Page 20 of 81 FirstFirst ... 1018192021223070 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 805

Thread: U.S. Economy Shrinks By Most Since Great Recession in 1Q[W:487:681]

  1. #191
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,876
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: U.S. Economy Shrinks By Most Since Great Recession in 1Q

    Quote Originally Posted by a351 View Post
    You're correct. Brain fart on my part.
    Not a problem. I've had a few myself.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  2. #192
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: U.S. Economy Shrinks By Most Since Great Recession in 1Q

    Quote Originally Posted by a351 View Post
    The main culprit was a decline in exports and fixed investment. One would be hard pressed to lay significant blame on the ACA, especially given the positive jobs reports in recent memory.



    We've had overly positive reports in employment, consumer confidence and housing in the months following Q1 and no credible projection places Q2 growth in negative territory. Just not a credible or informed assertion.
    Positive reports?

    Like 319,000 jobs in the all important 25-54 age range (which makes up over 65% of the work force) have been lost since March?

    Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

    Like U.S. Durable Goods Orders Drop 1.0% in May?

    U.S. Durable Goods Orders Drop 1.0% in May - WSJ

    Like the trade deficit in April (last reported month) was the worst since March 2012?

    Plus, imports for the month hit an all time record while exports dropped from March to April?

    Foreign Trade - U.S. Trade with World, Seasonally Adjusted

    Like, according to Gallup, economic confidence is as low as the beginning of April...and getting lower?

    U.S. Economic Confidence Index Dips to -16

  3. #193
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:13 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,013

    Re: U.S. Economy Shrinks By Most Since Great Recession in 1Q

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Spending on a home is an investment and if you bought a home you refinanced at lower rates and your monthly profit demand went down. There is long term and short term debt and it is consumer spending that is the largest component of GDP. Bad weather affects short term debt not long term debt and as you claimed consumer spending went up, not down. People cannot get out during bad weather and that should affect consumer spending. Again, get your nose out of the book and get out and find out what is going on.
    I have to say, this is the most scrambled thing you've said so far.

    You claimed that "debts prevent people from spending," and I showed how this is not actually the case. A mortgage is a debt, and treating it as an investment is actually a bit of a mistake, and a way of thinking which exacerbated the recent real estate bubble. (In short, if that's how you think about it, then it's like taking out a loan to invest in the stock market.) A mortgage is debt, plain and simple, and it's only a problem if you can't make your payments.

    Now, I do agree that non-mortgage debt can influence spending habits -- but again, it's not because "you've got debt," it's based on your ability to pay off those debts.

    I am glad to hear, though, that you do finally accept that bad weather can depress GDP because consumers are less likely to go out and buy stuff.


    Again, you have no clue as to what you are talking about, deficits are yearly and based upon the yearly budget. Bush hasn't had a budget since fiscal year 2008.
    Errm.... Federal deficits (and surpluses) are based on the discrepancies between revenues and expenditures. It doesn't matter if appropriations are handled via an omnibus bill or a collection of appropriations bills, what matters is the amounts spent and received during the Federal government's fiscal year.


    Bush ended the Iraq War with the Status of Force Agreement and Obama has lost the peace but Obama did increase the costs of the so called "good war" in Afghanistan
    The US was still spending on military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan well into Obama's term, and winding those wars down has helped reduce deficits. It is highly unlikely that anyone in the office of President could have ended it any sooner.

    I also find it rather amusing that you attribute no responsibility to Bush for the consequences of his decision to invade Iraq, but problems in Iraq after the US left are wholly the responsibility of Obama. That's rather selective of you.


    Of course I don't deny that Bush cut taxes but that isn't an expense to the govt. and increased income tax revenue. How do you explain that?
    I already did. Cutting taxes is not calculated as an "expense," nor did I say anything of the sort. If Bush hadn't cut taxes, then revenues would have been substantially higher than what we actually saw. It's not like Goldman Sachs was going to give out smaller bonuses because of changes to the estate tax, or the $500 check Bush mailed to taxpayers....


