the worst growth rate after a recession in modern times.

The first near-collapse of the financial sector since the Great depression.

Do you realize that the total debt now exceeds 100% of GDP

Do you realize that that Reagan and Bush43 are responsible for getting us there?

>>that there still are fewer people working today than when the recession began

Private-sector employment in April was 116.4 million. The previous high was 116 million in Jan 2008.

>>that the economic growth is below the average of the Bush term

Wrong again.

RGDP.png

>>that the unemployment/under employment is worse than anything Bush had

U-6, the Labor Department's broadest measure, was 12.3% in April. When Bush left office, it was 14.2%

>>It is great to be loyal but loyalty has to have its limits. When will we ever reach that limit with Obama supporters?

Perhaps when and if he gives us reason to.

Uhm, what persistent growth ? GDP would indicate "persistent growth".

GDP expanded in seventeen of the last nineteen quarters.

Was this 5 year period a typical recovery?

Was this a business cycle recession?

Tell me how the 3.9 trillion dollar Obama budget shows someone interested in lowering the deficit and debt?

Def_As_Pct_GDP_Chart.jpg

>>Seems that the definition of transforming America was interpreted differently by the American people vs Obama's.

Re-elected by five million votes and 322-206.

>>We are getting exactly what Obama wanted, a European socialist economy with low economic growth

Recovery from a near-collapse of the financial sector.

>>high unemployment

6.3% and continuing its steady drop from the disaster he inherited.

>>high debt

Rapidly declining deficits … from the disaster he inherited.

>>an economy dependent on the Federal Govt. thus more people dependent on that govt

Rhetoric.

Whether you can call this job growth is an open question. The raw numbers are higher, but the working-age population has also grown.

That's why a percentage is calculated.

>>At the same time labor participation is at multi-decade lows.

A multi-decade demographic trend.

>>Even then, many of the jobs being "created" are lower income jobs or part-time jobs.

Part-time employment has dropped by 400K. Yer right about incomes. We should invest in education, R & D, and infrastructure. And we should raise the minimum wage. Labor is getting screwed — it's not the Democrats' fault.

>>Never mind that any "growth" in the economy is fueled entirely by various Fed and government injections that are unsustainable and distort the market.

OK, that'll be easy. It's a baseless claim.

>>Stocks jumping higher on such horrible news is a pretty good indicator of how rigged the market has become.

What horrible news?

>>All meaningful indicators point to a recession starting this year

Did we get an answer to the question Visbek raised about what those indicators are? The forecasts I've seen predict fairly strong growth.

Reagan was actually qualified

Qualified to act in B movies.

>>and he DID inherit a mess

Some do argue that, e.g., Sarah Palin. Others point to the fact that Obama was faced with a near-collapse of the financial sector similar to the events that precipitated the Great Depression. See, e.g., PolitiFact.

As that article points out, the economy was not in recession when Mr. Reagan took office. There were two recessions in the early 1980s, one in the the first two quarters of 1980, and another in the last two of 1981. So the economy was expanding for six months before Reagan's term began, and continued to expand for another six months.

I'm willing to go along with those who call those a "double-dip" recession, although I'd say there's good reason not to. i have to wonder if Obama's critics would be as generous.​

>>But Reagan's not relevant to your irrelevant Bush blame.

Yes, but he's the focus of the Reagan blame reality.

Reagan inherited double digit interest rates

I was easy to get those down. Howard Baker told Volker to take his foot off the country's throat.

>>poverty rates were at a all time high

Nonsense.

>>Unemployment rates were higher and you're STILL 6 years in blaming Bush

In Jan 1981, unemployment was 7.5%; in Jan 2009, it was 7.8%.

In July 1982, it was 7.2%, By Nov 1982, it was 10.8%. One year later, it was still 8.3%. As late as Oct 1986, it was still 7%.

Obama's record is much different. It climbed to 10% in Oct 2009 as the effects of the Great Recession played through the labor market. It declined slowly over the next two years to 8.8%. Some economists argue that the ARRA wasn't big enough. In the last twenty months, as consumer and business confidence have strengthened, it's dropped from 8.1% to 6.3%.

>>Its getting childish.

Seems like it always has been.

After the 81-82 Carter double dip, Reagan had 7.5% GDP growth. That shows what leadership can and will do.