    The new Medicare benefit was less than the Democrats wanted and has cut Medicare expenses, the two wars have been funded and are part of the Bush deficits. The war was funded yearly either on budget or off budget but both are part of the deficits. You cannot seem to comprehend that reality
    Egads.

    No matter how you slice it, Bush created a new entitlement (Medicare Part D), which will increase expenditures for decades to come. He also did it in such a way to increase costs to the taxpayer, because the law ruled out the ability of the government to negotiate drug costs with the pharmaceuticals.

    I am not, in any way, saying that "war spending isn't reflected in the deficit." It IS reflected in the deficit. It's that Bush 43's administration intentionally kept it out of the official budget figures.

    The Obama administration spent $130 billion in 2009 on the wars, and another $160 in 2010; Afghanistan was another $90 billion in 2011. Even if you think those wars were the right thing to do, the simple fact is that Obama inherited those conflicts, and their expenditures. It's unlikely he could have ended them any earlier.


    Why shouldn't people keep more of what they earn as that means they don't need a 3.9 trillion dollar Federal Govt. You never respond to the tough questions because as a liberal it is easier to run from them.
    Re-read my posts, I've been addressing as many of your questions as I possibly can.

    To continue: Cutting taxes is clearly not a means to reduce government spending. This "Club for Growth" approach has completely backfired, because it is far, far easier to just borrow more money than to cut spending. Let's look at the 2004 budget, not including war spending:

    Social Security = 21.4% of the budget
    Medicare = 11.7%
    Military = 20%
    Interest = 6.7%

    Anyone who tries to cut any of these budgets is basically begging to be flayed alive. So, 60% of the 2004 budget was basically untouchable.

    What about the rest? Almost everyone will say "the government spends too much," but what about the actual programs? It turns out people actually DON'T want anything cut, except for foreign aid -- which is less than 1% of the federal budget.




    Yes, unfortunately you need to explain it to me, why do you expect to benefit from someone's else's blood, sweat, and tears? The entitlement society is alive and well living inside you
    It's not that I "expect to benefit." It's that everyone has a responsibility to contribute to the nation. In turn you have these weird things known as "representation" and "elected officials" and "legal protections" and all sorts of stuff. You also have the power to influence tax rates, and how your taxes are spent.

    We should also note, AGAIN, that tax rates have been falling steadily since the Reagan years, and even with Obama's very small tax increase are close to historic lows. I swear, there's no satisfying some people.

  4. #194
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: U.S. Economy Shrinks By Most Since Great Recession in 1Q

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    Just some friendly advice, you probably mean you could not care less.

    I think the trend is a positive one and I think when nearly 3 quarter of a million jobs are created in three months, it's a good thing.
    Btw, in that 3 month period - according to the BLS household survey - of all adults 25 and over, only 17,000 jobs have been created.

    And since March (and the end of Q1), only 72,000 jobs in ALL categories have been created.

    Table A-9. Selected employment indicators
    Last edited by DA60; 06-25-14 at 09:28 PM.

  5. #195
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,876
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: U.S. Economy Shrinks By Most Since Great Recession in 1Q

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    I have to say, this is the most scrambled thing you've said so far.

    You claimed that "debts prevent people from spending," and I showed how this is not actually the case. A mortgage is a debt, and treating it as an investment is actually a bit of a mistake, and a way of thinking which exacerbated the recent real estate bubble. (In short, if that's how you think about it, then it's like taking out a loan to invest in the stock market.) A mortgage is debt, plain and simple, and it's only a problem if you can't make your payments.

    Now, I do agree that non-mortgage debt can influence spending habits -- but again, it's not because "you've got debt," it's based on your ability to pay off those debts.

    I am glad to hear, though, that you do finally accept that bad weather can depress GDP because consumers are less likely to go out and buy stuff.



    Errm.... Federal deficits (and surpluses) are based on the discrepancies between revenues and expenditures. It doesn't matter if appropriations are handled via an omnibus bill or a collection of appropriations bills, what matters is the amounts spent and received during the Federal government's fiscal year.



    The US was still spending on military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan well into Obama's term, and winding those wars down has helped reduce deficits. It is highly unlikely that anyone in the office of President could have ended it any sooner.