That shows what a huge tax cut that created massive deficits can do — the Reagan stimulus.

QE is artificially boosting asset prices and lowering risk. thought this was common knowledge.

Common among people who don't know what they're talking about.

It [labor force participation] has clearly and indisputably declined more severely since 2008-2009.

Depends on what you mean by "severely." LFP was 65.9% in April 2008. It was 64.6% in Dec 2009. It's averaged 63% during the past nine months.
 
Last edited:
mmi, you really have a problem with facts, that massive stimulus that Reagan implemented created 17 million jobs, doubled the GDP, and increased FIT revenue by 60%. That information is available at BLS.gov, BEA.gov, and the Treasury Dept. It also created a peace dividend that was wasted but then again facts never were much of a friend to you especially someone who probably hadn't been born yet so you buy what the left tells you. one of these days you will outgrow that
 
that massive stimulus that Reagan implemented created 17 million jobs

And nearly doubled the per capita national debt.

nat_debt_per_capita_Kennedy_Obama.jpg

>>doubled the GDP

Real GDP:

1980 — 6.49 trillion
1988 — 8.60 trillion

A 32.5% increase.

>>increased FIT revenue by 60%.

A big increase in Social Security taxes played a large role in generating that additional revenue.

In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees. — Taxes: What people forget about Reagan," CNNMoney, Sept 12, 2010​

>>It also created a peace dividend that was wasted

Yeah, wasted when Chaingang and associates ignored the clear warnings of an imminent Al Qaeda attack inside the US, and then spun their lies to get us to invade Iraq.

>>facts never were much of a friend to you

I always get a laugh out of yer arrogant ignorance.

>>someone who probably hadn't been born yet

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...te-holds-steady-6-7-a-110.html#post1063275988

>>you buy what the left tells you. one of these days you will outgrow that

Sadly, it looks like you'll never outgrow yer … disorder.
 
And nearly doubled the per capita national debt.

View attachment 67167359

>>doubled the GDP

Real GDP:

1980 — 6.49 trillion
1988 — 8.60 trillion

A 32.5% increase.

>>increased FIT revenue by 60%.

A big increase in Social Security taxes played a large role in generating that additional revenue.

In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees. — Taxes: What people forget about Reagan," CNNMoney, Sept 12, 2010​

>>It also created a peace dividend that was wasted

Yeah, wasted when Chaingang and associates ignored the clear warnings of an imminent Al Qaeda attack inside the US, and then spun their lies to get us to invade Iraq.

>>facts never were much of a friend to you

I always get a laugh out of yer arrogant ignorance.

>>someone who probably hadn't been born yet

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...te-holds-steady-6-7-a-110.html#post1063275988

>>you buy what the left tells you. one of these days you will outgrow that

Sadly, it looks like you'll never outgrow yer … disorder.

Love it, 1.7 trillion in debt is much much worse than the 6.8 trillion Obama has added because it is a smaller percentage. I keep hearing about the percentage change in debt but not the percentage change in GDP, or the percentage change in tax revenue, or the percentage of GDP that debt represents. Either learn how to use the quotes or I will no longer post to you. Final warning.

By the way, "real" GDP? LOL, The GDP growth was in 80 dollars not 2005 dollars
 
Last edited:
By the way, "real" GDP?

Real GDP means GDP in constant dollars or after-inflation GDP. Nominal GDP means GDP in current dollars or unadjusted for inflation.

Economists focus on real GDP (and the 1% annualized contraction for Q1 concerns real GDP), because that measure deals strictly with economic growth. Nominal GDP includes inflation. Hence, the economy might experience no growth whatsoever, but inflation would lead to a higher nominal GDP figure creating the perception of economic growth when none actually occurred.
 
Real GDP means GDP in constant dollars or after-inflation GDP. Nominal GDP means GDP in current dollars or unadjusted for inflation.

Economists focus on real GDP (and the 1% annualized contraction for Q1 concerns real GDP), because that measure deals strictly with economic growth. Nominal GDP includes inflation. Hence, the economy might experience no growth whatsoever, but inflation would lead to a higher nominal GDP figure creating the perception of economic growth when none actually occurred.

Great, the problem is Govt revenue, debt, and components of GDP at the time aren't generated in inflation adjusted dollars. Reagan had a GDP growth that doubled in nominal dollars and the revenue generated was in nominal dollars.
 
Great, the problem is Govt revenue, debt, and components of GDP at the time aren't generated in inflation adjusted dollars. Reagan had a GDP growth that doubled in nominal dollars and the revenue generated was in nominal dollars.

I was providing a technical point regarding the "real GDP" term. One can get data concerning revenue and expenditures in constant and current dollars and as a percent of GDP at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/hist01z3.xls

My personal opinion is that President Reagan was a superb leader. While he came to Washington expecting to cut the nation's deficits, seek to revive its economy, and bolster its military capabilities (to press the USSR), he quickly realized that he could not accomplish all three simultaneously. Deficits would be increased by cutting taxes (which would shift the supply curve to the right and complement the Fed's battle on inflation) and by raising military expenditures. He prioritized and chose economic revival and increased defense expenditures at the expense of deficit reduction. He also made tax-related concessions in helping extend the solvency of Social Security. He was a leader who saw the big picture, understood the need to work with Republicans and Democrats, and knew how to bring people together toward common goals (even as they disagreed on many issues). He was also willing to revise his approaches e.g., the Social Security plan had a revenue component to it. His shift from confrontation to engagement with the Soviet Union was a pivotal shift and he made it in the face of stiff opposition among many of his senior officials.
 
Double digit interest rates? lol. I thought conservatives loved high interested rates.
They don't. They dislike inflation, but many also want low interest rates. Go figure. ;)

During Carter's term, inflation was very high, and the only real remedy was to jack up interest rates; so, Carter brought in Paul Volcker, who began a very unpopular policy of doing just that. Reagan kept Volcker on (Fed chairmen rarely change when the President leaves office), and disliked Volcker's policy since in the short term it did make economic conditions a bit worse -- remember, Reagan was dealing with a recession for about 2 years. Fortunately, the Fed policy took hold, inflation was brought under control, and the economy started getting back on track.

Later, it was the arch-conservative Alan Greenspan who kept interest rates low year after year, much to the delight of corporate American and Wall Street -- who pitched major fits every time anyone in the Fed did so much as hinted that interest rates might go up.

Now, I will say that conservatives do want certain forms of fiscal restraint. But what we usually see when they are in the Presidency is that they cut taxes and sometimes spending, which often results in higher deficits. Bush 43 was particularly egregious in that he started two very expensive wars (which he intentionally kept out of the federal budget figures), cut taxes during wartime (which, frankly, is kind of insane), threw insane amounts of money at Homeland Security, and created a whole new entitlement to boot (Medicare Part D). At the end of his term, due only partly to his own policies, the US got whacked with the worst economic downturn in about 80 years, which of course sapped tax revenues. So we should keep in mind that Bush 43 saddled Obama with a lot of costs that he couldn't stop right away and tax cuts he couldn't change until after his 1st term.

I'd also say that I'm not really clear if they want small government to cut government spending, or if they want to cut spending in an attempt to hobble government's capabilities. It could be a bit of both, but I for one lean more towards the latter.
 
I was providing a technical point regarding the "real GDP" term. One can get data concerning revenue and expenditures in constant and current dollars and as a percent of GDP at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/hist01z3.xls

My personal opinion is that President Reagan was a superb leader. While he came to Washington expecting to cut the nation's deficits, seek to revive its economy, and bolster its military capabilities (to press the USSR), he quickly realized that he could not accomplish all three simultaneously. Deficits would be increased by cutting taxes (which would shift the supply curve to the right and complement the Fed's battle on inflation) and by raising military expenditures. He prioritized and chose economic revival and increased defense expenditures at the expense of deficit reduction. He also made tax-related concessions in helping extend the solvency of Social Security. He was a leader who saw the big picture, understood the need to work with Republicans and Democrats, and knew how to bring people together toward common goals (even as they disagreed on many issues). He was also willing to revise his approaches e.g., the Social Security plan had a revenue component to it. His shift from confrontation to engagement with the Soviet Union was a pivotal shift and he made it in the face of stiff opposition among many of his senior officials.

You and I are in agreement about Reagan's leadership skills and ability to get things done through Congress. We disagree however that cutting taxes caused the deficits as no one can prove that we would have generated 17 million new jobs and thus new taxpayers without the tax cuts. Human behavior is a foreign concept for far too many just like their lack of knowledge as to the components of GDP.
 