    I also find it rather amusing that you attribute no responsibility to Bush for the consequences of his decision to invade Iraq, but problems in Iraq after the US left are wholly the responsibility of Obama. That's rather selective of you.



    I already did. Cutting taxes is not calculated as an "expense," nor did I say anything of the sort. If Bush hadn't cut taxes, then revenues would have been substantially higher than what we actually saw. It's not like Goldman Sachs was going to give out smaller bonuses because of changes to the estate tax, or the $500 check Bush mailed to taxpayers....



    Egads.

    No matter how you slice it, Bush created a new entitlement (Medicare Part D), which will increase expenditures for decades to come. He also did it in such a way to increase costs to the taxpayer, because the law ruled out the ability of the government to negotiate drug costs with the pharmaceuticals.

    I am not, in any way, saying that "war spending isn't reflected in the deficit." It IS reflected in the deficit. It's that Bush 43's administration intentionally kept it out of the official budget figures.

    The Obama administration spent $130 billion in 2009 on the wars, and another $160 in 2010; Afghanistan was another $90 billion in 2011. Even if you think those wars were the right thing to do, the simple fact is that Obama inherited those conflicts, and their expenditures. It's unlikely he could have ended them any earlier.



    Re-read my posts, I've been addressing as many of your questions as I possibly can.

    To continue: Cutting taxes is clearly not a means to reduce government spending. This "Club for Growth" approach has completely backfired, because it is far, far easier to just borrow more money than to cut spending. Let's look at the 2004 budget, not including war spending:

    Social Security = 21.4% of the budget
    Medicare = 11.7%
    Military = 20%
    Interest = 6.7%

    Anyone who tries to cut any of these budgets is basically begging to be flayed alive. So, 60% of the 2004 budget was basically untouchable.

    What about the rest? Almost everyone will say "the government spends too much," but what about the actual programs? It turns out people actually DON'T want anything cut, except for foreign aid -- which is less than 1% of the federal budget.





    It's not that I "expect to benefit." It's that everyone has a responsibility to contribute to the nation. In turn you have these weird things known as "representation" and "elected officials" and "legal protections" and all sorts of stuff. You also have the power to influence tax rates, and how your taxes are spent.

    We should also note, AGAIN, that tax rates have been falling steadily since the Reagan years, and even with Obama's very small tax increase are close to historic lows. I swear, there's no satisfying some people.
    1. By 2008 GWB had achieved victory in Iraq. Since then BHO has thrown that away.
    2. All spending by the GWB administration was included in budget/deficit totals. Supplemental appropriations are added in just like the regular appropriations.
    3. Medicare Part D is the only part of Medicare that lowers health care costs.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  6. #196
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:47 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,706

    Re: U.S. Economy Shrinks By Most Since Great Recession in 1Q

    Quote Originally Posted by polgara View Post
    With the housing market cooling down a bit again, why are rates for a 30-year fixed rate mortgage higher than they were less than nine month's ago by more than a full percentage point? Strange....Something is going on.

    Greetings, ludin.
    those rates always very and the housing market is picking up so rates could rise a bit because of it.
    when the fed raises the rate though it means across the board raises because they raise how much it costs banks to loan each other money.

  7. #197
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,542
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: U.S. Economy Shrinks By Most Since Great Recession in 1Q

    Quote Originally Posted by a351 View Post
    The first quarter of FY 2014 began on October 1, 2013 and ended at the beginning on New Years eve. We're about five days away from the end of Q3 presently.
    No, I don't think so. The fiscal year of the federal government budget runs October 1 to October 1, but I'm pretty sure the quarters referred to re GDP are calendar year and not the budget year.
    "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

  8. #198
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:13 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,013

    Re: U.S. Economy Shrinks By Most Since Great Recession in 1Q

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Why is SS on budget and used for anything other than SS?
    In terms of stimulus, that doesn't really matter. The idea is that by getting the economy back on track faster, you generate more revenues sooner. And at no point did I say "this was a great idea!" I'm only saying that it was what it was -- a temporary increase in taxpayer's income. I'm really not impressed by how the semantics interfere with your basic understanding of the concept.