You and I are in agreement about Reagan's leadership skills and ability to get things done through Congress. We disagree however that cutting taxes caused the deficits as no one can prove that we would have generated 17 million new jobs and thus new taxpayers without the tax cuts. Human behavior is a foreign concept for far too many just like their lack of knowledge as to the components of GDP.

Clearly, there are behavioral (second and third-order impacts) from tax policy changes. Those effects are highly complex and there is a lot of uncertainty. Hence, they are not well-modeled.

For that reason, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) uses a static baseline. According to that baseline, tax revenue was lower than it would otherwise have been.

At the same time, there are hints that there had, in fact, been some behavior effect. First, tax revenue proved higher than had otherwise been projected. Second, if one used a “quick and dirty approach” and estimated tax revenue based on GDP trend growth (the Reagan period saw above trend growth) and the average tax revenue as a share of GDP, there was a gap. However, the faster growth or growth premium helped mitigate the gap that would have existed had GDP expanded at trend rate. Some economists suggest that a persistent growth premium (over the trend line) would, over a period of time, lead to tax revenue being at least as high as it would have otherwise been absent tax rate reductions.

In any case, those are highly technical and much debated matters. There is some behavioral impact, but it can’t be estimated precisely.

In the end, Reagan was satisfied that he had gotten most of what he set out to achieve in Washington. He had reduced tax rates, including the highest marginal rate. He had presided during a robust economic revival. He was able to strengthen the nation’s defenses and believed that had played a role in making possible renewed engagement with the Soviet Union. He was disappointed that he could not contain growth in other spending.
 
Clearly, there are behavioral (second and third-order impacts) from tax policy changes. Those effects are highly complex and there is a lot of uncertainty. Hence, they are not well-modeled.

For that reason, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) uses a static baseline. According to that baseline, tax revenue was lower than it would otherwise have been.

At the same time, there are hints that there had, in fact, been some behavior effect. First, tax revenue proved higher than had otherwise been projected. Second, if one used a “quick and dirty approach” and estimated tax revenue based on GDP trend growth (the Reagan period saw above trend growth) and the average tax revenue as a share of GDP, there was a gap. However, the faster growth or growth premium helped mitigate the gap that would have existed had GDP expanded at trend rate. Some economists suggest that a persistent growth premium (over the trend line) would, over a period of time, lead to tax revenue being at least as high as it would have otherwise been absent tax rate reductions.

In any case, those are highly technical and much debated matters. There is some behavioral impact, but it can’t be estimated precisely.

In the end, Reagan was satisfied that he had gotten most of what he set out to achieve in Washington. He had reduced tax rates, including the highest marginal rate. He had presided during a robust economic revival. He was able to strengthen the nation’s defenses and believed that had played a role in making possible renewed engagement with the Soviet Union. He was disappointed that he could not contain growth in other spending.

Although CBO is non partisan they base their projections on assumptions many of which are given to them by Congress. CBO projections are notoriously inaccurate due to assumptions they are given. They are given way too much credit which is why I use actual data and know that the 17 million jobs created generated more tax revenue. No CBO projection ever came close to the 17 million jobs created and where human behavior comes in is what those people did with their money. The GDP is 2/3 consumer spending or activity and that is why putting more money into the pockets of the consumer is so necessary to our economy.
 
...
Was this a business cycle recession?

HA! I knew it. You folks are nothing if not predictable.
The recession ended in 2009 ... along with any hope for the Country. There's no excuse for what he's done to us.
 
U.S. GDP Contracted at 1% Pace in First Quarter - WSJ.com

"he U.S. economy contracted in the first quarter of 2014, the latest stumble for a recovery that has struggled to find its footing since the recession ended almost five years ago."

The "recovery" is over.



I think you might just be reading the data incorrectly. The appearance of economic contraction is just the economy taking a huge breath before it enters {TURNM ON THE REVERB} "Summer of Recovery V". Or is it "VI"?

I'm considering quitting my job in preparation for all of the new opportunities that will be springing up as a result of the ongoing success of the Presidents Jobs Plan.

He's been focused on this like a laser since before the immacualtion. How much longer could it take?
 
Back
Top Bottom