    It did nothing but cushion support for Obama and that seems to be what you want. The payroll tax cut actually cut what people are putting into a retirement account that has been raided. You don't seem to understand that
    No, I do understand it, and I understand that's why it had to be temporary. And no, I don't particularly care about Obama's poll numbers; I care about economic policies that work.


    Tax cuts allow people to keep more of what they earn....
    A tax cut is a tax cut is a tax cut. It doesn't matter if it is temporary or permanent, it doesn't really matter if it goes to SS instead of defense spending, it doesn't matter if some people get it and others don't, it doesn't matter if it winds up as a credit where the government mails you a check. It isn't an expense, and it's more money in the taxpayer's pocket.


    Every income earning American got a tax cut meaning they kept more of what they earn. You have a problem with that since you believe all money belongs to the govt. and thus it is an expense to allow people to keep more of it.
    Please, stop with the straw man arguments. I never said that "all money belongs to the government," and never would. I do not classify revenue cuts as "expenses." And there is really no question that the Bush tax cuts were heavily tilted towards the wealthy.


    Homes are long term investments, I have lost nothing if the value of my home goes down and I don't sell. A tax rebate for first time homeowners still require those people to make monthly payments and they have to have a job to do that
    .....

    It was a tax credit, for people who bought homes. Do you really not understand how this works?


    No I am not, the growth in GDP is anemic and only people with low expectations believe that anemic growth is a good thing. In 8 years Bush generated 4.5 trillion in GDP growth and that wasn't good enough enough for liberals
    Ooookay.... I showed a chart which showed 16 quarters of positive growth since 2009, and 2 quarters of loss. Your response? "What exactly do you believe the 842 billion dollar stimulus did for the economy, a short term drug boost?"

    Obama has also generated $1.7 trillion in GDP growth from 2010 to 2014, right after the worst recession in 70 years. Obviously, that isn't good enough for conservatives....


    You have no idea what it costs to hire, train, and provide full benefits to an employee. What exactly does it cost an employer to hire someone under Obama policies? If you don't know then you know why employers aren't hiring.
    So. Is the government supposed to pay for you to train that employee?


    Do you have any idea what your taxes fund? When you get a job you will.
    Good grief. I have a job, I pay taxes, and I have in fact read the actual federal budget expenditures. I've been looking at them for years. Have you?


    When you buy gasoline what part of that is taxes and what do they fund?
    Federal gas tax rate is around 18 per gallon. What does that have to do with anything?


    Do you realize that in 1965 we had a budget of about 250 billion dollars for a population of 175 million people and today Obama wants a 3.9 TRILLION budget for 312 million?
    In 2014 dollars, that 1965 budget is the equivalent of $1.65 trillion. US population today is 313 million. As a percentage of GDP, federal spending for FY2014 is 7% below the 2009 highs, and will be close to the 40-year average. So yeah, everything is pretty much in order.

    I don't suppose you know what the Money Illusion is, eh?


    Why should tax dollars go to fund programs that the people don't want to pay for?
    Because people do want to pay for them. See my previous post.

  9. #199
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: U.S. Economy Shrinks By Most Since Great Recession in 1Q

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    Not to mention Cold War victory.
    Yep, that would be the peace dividend

  10. #200
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: U.S. Economy Shrinks By Most Since Great Recession in 1Q

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Personally I liked it better when we were loaning money, than borrowing money! You can keep Reaganomics. Even he repented of it.

    17] As a short-run strategy to reduce inflation and lower nominal interest rates, the U.S. borrowed both domestically and abroad to cover the Federal budget deficits, raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion.[18] This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.[19] Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.[20]

    Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Only people who ignore history and actual data echo your comments. You don't get it as don't most people like you. when you have 2.8 trillion in debt on a 5.3 trillion dollar economy that debt is insignificant. You love to use the term tripling the debt ignoring the raw numbers and the benefits generated from that debt. Doubt seriously that would be a problem today if Obama created 17 million jobs, you think? What is it about personal responsibility and the private sector that creates such resentment? Could it be that you cannot compete?

Page 20 of 81 FirstFirst ... 1018192021223070 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •